Tweedle dee and Tweedle dumb

[TexasTiger 12,956]

"If we quit Vietnam," President Lyndon Johnson warned, "tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."

"We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today," Bush said in his televised speech Sept. 7, "so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

[CCTAU 3,327]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

IRAQ DIDN'T!

[TigerHeat 9]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

IRAQ DIDN'T!

TT, are you really that dense? Or is it just an act?

LBJ was an absolutely horrible president in both foreign and domestic policy.

Has the lack of terror attacks on US soil since 9/11 escaped you completely? Or is it just dumb luck? The moths are flying straight to the flame, and we have the chief enemy of the US and chief terror state surrounded. We are WAY ahead, but we have so many weakling cowards among the "Loyal Opposition" that even the historically light casulaties we've faced have driven them sobbing from the battlefield. This proves once again that the Dems are too weak to protect the US. You threw away 18 lives while fleeing Bin Laden in Somalia, and now you can't wait to throw away the lives we've spent in Iraq. Of course, if you get your way we will have to go back a third time, and that effort will be WAY more costly.

[TexasTiger 12,956]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

IRAQ DIDN'T!

TT, are you really that dense? Or is it just an act?

LBJ was an absolutely horrible president in both foreign and domestic policy.

Has the lack of terror attacks on US soil since 9/11 escaped you completely? Or is it just dumb luck? The moths are flying straight to the flame, and we have the chief enemy of the US and chief terror state surrounded. We are WAY ahead, but we have so many weakling cowards among the "Loyal Opposition" that even the historically light casulaties we've faced have driven them sobbing from the battlefield. This proves once again that the Dems are too weak to protect the US. You threw away 18 lives while fleeing Bin Laden in Somalia, and now you can't wait to throw away the lives we've spent in Iraq. Of course, if you get your way we will have to go back a third time, and that effort will be WAY more costly.

I threw away 18 lives? Talk to this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs

This guy threw away 241 by your logic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

And you think he's a freaking hero. The French were tougher than the Gipper:

In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions. President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters.[3] But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations.

Are you really insane? We need to stay in Iraq indefinitely and that will somehow prevent a terrorist attack here? If you go to a crime ridden area of town and take on all comers, do you think that will protect your family from crime?

BTW, there have been terrorists attacks since 9/11:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

Nobody has been held accountable for those, either.

[CCTAU 3,327]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

IRAQ DIDN'T!

What a buffoon you are. Bush never said IRAQ would attack us. He said "that enemy" that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will come attack us. That enemy is the terrorists.(You know, The same type of enemy that killed those "other" people in New York) In your haste to Bush bash, you chose poorly. With all the ammo out there to use, you use an absolutely moronic comparison. Or is that just what moveon.org told you to say?

[TigerHeat 9]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

IRAQ DIDN'T!

TT, are you really that dense? Or is it just an act?

LBJ was an absolutely horrible president in both foreign and domestic policy.

Has the lack of terror attacks on US soil since 9/11 escaped you completely? Or is it just dumb luck? The moths are flying straight to the flame, and we have the chief enemy of the US and chief terror state surrounded. We are WAY ahead, but we have so many weakling cowards among the "Loyal Opposition" that even the historically light casulaties we've faced have driven them sobbing from the battlefield. This proves once again that the Dems are too weak to protect the US. You threw away 18 lives while fleeing Bin Laden in Somalia, and now you can't wait to throw away the lives we've spent in Iraq. Of course, if you get your way we will have to go back a third time, and that effort will be WAY more costly.

I threw away 18 lives? Talk to this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs

This guy threw away 241 by your logic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

And you think he's a freaking hero. The French were tougher than the Gipper:

In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions. President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters.[3] But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations.

Are you really insane? We need to stay in Iraq indefinitely and that will somehow prevent a terrorist attack here? If you go to a crime ridden area of town and take on all comers, do you think that will protect your family from crime?

This silliness proves that you don't pay attention. That's precisely what I do every day, and no, it doesn't protect MY family from crime. It protects YOURS. The badguys won't come within a mile of my house....too damn dangerous. That's why I have to go where they live and "work". Great analogy, BTW.

