Peace With Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Feb 4, 2007.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peace With Iraq
    by George Phillies​

    For three thousand Americans, their relatives, and their families, peace with Iraq is now too late. Those three thousand Americans made the ultimate sacrifice for their country: They died fighting a pointless war in a foreign land. We cannot undo the sacrifice that they made. We should seek to ensure that more Americans do not go forth, courageously, only to make the same sacrifice in the distant desert sands of Iraq.

    Our soldiers in Iraq face hazards unknown in past wars. They are under constant attack. No matter how often George Bush claims that we are winning, the number of effective attacks against us continues to climb, in the past year from 70 to 180 per day. Worse, that count of attacks does not include vastly more "violent acts" committed against us. Those violent acts apparently number more than one thousand a day. Over the course of a year, that's two violent acts for each serviceman and each servicewoman in Iraq. No matter where our troops go, to Iraq's teeming cities, to the remote wastes of Al Anbar province, or even to their bases and bunkers, Iraqi guerrillas continue their incessant war on our men and women.

    There are no front lines. Our opponents wear no uniforms. Except when they are actively shooting at us, they simply blend in with their fellow Iraqis. Our brave men and women have no way to tell friend from foe, no response except to wait and watch.

    For our soldiers, sailors, and airmen overseas, not to mention their families and friends, this is a war that tests people's spirits. In World War II and Korea, there were front lines. In Viet Nam, there were areas where the Viet Cong was inactive. In the Iraqi capital, our people take refuge in the Green zone, protected by massive berms and razor wire, but the Green Zone is regularly attacked.

    Our original war aims, whether sensible or misguided, at least made sense in English. We invaded Iraq to pursue President Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We invaded Iraq to end collaboration between Iraq and various terrorist groups. We invaded Iraq to remove President Hussein for power.

    We did those things. There were no WMDs in Iraq. The Iraqi government hated Al Qaida. President Hussein had nothing to do with September 11. Now President Hussein has had his appointment with the hangman. The original mission may have been pointless, but that's no fault of our servicemen or their relatives and families.

    It's time to bring the War on Iraq to an end. It's time to bring our men and women home from Iraq. No matter when we leave, the Iraqis will still face their national problems. It's no criticism of our military's dedication or courage to say that further fighting is futile. Iraq's problems are problems the Iraqis must solve for themselves. Our intervention only wastes American lives.

    - www.phillies2008.com/peace_with_iraq
     
  2. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    The people of Iraq are doomed to years of bloody warfare due to Bush's ill advised war and his failure to enact a policy of total victory. While I have great sympathy for the Iraqi people, mainly the Kurds and the Christians, we can no longer sacrifice our young men/women for the cause of Iraq. It is sad but it is just the way it is.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Unfortunately, Ken and Martin and everyone else, the Libertarians do not have a chance this year. For one thing, their major issue, the war in Iraq, has not been taken over by the most famous name in American politics today. Hillary has the majority of Democrats behind her so that she should be able to be nominated because of the power of former President Bill Clinton and the money involved in the Democrat Party. The Democrat nomination is hers to lose.

    The anti-war in Iraq movement now will be absorbed by the Democrats. They will more or less continue Bush's domestic program--Bush being one of the biggest spenders of all time (perhaps outspending Nixon and Johnson).

    Hillary has promised to fulfill the end of the war:

    '"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as President, I will!" Clinton said.'

    Goodbye, Libertarians. You will be at home in the Democrat Party of Hillary: no war in Iraq after One Nine and pro-choice, as you like it.
     
  4. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why does one desire war in the first place, one should desire to put an end to war when oppurtunity is their. Our mission is completed.
    As far as pro-choice goes, many Dems are swithching to a Pro-life stance, not that they will do any better than the Republican party but we can expect that but at least we won't have to put up with the choreographed effort by the Republican party just before a major election.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Other than some local and a few state elections, what elections are you referring to in 2007?

    2) We aren't going anywhere. Much to your chagrin, I imagine. :)
     
  6. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Thanks, Rocko! My point is that both the Democrat Party and the Libertarian Party have pro-choice platforms as you know. The Libertarians should be at home in the Democrat Party because the over-riding issue of peace no latter than January 2009 has been taken over by the mainstream Democrats behind Hillary.

    ('"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as President, I will!" Clinton said.')

    The Libertarians have had the issue taken away from them. They have so many liberals in their midst and dominating the Libertarian conventions that they will mostly go Democrat in my personal opinion. Hillary has a lock on the nomination, and perhaps on the elections if the anti-war in Iraq people send Hillary money.
     
  7. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the time being my money is on Ron Paul to be the next President, he has stayed pretty much consistant in his beliefs.
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    This shows how little you know about libertarians, cmg.

    I don't agree with you much politically but we are both rooting for the Colts today. :)
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul is one of the last remaining hopes to save the Republican Party from going totally socialist.
     
  10. redbelt

    redbelt
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Ken, But I am supporting the Bears... even though I don't like their coach or his game plan... But I support the Bears! The players that is......

    Sound familiar?:thumbs:
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can sympathize. A lot of us in Arkansas support the Razorback football team but we have no use for Houston Nutt as the head coach.
     
  12. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    I would like to know what party will nominate Ron Paul? Isn't he just a male Hillary?

    Go Colts! Do the Blue! Loud and Proud!
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul has formed an exploratory committee to consider running for the presidential nomination in 2008 of the party of which he is a member in the U.S. House of Representatives - the Republican Party.

    Ron Paul advocates limited, constitutional government. Hillary Clinton does not.
     
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Some people never learn.:BangHead:
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes and that is a very sad fact about you and your necon buddies. :tear:
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Are you mad because you've been losing your arguments today? That was a poor response. You can do better.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Losing? You've been watching the wrong game. I've been creaming you in all of these threads about Bush's failed Middle East policy.
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Hardly. And it shows. You're losing your cool.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not losing my cool!

    [​IMG]
     
  20. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are not at war with Iraq. We are AT WAR WITH TERRORISTS.

    When a murderer murders, I do not blame you. I do not judge you for the deaths caused by a serial killer. I will not threaten you for the crimes of others.

    So why are there those in this thread blaming America and our President for what the evil terrorists are doing?

    I (and the other patriotic Americans that I know,) are at war with the terrorists. I am not at war with the Senate, the Congress, the President, or the American people that voted for this war against terror.

    This thread is a disgrace to the 2 million Americans that have died defending our rights of freedom and responsibility.
     

Share This Page

Loading...