Fight Against Insurgence

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dmek25

do you have any facts, or links, that prove this? to me, this is like saying you don't support the troops, if you are against the war. this statement reads like it came straight out of the mouth of anyone in the current administration

I think it will be an "interesting" (for lack of a better word) time immediately following the inauguration should someone such as Obama take office. It's not a Republican/Democrat thing so much as he's been pretty vocal in stating that we should have never gone to war, we shouldn't be there. And that's all fine, but we are there now. So, if he's elected, I wouldn't doubt that there would be a sentiment on the insurgents' side of "let's see how strongly he'll stick to his 'we shouldn't be there anyway' platform now."

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think it will be an "interesting" (for lack of a better word) time immediately following the inauguration should someone such as Obama take office. It's not a Republican/Democrat thing so much as he's been pretty vocal in stating that we should have never gone to war, we shouldn't be there. And that's all fine, but we are there now. So, if he's elected, I wouldn't doubt that there would be a sentiment on the insurgents' side of "let's see how strongly he'll stick to his 'we shouldn't be there anyway' platform now."

I really like Obama, but I question his decision to essentially nullify any leverage we have in talks with moderate insurgent groups by declaring that all conventional combat troops will be out of Iraq within 16 months. IMO, to make that kind of unconditional commitment regardless of what "conditions on the ground" are like is irresponsible and purely "political."

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I really like Obama, but I question his decision to essentially nullify any leverage we have in talks with moderate insurgent groups by declaring that all conventional combat troops will be out of Iraq within 16 months. IMO, to make that kind of unconditional commitment regardless of what "conditions on the ground" are like is irresponsible and purely "political."

It is short sighted and extremely naive in my opinion. I don't care what one's opinion of whether we SHOULD have done this or not. But we are there and it is pretty difficult to argue that just leaving will be better for all parties involved.

Etierh you believe that this is still a good idea or you believe in what Colin Powell said. "We broke it. We need to fix it." But anything that is akin to abandonment is simply bad plocy and pretty irresponsible.

I want us out as much as anybody but it has to be done the right way and not the pandering, naive and uniformed way.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

It is short sighted and extremely naive in my opinion. I don't care what one's opinion of whether we SHOULD have done this or not. But we are there and it is pretty difficult to argue that just leaving will be better for all parties involved.

Etierh you believe that this is still a good idea or you believe in what Colin Powell said. "We broke it. We need to fix it." But anything that is akin to abandonment is simply bad plocy and pretty irresponsible.

I want us out as much as anybody but it has to be done the right way and not the pandering, naive and uniformed way.

herein lies the difference between the 2 parties. in the democrats eyes, Iraq is, and always will be a mess. the republicans see an American door to possibly peace in the middle east. with that comes the oil. the statement i have in bold letters could be nothing farther from the truth. what exactly did the united states break? there was a crazy dictator ruling with fear. he is now gone. Iraq is now in control of their own country. and that's another problem. it seems like they don't want that responsibility

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dmek25

herein lies the difference between the 2 parties. in the democrats eyes, Iraq is, and always will be a mess. the republicans see an American door to possibly peace in the middle east. with that comes the oil. the statement i have in bold letters could be nothing farther from the truth. what exactly did the united states break? there was a crazy dictator ruling with fear. he is now gone. Iraq is now in control of their own country. and that's another problem. it seems like they don't want that responsibility

You honesty don't think we created a mess of Iraq? I find that hard to believe. If you don't think we created a mess, would you say that the history books should say "President Bush achieved victory, but the Iraqis failed?"

Personally, I believe we made a massive mistake in invading and we created a huge mess by employing bad strategies that resulted in American and Iraqi deaths. But, instead of running away from a fight against radical fundamentalists we need to make good on our commitments, stand by our allies and do our best to right our wrongs.

In addition to our moral considerations (e.g., fulfilling our commitment to the Iraqi people), I think there are serious practical interests at stake in Iraq. American credibility in on the line in Iraq. Most of our rational enemies fight us not because they believe they can defeat our military, but because they believe they can break our will. If we withdraw, we will only feed the perception that the U.S. can be defeated by a few swift kicks to the nose. It took our nation and military roughly 30 years to recover from the sting of Vietnam, I wonder how long it will take us to recover from a premature withdrawal from Iraq.