Will teh Democrats FORCE Bush to "cut and run" from Iraq?

[Neurotoxin]

Discuss................. .........

[Hugo Chavez]

Stop watching Fox News

[OzmO]

They won't force it.   The American people will.   

[Dos Equis]

The American people cannot make strategic military decisions.

That said, I think the guys on the ground are getting to the point where they believe we should scale back. 

[OzmO]

The American people cannot make strategic military decisions.

That said, I think the guys on the ground are getting to the point where they believe we should scale back. 

One would think so as you said, however, when public outcry is strong enough elected officials act.

[Dos Equis]

One would think so as you said, however, when public outcry is strong enough elected officials act.

I think that's true with most everything except military strategy.  You cannot allow opinion polls to dictate what we do on the ground.

[OzmO]

I think that's true with most everything except military strategy.  You cannot allow opinion polls to dictate what we do on the ground.

i agree wholeheartedly.  And it never has happened. 

But, we (the people) define our democracy by our ability as a nation to end a war or change a general course of action.

[Dos Equis]

i agree wholeheartedly.  And it never has happened. 

But, we (the people) define our democracy by our ability as a nation to end a war or change a general course of action.

I suppose that could happen by Congress sticking its finger in the wind and making strategic military decisions, but it would be a bad idea. 

After spending time with some of my military friends over the past week, including one who just returned from Iraq, I am on the verge of concluding that we need to pull out.  Still, that decision needs to originate from our guys on the ground and go from there to the Commander in Chief.  It shouldn't be based on opinion polls.   

[The Coach]

They won't force it.   The American people will.   

No, thats just what the media wants you to believe.

[Purge_WTF]

  Why just the Democrats? In case you haven't noticed, the hitherto bobble-headed Republican party has been calling for Bush to make some changes, and soon.

[headhuntersix]

I think it really begins with Desert Storm..we won way to quickly....we had planned to get really f'ed up but we smoked them badly. So from that point on we figured we could win wars cheaply and bloodlessly, The stupid air campaign over Bosnia..cruise missile attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan all thwe way to that idiot Rumsveld and his idiot group of civilians tell the military that we needed five guys and some aircraft to defeat and hold Iraq. Orzmo makes agood point...however Congress will decidde how we pull out and I'm afraid that we'll pay for their shortsightedness.

[OzmO]

No, thats just what the media wants you to believe.

Do you have any clue what the basis for our democraCY IS?   I guess not.

[OzmO]

I suppose that could happen by Congress sticking its finger in the wind and making strategic military decisions, but it would be a bad idea. 

After spending time with some of my military friends over the past week, including one who just returned from Iraq, I am on the verge of concluding that we need to pull out.  Still, that decision needs to originate from our guys on the ground and go from there to the Commander in Chief.  It shouldn't be based on opinion polls.   

When the condition on the ground is so bad it affects public opinion, strategic decisions can be affected.  Vietnam might be an example.

[headhuntersix]

This war is different..the war shaped public opinion in Vietnam to the point where we felt we had to pull out. Further, as that war was about political ideaology it was winable. We could shape political opinion inside Vietnam and do what was neccesary to change the minds of the average villager, coupled with bombing the North..it almost worked. Mistakes where made early on that didn't allow us to "win". With this war...public opinion had already been shaped by Vietnam....folks were on a short lease...once it looked like Vietnam(Iraq)...opinion went south. It would never have mattered if no WMD's had been found if u could walk the streets of Bagdad. The media has not helped. We never wanted to win...as a country mobilized for war....u do certain things.....ur agencies cooperate..ur people get on board....your military is allowed to win.. we weren't so we are not going to win.

[OzmO]

This war is different..the war shaped public opinion in Vietnam to the point where we felt we had to pull out. Further, as that war was about political ideaology it was winable. We could shape political opinion inside Vietnam and do what was neccesary to change the minds of the average villager, coupled with bombing the North..it almost worked. Mistakes where made early on that didn't allow us to "win". With this war...public opinion had already been shaped by Vietnam....folks were on a short lease...once it looked like Vietnam(Iraq)...opinion went south. It would never have mattered if no WMD's had been found if u could walk the streets of Bagdad. The media has not helped. We never wanted to win...as a country mobilized for war....u do certain things.....ur agencies cooperate..ur people get on board....your military is allowed to win.. we weren't so we are not going to win.

So we are back to " a lousy poorly thought out plan" to begin with.   To me that speaks of irresponsibly putting our soldiers in harms way.  It's a borderline impeachable offense IMO.

I think our media has only responded to what the BUSH administration did after the invasion when BUSH claimed:  "mission accomplished"  After that the insurgency served notice that BUSH delusional every time an IED went off and killed US soldiers.  All i see the media doing in whole affair is reporting deaths and military operations. 

[headhuntersix]

Its more the pundits on both sides who damage the war effort. Plus stuff like Haditha etc..exaggerated claims by questionable sources etc. There are plenty of guys, especially on Fox, who never saw combat, or never in this war, who make idiotic claims. Rumsveld makes Robert MacNamamra look good. They fight total war, using the media, actualy combat and terror, while we fight a PC war we can't win.

[headhuntersix]

They had a great plan but ,,,friggen rumsveld.

[Colossus_500]

I think it really begins with Desert Storm..we won way to quickly....we had planned to get really f'ed up but we smoked them badly. So from that point on we figured we could win wars cheaply and bloodlessly, The stupid air campaign over Bosnia..cruise missile attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan all thwe way to that idiot Rumsveld and his idiot group of civilians tell the military that we needed five guys and some aircraft to defeat and hold Iraq. Orzmo makes agood point...however Congress will decidde how we pull out and I'm afraid that we'll pay for their shortsightedness.

