All we are saying is...

[shetline]

http://www.shetline.com/img/give_prp_a_chance.jpg

Okay, so it doesn't scan too well.

[Placebo]

Haha, great. Euphemistic buzzwords are idiotic.

[trumptman]

Shows how hard it is to be on all sides of this issue as the Dems are trying to do.

Nick

[Northgate]

"Cut and Run". Great framing of the issue. I'm sure you guys are proud about that "higher political discourse" your party is so good at.

[addabox]

I'm going to start using a phrase I saw on Firedog Lake to frame the Republican "plan" (as should we all): "sit and watch".

Why should we be impressed when Sit and Watch pundits demand that more Americans must die so they can have something to Sit and Watch?

When will the Sit and Watch Republicans decide that enough Americans have died and we can declare victory?

What is the Sit and Watch Republican response to increasing sectarian violence and the deteriorating security situation in Iraq? Could it be....... Sit and Watch?

The Sit and Watch credo: "We'll stand up when enough Americans have fallen down, but this chair is mighty comfortable".

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Shows how hard it is to be on all sides of this issue as the Dems are trying to do.
Better to be consistently wrong and stick doggedly with a failed strategy than it is to have a mix of competing ideas about how to make things better, I suppose.

We all know the most important thing is staying on message.

[southside grabowski]

Leave now and new Iraqi Government will fail for sure. Iraqi Gov fails then terrorists take solid root in Iraq. Need to stay intil Iraqi foeces can hold down the fort.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Iraqi Gov fails then terrorists take solid root in Iraq.

How do you figure?

[Northgate]

Why are Republicans so opposed to ending war? How many more American soldiers must die due to their Sit and Watch policies?

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by Northgate
Why are Republicans so opposed to ending war? How many more American soldiers must die due to their Sit and Watch policies?


We can't "end the war". The war will end when the job has been completed to a point where Iraq is stable. That point in time is up for debate. The Iraqi Gov should have a big part of deciding that.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
We can't "end the war". The war will end when the job has been completed to a point where Iraq is stable. That point in time is up for debate. The Iraqi Gov should have a big part of deciding that.

It's not so much "up for debate" as it is "sit and watch until it becomes somebody else's problem".

Bush has said as much-- no pull out on his watch. When will the Iraqis "stand up"? Not at least for 3 more years, possibly never-- but hey, if we just stay the course maybe the earth will fall into the sun before we have to actually decide anything.

Dick Cheney (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/22/cheney/index.html) seems to feel that now that we've created a terrorist state by destabilizing Iraq we can't really ever leave:

"If we pull out, they'll follow us," he said of terrorists.

"It doesn't matter where we go. This is a global conflict. We've seen them attack in London and Madrid and Casablanca and Istanbul and Mombasa and East Africa. They've been, on a global basis, involved in this conflict.

"And it will continue -- whether we complete the job or not in Iraq -- only it'll get worse. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. They'll use it in order to launch attacks against our friends and allies in that part of the world."


Uh oh..... doesn't matter if we "complete the job", it only gets worse.

I thought the idea was we "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here?"

Really, the Sit and Watch Republicans have nothing-- no plan, no reasonable expectation of "succeeding", whatever that means-- just "more of the same" and scary stories about what an unhinged Iraq that we created would mean for the future.

Does anybody actually buy this horseshit? That somehow continuing to throw money and lives into a failed military adventure somehow inoculates us from terror attacks? That we're somehow keeping al Qaeda bottled up in Iraq and if we leave they come swarming out to get us?

That invading Iraq turned it into a magic al Qaeda trap that we must forever guard with our lives?

Admin officials aren't even making any sense any more-- they just bar they're teeth and hiss "cut and run" and expect everybody to sit back and let the carnage continue as if we were achieving something.

The president is too much of a prick to admit he was wrong and change course, at least until he is safely out of the picture, when it all becomes funny stories to tell his ranch buddies. Just like all his other failed business ventures-- shuck and jive until somebody bails you out and you can move on to the next fun little adventure.

[addabox]

Also, Moe, how is it that we are in a war that we "can't win"?

A war that requires us to stick around, not until we meet certain objectives, but until the Iraqis meet certain objectives?

What if they don't? What if they can't? When has the United States ever put itself into harms way with no better definition of "winning" than "when hopefully these other guys get their act together"? And why, if there appears to be some doubt as to the possibility of success, wouldn't we be prepared to increase our levels of support, with more troops and more money and more hardware? How is it that we just keep muddling along at the same levels, if the future of our country depends on it, as Dick Cheney believes?

It's too important to leave but not important enough to do everything possible to increase the odds of success?

How is that a tenable situation? How long do we have to wait to decide if, in fact, the Iraqis can fend for themselves? 3 years? 5? 10? If things get worse do we pour more blood and treasure in? How do we define when that might be necessary?

