Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I should probably have stated that my support for keeping troops in Iraq is conditioned on the upcoming report from Petraeus. I knew of Petraeus when he was a colonel and I have a lot of respect for him. I know that he will be subject to massive political forces in writing his report, but I genuinely believe that his report will be a no bs-assessment of the conditions in Iraq. I cannot support any plan that doesn't take his report into consideration. To believe otherwise would be akin to a layman proscribing a treatment for an illness before consulting a doctor for a diagnosis.

Suppose Petraeus is saying only what the Administration wants or allows him to say? I don't know about you, but I'll have a problem believing whatever their hand-picked guy has to say.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Suppose Petraeus is saying only what the Administration wants or allows him to say? I don't know about you, but I'll have a problem believing whatever their hand-picked guy has to say.

Then we can take your skepticism for what it is, when it comes. Petraus was unanimously confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. He is a widely respected military figure, not some party hack. You make him sound like Karl Rove's lawn guy. It will be interesting to see Reid and the others try to delicately shit on him in the run up to September, all the while telling us how they support the troops. I'll have a problem believing that.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Suppose Petraeus is saying only what the Administration wants or allows him to say? I don't know about you, but I'll have a problem believing whatever their hand-picked guy has to say.

Well I guess we should disregard his preliminary report which found that progess in Iraq was unsatisfactory in 9 of 16 areas of concern. The guy is universally hailed (i.e., by repubs, dems, and independents) as one of the best soldiers our military has produced in years. He's been giving no-bs assessments of Iraq since day 1. If you don't believe me, read up on him and you will be impressed.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Well I guess we should disregard his preliminary report which found that progess in Iraq was unsatisfactory in 9 of 16 areas of concern. The guy is universally hailed (i.e., by repubs, dems, and independents) as one of the best soldiers our military has produced in years. He's been giving no-bs assessments of Iraq since day 1. If you don't believe me, read up on him and you will be impressed.

Exactly. I find it hard to believe that in only 9 areas was progress unsatisfactory.

Does it bother you that Patraeus has very little experience in combat? That after the initial invasion it was he that was responsible for re-training the Iraqi forces for security detail?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Exactly. I find it hard to believe that in only 9 areas was progress unsatisfactory.

Because you have been there right? I mean you not just giving an opinion upon which you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about right? It is fine to be against the war. I understand that argument very well. But don't make an argument that it isn't going well when you are simply basing that upon not liking the war. You haven't the first clue whether 9 of 16 areas are going well or not based on any type of real evidence do you?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Because you have been there right? I mean you not just giving an opinion upon which you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about right? It is fine to be against the war. I understand that argument very well. But don't make an argument that it isn't going well when you are simply basing that upon not liking the war. You haven't the first clue whether 9 of 16 areas are going well or not based on any type of real evidence do you?

Uh-huh. So you must have been in Iraq to be so sure that I'm wrong and things are going well in the remaining 7 areas of progress, right?

If things are going so great, why can't we leave?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Uh-huh. So you must have been in Iraq to be so sure that I'm wrong and things are going well in the remaining 7 areas of progress, right?

If things are going so great, why can't we leave?

The difference is that I have a report that tells me that 7 of 16 are going well. You simply have your skepticism to disbelieve that. Skepticism is usually very affected by emotion. I am simply pointing out that you say you "find it hard to believe" yet you gave no resaon why and I suspect it is because you don't really have any concrete reasons.

And where did I say it was going great? Good old fashioned misdirection with that comment if you ask me. Don't have a good argument, then just project an opinion into someone else's argument to weaken it I guess.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The difference is that I have a report that tells me that 7 of 16 are going well. You simply have your skepticism to disbelieve that. Skepticism is usually very affected by emotion. I am simply pointing out that you say you "find it hard to believe" yet you gave no resaon why and I suspect it is because you don't really have any concrete reasons.

And where did I say it was going great? Good old fashioned misdirection with that comment if you ask me. Don't have a good argument, then just project an opinion into someone else's argument to weaken it I guess.

Look, I have no problems saying that I was against this war from the start. So yes, my outlook on what the Bush administration tells me is "progress" is a bit jaundiced. Especially when you consider that the "progress" they speak of comes with the price of blood spilled by American troops who never should have been responsible for Iraq's "progress" to begin with.

This never should have been our fight. Iraq posed NO threat to us whatsoever. Overthrowing Saddam upset the balance of power in the middle east. And instead of the misguided hope of making Iran and Syria shake in their boots at the strength and might of American military superiority in that region, they are licking their chops at the prospects of a weakened Iraq and all of their oil reserves.

No matter how they define "progress" -- it was still a dreadful foreign policy decision, it destroyed our credibility in the world, it has emboldened al Queda, increased their recruitment levels, spread our defenses way too thin, and cost the lives of over 3000 Americans and wounded nearly 30,000 more.

So, I stand by my statement. No matter the outcome, the "progress" has come at too high a price.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Does it bother you that Patraeus has very little experience in combat?

No. Some of our nation's best military leaders were ones who never saw combat (e.g., Gen. George Marshall - the guy who pretty much won WWII). I know that Iraq war opponents jump to the immediate conclusion that everything ever affiliated with Bush is pure-evil, corrupt, etc., but I have never heard anyone criticize Petraeus.

In that regard, it would be nice to see Iraq war opponents or Iraq war supporters not be so one-sided. I know the war is a polarizing issue, but that doesn't make it a black and white issue. Not everything is "bad" or "good", there is some room for "I don't knows" or "undecideds."

That leads me to my final point. I was less than thrilled when the repubs were trying to use 9/11 and terror threats to their political ends in 2004. They repeatedly tried to remind people that we were at war and that AQ was looking to kill Americans. It was simply disgusting. Equally disgusting, however, is how the Dems are doing everything in their power to paint as bleak a picture as possible of the war in Iraq. Obviously, they know that Bush's legacy, the public's happiness with repubs (via their connection with Bush), and the fate of the 2008 election lies in Iraq. Accordingly, they paint as bleak of a picture as possible of what is going on in Iraq. I know they rightly criticized Bush for using war as a political tool, but they are doing the same thing but no one (yet) has recognized that they are hypocrites. Both parties use American blood as a political tool.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

No. Some of our nation's best military leaders were ones who never saw combat (e.g., Gen. George Marshall - the guy who pretty much won WWII). I know you, as an Iraq war opponent, jump to the immediate conclusion that everything ever affiliated with Bush is pure-evil, corrupt, etc., but other than you, I have never heard anyone criticize him.

In that regard, it would be nice to see Iraq war opponents or Iraq war supporters not be so one-sided. I know the war is a polarizing issue, but that doesn't make it a black and white issue. Not everything is "bad" or "good", there is some room for "I don't knows" or "undecideds."

SGG I agree. I would hope that none of our Generals have combat experience. That would be best since it means we haven't been at war.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Both parties use American blood as a political tool.

They use everything as a political tool and that is a huge reason our system is totally broke.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

They use everything as a political tool and that is a huge reason our system is totally broke.

Our system is not totaly broke its still the best in the world even with the problems we do have.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Our system is not totaly broke its still the best in the world even with the problems we do have.

I believe stringly the our system is broke. Whether it is better than anyone else's is irrelevant to me. Our two party system is not representitive of our populus and that is the idea that our government is supposed to be built on. Therefore to me it is broken.