[jw 4 au 526]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

IRAQ DIDN'T!

This is where I think the big divide is in each sides understanding of what is going on over in Iraq. And we may have to just agree to disagree because it is based upon philosophy and interpretation (i.e. facts can be spun both ways). Rosie said something similar about being at war against the Iraqis and killing innocent civilians. To insinuate that we are in a war against Iraq is twisting the facts and intent of why we are there. We are at war against terrorism, of which many terrorists are/were in Afghanistan and Iraq. And before you say "then invade Pakistan" like Rosie would, the difference is that their government is at least attempting to counter terrorism, where as Afghanistan (the Taliban) and Iraq (Saddam Hussein) were advocating and supporting it. I would suspect that most of the fighters against troops in Iraq are not even Iraqis. And I would also suspect that their car bombs are what is killing all of the civilians. I for one believe the President when he said yesterday that we are still there today at the request of the current Iraqi government. Remember, we were chastised publicly for not remaining long enough the last time. Long story short, I remember 9/11 as a time where we lost over 3,000 American civilians in a short period in the middle of NY City. I commend our armed forces for taking the fight to them and protecting each of us today.

[drewau02 0]

Sadaam started this whole mess by invading Kuwaiit in 1990. U.S and coalition forces removed Sadaam from Kuwaiit. Sadaam subsequently signed a cease fire agreement in 91, an agreement he would eventually violate. During the next 12 years, Sadaam violated 17 U.N resolutions. He kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of his country. The U.S and coalition forces invaded Iraq and removed Sadaam from power.

The link between Sadaam and 9-11 is more about Bush foreign policy since 9-11 than any actual connection between Sadaam and the 9-11 attacks. Since 9-11, the Bush doctrine is heavily emphasized on destroying threats before they fully materialize, also known as preemption. Sadaam threw the UN out of his country and most governments and intelligence agencies worldwide believed Sadaam was doing this because he was hiding his accelerated chemical and biological weapons program. So, Bush and the UN saw a threat in Sadaam, although the UN was not willing to use force to remove him from power. The Bush Administration, reeling from the US govt. not doing enough to prevent an attack on America pre 9-11, decided on the better safe than sorry strategy.

So that's how the whole sordid mess started.

Consequently, the war in Iraq has not gone well. Bush should have fired Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney back in '04, when the evidence was unequivical that the public had turned against both men. Bush has been two years, maybe two years too late, with this new strategy of escalation. He's two years too late because the Democratic controlled Congress will eventually have the votes to override a presidential veto on a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. If this happens, and it most likely will, the new strategy will not have time to develop, our forces will pull out of Iraq, and the country will descend into chaos. Iraq will probably have a Shiite dominated country that will be more loyal to Iran than the west. This will be a monumental black eye for the USA. We'll be seen as deposing a tyrant, only to allow a tryant even more dangerous than the one before devour the country. And you thought Vietnam was bad.

In my opinion, and I'm showing my objectivity here by saying this, Joe Biden (D-Del.) probably has the best plan for Iraq. We should partition the country into three theaters, one Sunni controlled, one Shitte controlled, and another Kurd controlled. Then, we should leave and bring our troops home. Some of you may disagree but judging the way things are going in Iraq now, it may be the best we can hope for.

[jw 4 au 526]

I agree with a lot of what you said drew. However, I don't know if Bush could actually fire Cheny for several reasons. To name a couple, 1) he's elected and 2) Cheney probably actually controls most of what Bush does. I also like Biden somewhat and think he is the most electable Democrat out there, the dems just don't know that yet. He would actually attract swing voters unlike Hillary or Obama.

[townhallsavoy 2]

Sadaam started this whole mess by invading Kuwaiit in 1990. U.S and coalition forces removed Sadaam from Kuwaiit. Sadaam subsequently signed a cease fire agreement in 91, an agreement he would eventually violate. During the next 12 years, Sadaam violated 17 U.N resolutions. He kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of his country. The U.S and coalition forces invaded Iraq and removed Sadaam from power.

The link between Sadaam and 9-11 is more about Bush foreign policy since 9-11 than any actual connection between Sadaam and the 9-11 attacks. Since 9-11, the Bush doctrine is heavily emphasized on destroying threats before they fully materialize, also known as preemption. Sadaam threw the UN out of his country and most governments and intelligence agencies worldwide believed Sadaam was doing this because he was hiding his accelerated chemical and biological weapons program. So, Bush and the UN saw a threat in Sadaam, although the UN was not willing to use force to remove him from power. The Bush Administration, reeling from the US govt. not doing enough to prevent an attack on America pre 9-11, decided on the better safe than sorry strategy.

So that's how the whole sordid mess started.

Consequently, the war in Iraq has not gone well. Bush should have fired Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney back in '04, when the evidence was unequivical that the public had turned against both men. Bush has been two years, maybe two years too late, with this new strategy of escalation. He's two years too late because the Democratic controlled Congress will eventually have the votes to override a presidential veto on a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. If this happens, and it most likely will, the new strategy will not have time to develop, our forces will pull out of Iraq, and the country will descend into chaos. Iraq will probably have a Shiite dominated country that will be more loyal to Iran than the west. This will be a monumental black eye for the USA. We'll be seen as deposing a tyrant, only to allow a tryant even more dangerous than the one before devour the country. And you thought Vietnam was bad.

In my opinion, and I'm showing my objectivity here by saying this, Joe Biden (D-Del.) probably has the best plan for Iraq. We should partition the country into three theaters, one Sunni controlled, one Shitte controlled, and another Kurd controlled. Then, we should leave and bring our troops home. Some of you may disagree but judging the way things are going in Iraq now, it may be the best we can hope for.

The problem I have with a three theater Iraq is this: CIVIL WAR MUCH? The people there aren't fighting just for control of an area of land. They have an ideology that says "conquer our God-given land and kill any opposition."

What I think we should do is this: SET A DEADLINE. What would you do if you had an infinite amount of time to write and turn in an English paper? You're also free to have help with it. If we set a deadline for the Iraqi soldiers and government to be in the position to control the country, then they'll start actually working towards it. We're trying to train their soldiers to police their own country but after four years, I'd say things aren't working out the way we'd like. I say put in a bit more money and a few more of our own troops and set a deadline for the Iraqis. That way, the responsibility is more on them than on us.

[drewau02 0]

The problem I have with a three theater Iraq is this: CIVIL WAR MUCH? The people there aren't fighting just for control of an area of land. They have an ideology that says "conquer our God-given land and kill any opposition."

What I think we should do is this: SET A DEADLINE. What would you do if you had an infinite amount of time to write and turn in an English paper? You're also free to have help with it. If we set a deadline for the Iraqi soldiers and government to be in the position to control the country, then they'll start actually working towards it. We're trying to train their soldiers to police their own country but after four years, I'd say things aren't working out the way we'd like. I say put in a bit more money and a few more of our own troops and set a deadline for the Iraqis. That way, the responsibility is more on them than on us.

It depends of the faction in Iraq you're referring too. Al Quaida is fighting under the banner of their radical interpretation of Islam, conquer our God-given land and kill any opposition that you just referred to. Some Sunni and Shiite militias are fighting for political control over Iraq while other militias are carrying out vengeance for age old disputes. Many Shiite militias are carrying out vengeance against the Sunni's far 30 years worth of persecution under Sadaam. Many Sunni militias are trying to protect their communities. So you can definitely see the problems over in Iraq are not completely this, not completely that. It's convoluted to say the least.

Your deadline strategy looks good on paper. However, the political process over in Iraq is more convoluted than writing a college term paper. If this strategy is implemented, you're putting all your faith and marbles into an Iraqi government that has proven itself to be imcompetent time and time again. It was incompetent under Joffre. It's incompetent under Malaki. Remember, this is the same government that wants to take a one month recess this summer while Baghdad is mired in chaos and bloodshed. Not exactly the type of people who will take Iraq to the next level. So even if we do leave, as long as Syria and Iran continue to meddle with progress in Iraq, the suicide bombs will continue to go off. By partitioning the country, you separate the Sunnis, Shiite's, and Kurds. So instead of infighting and civil war, all three groups will be motivated out of a sense of self preservation to prevent the influx of terrorists and suicide bombs into their area of Iraq. Maybe this strategy is flawed but things in Iraq are so bad right now that it's probably the best we can hope for in order to save face.

