1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by KenH, Nov 30, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,978
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is what the president is proposing today in his speech:

    LINK

    The lack of a timetable to guide this process is simply unacceptable. Continuing on this present course will cost the GOP control of the Congress. I guess we'll see if the GOP members of Congress have the courage to stand up to this president who apparently sees no danger of the situation in Iraq turning into another Vietnam if we are not out within the next two years, while at the same time refusing to do what is necessary to protect our own borders from infiltration by members of al Qaeda.

    Also, the situation with our military is becoming dire due to this ongoing deployment. It would be rather ironic if a supposedly pro-military GOP president presides over the breaking of the U.S. military.
     
    #1 KenH, Nov 30, 2005
  2. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We have a clear difference of opinion.
    I believe the lack of a timetable is not only acceptable, but a necessity.

    Political considerations have to take a back seat to the success of the mission. A timetable plays into the hands of the enemy.
     
    #2 carpro, Nov 30, 2005
  3. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,978
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The mission doesn't take place in a vacuum. Political considerations do, and will, play a part.

    This effort was great in taking over Iraq but we know that the administration was not prepared for what to do next. That's why we are so far behind the curve getting close to three years later and why the Bush administration is stuck with saying, "We'll get out...some day".

    I really don't think the American people will stand for this. If the GOP loses big time next November then the Democrats will force his hand on Iraq, whether he wants a time table or not.

    I'm still hoping that the GOP leadership in the Congress will force his hand in 2006 instead. Why should we have to wait a year to start doing what needs to be done as soon as the Iraq elections take place in fifteen days?
     
    #3 KenH, Nov 30, 2005
  4. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I disagree. I'm glad the president mentioned Germany & Japan, where we still maintain bases, 'cuz that's what we need to do. A new democracy will not survive in that area without a constant protective force.

    Especially with that nut in Iran, saying he is Allah's choice to bring Islam to the world, and saying Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

    We stay. If we leave, and Iraq falls, as a nation we must hang our heads in shame.
     
    #4 Bro. Curtis, Nov 30, 2005
  5. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    The same sort of situation in Afganistan contributed greatly to the break up of the USSR.
     
    #5 billwald, Nov 30, 2005
  6. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All they need are signs of progress. Lot's of progress is being made, but the American people don't know it. Wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

    Th possibility of your scenario taking place is an acceptable risk for doing it right.
     
    #6 carpro, Nov 30, 2005
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why should you tell the enemy how long
    they have to hold out before we fold?
    That is giving comfort to the enemy?

    You know, this pres Bush will be replaced
    in Jan 2009 despite how many toops we
    have in Iraq.

    Even yet, we can turn tail and
    snatch defeat from the very jaws
    of victory.
     
    #7 Ed Edwards, Nov 30, 2005
  8. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Afghanistan: the USSR's Vietnam.
     
    #8 Daisy, Nov 30, 2005
  9. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,978
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The LP is spot on in its press release:

    Press Release
    Bush Administration's "Victory" Strategy Leaves Major Questions Unanswered

    (Washington) Wednesday, the Bush Administration, working in tandem with the National Security Council issued a document entitled National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, a weak attempt to counter the growing criticism of the administration’s handling of the Iraq occupation, and increasing discontent with the country’s overall foreign policy objectives.

    Instead of providing a detailed, honest plan for removing American soldiers from harm’s way in Iraq, the 35-page document outlines a set of vague goals that appear to be nothing more than exhausted, political rhetoric. Although the paper is filled with subheadings containing glittering generalities such as “Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest,” and “Failure is Not an Option,” it fails to answer essential questions about the methodology and timeframe for troop withdrawal.

    The “Victory” Strategy only reinforces Bush’s unsupported claims that current policies are “working” and cites as one of the administration’s accomplishments “the increasing capability of those [Iraqi] forces to take on the terrorists and secure the nation.” After nearly three years, the facts show that only one Iraqi battalion exists with the capability of to operate independently.

    “This ‘Victory’ Strategy is an irrefutably weak attempt by the Bush Administration to satisfy domestic political pressures while evading the issue of exiting Iraq,” stated Michael Dixon, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. “While President Bush dances around the flagrant failures of his decision to invade and remain in Iraq, American military personnel continue to be wounded and killed on a daily basis. To date, the Libertarian Party remains the only political group that has devised a sensible plan for American withdrawal from Iraq.”

    To learn more about the Libertarian Party’s Iraq Exit Strategy, visit www.lp.org/plan.

    - LINK
     
    #9 KenH, Nov 30, 2005
  10. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken,

    1. If you really feel this way, then why didn't you vote for Kerry last year. He pretty much agrees with your recipe for losing the war.

    2. When you talk about the situation in the military, are you referring to this?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #10 Joseph_Botwinick, Nov 30, 2005
  11. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thank you Ken for this article. It makes a lot more sense than anything I have heard from the Bush administration. [​IMG]
     
    #11 Terry_Herrington, Nov 30, 2005
  12. hillclimber

    hillclimber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken,

    1. If you really feel this way, then why didn't you vote for Kerry last year. He pretty much agrees with your recipe for losing the war.

    2. When you talk about the situation in the military, are you referring to this?

    Joseph Botwinick     </font>[/QUOTE]I seldom completely agree with Joseph, but I do this time. Ken, you obviously didn't hear the presidents speach, and the waffling disjointed totally baffled Democrats responses. It was a beautiful thing, and you missed it.

    His speach put down 2 years worth of evil rhetoric from the leftists, and is getting the Republicans on capitol hill back in step. No timetable. You cannot tell the enemy to hold on for just this long and we'll leave. You can't tell the world that we are once again giving in to the influence of the Kerry's and Kennedy's (Edward) of the Viet Nam debacle.
     
    #12 hillclimber, Dec 1, 2005
  13. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    These leftists...

    Don't they realize how hard we are working towards a pretext to invade Syria and Iran right now? Just like them to get cold feet right when we decide to cross into Syrian territory and have a shootout. :rolleyes:
     
    #13 poncho, Dec 2, 2005
  14. hillclimber

    hillclimber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hopefully we won't have to invade those countries. They probably see that we aren't so evil that they must start killing us.
    Or there are plenty of evil peoples in their region that need killing.
    Those Americans fight back too hard.
     
    #14 hillclimber, Dec 2, 2005
  15. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,978
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I voted for the lesser of two evils, Joseph.

    In regards to the article you linked, I'm glad to hear that our fellow Arkansans are stepping up to the plate. [​IMG]
     
    #15 KenH, Dec 2, 2005
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why was Bush the lesser of two evils for you? It seems to me that Kerry seems to be closer to your views on the war than Bush.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #16 Joseph_Botwinick, Dec 2, 2005
  17. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,978
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I liked Bush as a person better than I liked Kerry as a person and trusted Bush more than Kerry. Still do.
     
    #17 KenH, Dec 2, 2005
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do you trust him more when he is so trustworthy in your eyes when it comes to the lives of over 100,000 soldiers lives?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #18 Joseph_Botwinick, Dec 2, 2005
  19. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,978
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bush versus Kerry in a presidential election. I pick Bush. That doesn't mean I have to agree 100% with all of Bush's policies.
     
    #19 KenH, Dec 2, 2005
  20. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you agree with any of his policies? Which ones? It seems to me that the number one issue of last years election was the war on terror and whether or not we should stay or if we should, as Kerry thinks, cut and run.

    Did you vote on the issues or on the personalities of the candidates? What made up your mind? It wasn't too long ago that you were calling this WW3 and saying we must win at all costs.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
    #20 Joseph_Botwinick, Dec 2, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...