And if 10 years is too long, how long is long enough? How will we know? And if, at some point, we are obliged to say "fuck it, that's it, we're outta here" (and surely, at some point, if it develops that the Iraqis are not going to be able to pull this off we will have to do that), how is that different from "cutting and running"?

And why are none of these questions figuring into the administration's rationales for more of the same?

Don't they seem like kinda important issues to grapple with, if we are serious about what we are doing?

Oh, that's right, we're not. The Bush administration is serious about keeping the story simple so people like you can follow along. "Leave Iraq and the terrorists come for us" vs. "cut and run".

Just a few more years of that and Bush can go back to Texas and brag about the kids he killed because he never backs down from a fight.

AKA "Sit and Watch until it's not my problem anymore".

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
We can't "end the war". The war will end when the job has been completed to a point where Iraq is stable. That point in time is up for debate. The Iraqi Gov should have a big part of deciding that.

US troops are still in Iraq, in order to squash the insurgency.

The insurgency came about because of the presence of US troops.

As long as US troops are in Iraq there will be an insurgency.

As long as the insurgents keep fighting, US troops will remain in Iraq.

*please reconcile these facts, if you can*

The troops remain there because corporate parties close to this administration are making a killing, in dollar terms as well as body count. As well as the wellknown corporate welfare queens like Halliburton and Bechtel who are the war's primary beneficiaries, there are also these US owned private security armies such as Blackwater and Wackenhut which are pretty much no better than your average paramilitary or terrorist gang; the only difference being that they are underwritten by the Bush administration and funded by the US taxpayers.

Its nothing to do with national security, folks, but the $$$security of oil/service industries, defense contractors and privately owned mercenary groups (read terrorist) gangs.

Your tax dollars at work.

[Chucker]

Before anyone thinks "surely it can't take so long for Iraq to stabilize?", consider this: Germany waited about a decade until they started creating an army again, and another roughly 3.5 decades until they became a sovereign country.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Chucker
Before anyone thinks "surely it can't take so long for Iraq to stabilize?", consider this: Germany waited about a decade until they started creating an army again, and another roughly 3.5 decades until they became a sovereign country.


Isn't it more accurate to say that Germany wasn't allowed to have an army for a decade? Its not the case with Iraq.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Isn't it more accurate to say that Germany wasn't allowed to have an army for a decade?

But that's just the point: during all this time, the Western allies considered Germany too unstable.

Now compare the two. Germany: traditionally perceived as industrially and technologically strong, with, if you leave out the Nazi chapter, quite a highly-developed society, including in terms of morals. Iraq: traditionally perceived as, uh, um, a piece of wasteland, frequently invaded by tewwawists, and, unless you look back five millennia when it was still Mesopotamia, you don't really associate anything particularly unique with it.

So, if Germany, which based on the above would probably do a pretty good job stabilizing itself, needs a decade for permission to create its army, and needs almost five decades for permission to become sovereign, how do you expect Iraq, which probably have a terrible time trying to stabilize itself, to receive such permissions within even the next century?

Just some food for thought, really.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Leave now and new Iraqi Government will fail for sure. Iraqi Gov fails then terrorists take solid root in Iraq. Need to stay intil Iraqi foeces can hold down the fort.


You know proponents said the same thing about Vietnam. If we leave the south Vietnamise government will fail and communisim will take over all of southeast asia and then spread to countries like Japan.

We left.

The south fell.

Well guess what didn't happen?;)

There's a lesson to be learned here because the parallels are striking.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by addabox
Also, Moe, how is it that we are in a war that we "can't win"?

A war that requires us to stick around, not until we meet certain objectives, but until the Iraqis meet certain objectives?

What if they don't? What if they can't? When has the United States ever put itself into harms way with no better definition of "winning" than "when hopefully these other guys get their act together"? And why, if there appears to be some doubt as to the possibility of success, wouldn't we be prepared to increase our levels of support, with more troops and more money and more hardware? How is it that we just keep muddling along at the same levels, if the future of our country depends on it, as Dick Cheney believes?

It's too important to leave but not important enough to do everything possible to increase the odds of success?

How is that a tenable situation? How long do we have to wait to decide if, in fact, the Iraqis can fend for themselves? 3 years? 5? 10? If things get worse do we pour more blood and treasure in? How do we define when that might be necessary?

And if 10 years is too long, how long is long enough? How will we know? And if, at some point, we are obliged to say "fuck it, that's it, we're outta here" (and surely, at some point, if it develops that the Iraqis are not going to be able to pull this off we will have to do that), how is that different from "cutting and running"?

And why are none of these questions figuring into the administration's rationales for more of the same?

Don't they seem like kinda important issues to grapple with, if we are serious about what we are doing?