Every time I think of Donald Rumsfeld (or Dick Cheney) my blood pressure jacks up!    Sec. Rumsfeld and VP Cheney should have listened to Colin Powell.  

[Purge_WTF]

They had a great plan but ,,,friggen rumsveld.

  The Republicans in charge had no plan, and that's the problem. As Bill Maher once quipped, they thought that we would just go over there and sprinkle Freedomdust over everything.

[headhuntersix]

Its way to easy to lay this at the feet of the Repubs....if we do and it ends there...we'll have another 50 years of dead Americans and blown up buildings. Rumsfeld screwed up...the defeat or lose or withdrawl can be laid at his feet. The real reasons are alot bigger and deeper.

[Decker]

Its way to easy to lay this at the feet of the Repubs....if we do and it ends there...we'll have another 50 years of dead Americans and blown up buildings. Rumsfeld screwed up...the defeat or lose or withdrawl can be laid at his feet. The real reasons are alot bigger and deeper.

That's stated well.

The buck stops here:  President GW Bush.

He ordered the illegal invasion.

Rumsfeld mismanaged that invasion.

Bush insulates himself with pro-war generals and advisers which results in compounding the original errors.

The invasion was Bush's call and the management of the war is his responsibility seeing that he's the commander and chief of the armed forces.

[headhuntersix]

Some of what u said is true...illigal invasion. Not illiegal in anyway. I will agree that the reasons stated are not the reasons we either went to war or should have gone to war. Further...the climate in Washington combined with some sort of "Big Western Guilt" does not allow us to win wars. We hope that peace will spontanteouly break out but we fail to realize who we're fighting. Bush though he was doing the right thing based on the fact that Saddam and his group were bad folks. We sent mixed signals to this guy the entire time Clinton was in office. A strong message then could have prevented war. America has sent that strong message. But now the Dems and Repubs have backed off of it and are sending the same message that led Bin Laden to think he could successfully launch the 911 attacks.  Should we pull out? Yes, but we have to have something to show for it. Further, we cannot afford to send mixed signals. We need to realize who are allies are and who is a problem....Pakistan is not an friend..they just happen to have nuclear bombs. And as a conservative, we can't allow the Liberal wing of the very naive democratic party to take over and begin bs diplomacy with people who only want war.

[Decker]

Some of what u said is true...illigal invasion. Not illiegal in anyway. I will agree that the reasons stated are not the reasons we either went to war or should have gone to war. Further...the climate in Washington combined with some sort of "Big Western Guilt" does not allow us to win wars. We hope that peace will spontanteouly break out but we fail to realize who we're fighting. Bush though he was doing the right thing based on the fact that Saddam and his group were bad folks. We sent mixed signals to this guy the entire time Clinton was in office. A strong message then could have prevented war. America has sent that strong message. But now the Dems and Repubs have backed off of it and are sending the same message that led Bin Laden to think he could successfully launch the 911 attacks.  Should we pull out? Yes, but we have to have something to show for it. Further, we cannot afford to send mixed signals. We need to realize who are allies are and who is a problem....Pakistan is not an friend..they just happen to have nuclear bombs. And as a conservative, we can't allow the Liberal wing of the very naive democratic party to take over and begin bs diplomacy with people who only want war.

Why an Illegal invasion?  B/c Bush ordered the use of force before the WMD inspectors could finish their inspections.  That is in direct violation of UN Res. 1441 on several points.  If Bush orders the attack of another sovereign nation without the pretext of self-defense, defense of another or defense against imminent attack or the like, then he has no legal justification for use of force.

The Clinton administration sent a very clear message to Hussein:  Regime change.  Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm

Clinton imposed terrible sanctions on the Iraqi people and created "no-fly" zones (which are likely illegal).  http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

When it came to Iraq, Clinton was a lot like Bush except for the whole illegal invasion thing.  Bill supported the 2003 invasion.

[headhuntersix]

Prior to the Invasion Saddam ordered his Republican Guard elements to cease cooperating with UN inspections. There was no reason to believe that after 8 years Saddam was going to fully comply. Un resolutions are toothless in nature and are inforced by the Un, a corrupt body, when its convenient for its members. Throwing the UN up at this point is worthless. They are a major waste of tax payers money. Bush fully believed,wrongly, that Saddam had ties to AQ and WMDs. Both serve as a direct threat to the United States. Both reasons justify force. Congress went along with the war. Bush believed he had a mandate. I don't argue alot about this because its all bs and a case can be made for either side. What i will debate is what needs to be done now and what we need to do as regards the war on terror.

[Decker]

Prior to the Invasion Saddam ordered his Republican Guard elements to cease cooperating with UN inspections. There was no reason to believe that after 8 years Saddam was going to fully comply. Un resolutions are toothless in nature and are inforced by the Un, a corrupt body, when its convenient for its members. Throwing the UN up at this point is worthless. They are a major waste of tax payers money. Bush fully believed,wrongly, that Saddam had ties to AQ and WMDs. Both serve as a direct threat to the United States. Both reasons justify force. Congress went along with the war. Bush believed he had a mandate. I don't argue alot about this because its all bs and a case can be made for either side. What i will debate is what needs to be done now and what we need to do as regards the war on terror.

Hussein stopped complying with the inspections b/c the US reneged on its promise to lift sanctions and remove 'no-fly' zones which were crippling Iraq.  I guess he figured that if nothing changed with his compliance, why the hell should he continue complying.

I disagree with your assessment of the UN.  I wouldn't worry about your tax dollar being wasted on the UN, the US hasn't paid its dues in years--it's like a billion dollars past due.

The argument that the invasion is illegal is not BS.

And a case cannot be made for both sides.  That's moral relativism and I won't have any part of that.

If Bush had followed the law, the Iraq war would not have happened.

That's no BS talking point.