[WinCrimson 61]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

Most freaking pathetic argument ever. I'm usually pretty calm when debating politics, but this BS just gets under my skin.

A bipartisan report was issued saying that Iraq wasn't behind the 9-11 attacks, yet your mouth is so firmly attached to the GOP tit, that you refuse to see it. Sad.

It's a slap in the face to every American who died on 9-11 to tie their deaths to the quagmire in Iraq.

[CCTAU 3,327]

The Kurds and many other places in Iraq would beg the differ with you about things being so bad in Iraq. Things are bad in and around Baghdad. Elsewhere, folks are living the good life for the most part. The Kurds would love to be their own country. But if you separate into three countries, you leave one without oil. Which would that be and how many years do you think they would spend fighting for it?

[drewau02 0]

Once again you bend over and a big whoosh comes out.

N. Viet Nam never attacked us on our soil.

TERRORISTS HAVE!

So it's pretty clear that they will be back if we don't fight them elsewhere.

Most freaking pathetic argument ever. I'm usually pretty calm when debating politics, but this BS just gets under my skin.

A bipartisan report was issued saying that Iraq wasn't behind the 9-11 attacks, yet your mouth is so firmly attached to the GOP tit, that you refuse to see it. Sad.

It's a slap in the face to every American who died on 9-11 to tie their deaths to the quagmire in Iraq.

Win, I don't recall CCT actually saying that Iraq attacked us. I don't recall the administration ever saying that Iraq attacked us or was directly involved in 9-11. What the administration has been trying to say since day one, and has done a rather pathetic job of doing in my opinion, is that the link between Iraq and 9-11 is not a direct attack per se, but a connection between the events of that terrible day and a change in US foreign policy. Before 9-11, the Bush Administration and Clinton Administrations did not do enough to protect the American people. The 9-11 Commission said as much. After 9-11, the Bush Administrion implemented a strategy designed to deal with threats before they fully materialize. In Sadaam Hussein, the Bush Administration and the rest of the world I might add, said that Sadaam had WMD's and was a threat. The Bush Administration took their case to the U.N, the US House and Senate, and waged a vigorous 6 month public relations campaign to assure the American people that our cause against Sadaam was just. One of the major concerns with Sadaam was not that he would attack us directly, but would sell some of his biological and chemical weapons to rogue terrorist regimes, who would in turn attack us. That's one of our main concerns now with Iran and North Korea. Now, everyone with half a brain realizes that Iraq has turned out to be a quagmire and the war has been mismanaged on several different levels. However, it's not a "slap in the face to every American who died on 9-11" to link their deaths to the current struggle in Iraq. If you watch the news or read some of the reports, then you would know that the group who attacked us on 9-11, al Quaida, is the same group we're fighting in Iraq right now. It's the same group that is causing all of the current violence in Lebanon. Liberals keep telliing us that we should be fighting al Quaida and not Iraq. Well, I hate to tell everyone that al Quaida is worldwide unfortunately. They're in Afghanistan. They're in Iraq. They're in Lebanon. They're everywhere.

So the bottom line is that 3,000 Americans died on 9-11 because our government under Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush did not do enough to protect the American people. There was a growing threat of radical Islam that those three men did absolutely nothing about until it was too late. The Bush post 9-11 strategy was to prevent an atrocity like this from ever happening again by killing the bad guys before they had a chance to kill us. So there's your link. You may not agree with the current status of Iraq now, I sure as hell don't, but our reasons for going to war were just. Both morally and legally.

As far as terrorists following us back home. I think the Bush Administration would have a little more credibility with that argument if they weren't in favor of open borders and was serious about limiting all the chaos on the US/Mexican border.