Oh, that's right, we're not. The Bush administration is serious about keeping the story simple so people like you can follow along. "Leave Iraq and the terrorists come for us" vs. "cut and run".

Just a few more years of that and Bush can go back to Texas and brag about the kids he killed because he never backs down from a fight.

AKA "Sit and Watch until it's not my problem anymore".

addabox you make valid points above and I do not suspect that you will get any solid answers from the cheer leaders of Bush and co.

I do not find your questions above to frame you in a light of "anti-American" nor does it make you "hate America" to pose such questions.

As a matter of fact I would argue that you are being a good American citizen by asking such long-term thinking and wise questions which skip over the "rhetoric of the day" you could say in favor of seeking answers from those who promote this war and the methods of action taken within this war.

It is very "American" to ask questions not the other way round and I wish more Americans {or people who call themselves patriotic Americans) would think outside the box.

This is not a basketball game. Real lives are in play here. The credit and image of the United States is in play here.

Integrity requires leadership which acts upon realities at hand with controlled and measured judgement.


Fellowship

[occam whisker]

I tell youz, to those of us true patriot devoted to peace at all costs,
nothing is more humiliating than staring up the tail pipe of the Grief Bus as the driver steps on the accelerator spewing a huge cloud of smelly black soot in one’s face.

Here I was waiting at the bus stop with my script and my modest honorarium proprosal for a slot on the Dan Rather show – but, the Grief Bus just pulled away, lumbering off to Hollywood without me. I was so distraught, I had the Peace Train almost ran me over.

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I tell youz, to those of us true patriot devoted to peace at all costs,
nothing is more humiliating than staring up the tail pipe of the Grief Bus as the driver steps on the accelerator spewing a huge cloud of smelly black soot in one’s face.

Here I was waiting at the bus stop with my script and my modest honorarium proprosal for a slot on the Dan Rather show – but, the Grief Bus just pulled away, lumbering off to Hollywood without me. I was so distraught, I had the Peace Train almost ran me over.

When deploying the hilarious burlesque of right wing chat sites out of context, it might be a good idea to include a little primer on the current state of reactionary humor (i.e. "Peace and Grief are ludicrous affectations of the pussy left designed to get them face time on TV").

Otherwise you appear to be deranged. Of course, even with context you will still appear to be deranged, but at least we'll know what flavor.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
Otherwise you appear to be deranged. Of course, even with context you will still appear to be deranged, but at least we\'ll know what flavor.

Exactly who are you to make this judgement, Cindy Sheehan?

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Exactly who are you to make this judgement, Cindy Sheehan?

Just out of curiosity, are you working from some kind of right wing random phrase generator?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
Just out of curiosity, are you working from some kind of right wing random phrase generator?

Just out of curiosity, do people tell you that you smell?

[Relic]

Originally posted by addabox
Just out of curiosity, are you working from some kind of right wing random phrase generator?

Between him and southside I don't know who's worse.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Relic
Between him and southside I don't know who's worse.

Please don't suggest a staring contest to determine the winner. It will only cause problems.

[addabox]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Please don't suggest a staring contest to determine the winner. It will only cause problems.

:lol:

[addabox]

I, how do you say, respectfully disengage from any further matching of, uh, "wits" with our new member.

[Relic]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Please don't suggest a staring contest to determine the winner. It will only cause problems.

Yeah I heard retina tearing or possibly dry eyes may occur.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Shows how hard it is to be on all sides of this issue as the Dems are trying to do.

Nick


Uh, yeah.......

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/25/iraq.troops/index.html

:rolleyes:

[trick fall]

You know Republicans are so big on self reliance for welfare mothers how about pulling out and letting the Iraqis have some self reliance. What do they want to create a nanny state.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by trick fall
You know Republicans are so big on self reliance for welfare mothers how about pulling out and letting the Iraqis have some self reliance. What do they want to create a nanny state.


HA! I have been making this argument to my republican voting friends and family for several years now.


For years Democrats and "Liberals" ;) have been known as those who will take care of people when the funding for seniors is slashed by those evil republicans.

Democrats were known as those who like a nanny state.

NOW look around and you see the same thing with this admin in regard to foreign policy.

The republicans are saying "those democrats want you to be unsafe" and we republicans will "keep you safe"



LOL

What has the world come to?

Fellows

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Fellowship
HA! I have been making this argument to my republican voting friends and family for several years now.


For years Democrats and "Liberals" ;) have been known as those who will take care of people when the funding for seniors is slashed by those evil republicans.

Democrats were known as those who like a nanny state.

NOW look around and you see the same thing with this admin in regard to foreign policy.

The republicans are saying "those democrats want you to be unsafe" and we republicans will "keep you safe"



LOL

What has the world come to?

Fellows


I don't know but it's in a hand basket!:lol: