While I know we will probably be in Iraq for a long, long time and many firmly believe this to be best, do any of you (Republicans) have a personal quitting point? Despite all the hype about the surge working I sense a growing restlessness in the GOP for an exit strategy that would allow for some saving of face. So, if we still have roughly half the benchmarks unmet, say, two, three, five years from now what say ye then? I'm curious about the conservative tipping point on this issue (assuming there is one). For the record, my complaint about international welfare (A/K/A nation building) is basically my same complaint about domestic welfare, all its errors are said to be strategic or managerial mistakes and never ideological ones. So, war supporters, at what approx increment of time will you too be screaming with frustration? Metaphorically speaking.
Also, for this thread I have no interest in debating anyone. I'm genuinely curious what the Republican mentality is.
Republicans: your preferences for an exit strategy.
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Ivon Denosovich, Oct 4, 2007.
-
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
I say win, and leave a permanent U.S. military base there. Like we did in Japan, & Germany.
-
Ivon,
Meeting benchmarks does not impress me one way or another. There are so many variables in war even if we met every benchmark tomorrow the situation could take a turn for the worse the very next day. The standard that is being applied to this conflict has been set by those who are against war in the first place under any conditions. It is illegitimate criticism created with no basis, in order to gain political advantage.
It is a false notion that anyone is trying to impose democracy on anyone. It is true however that we are trying to be an influence in that direction. The reason is because true conservatives understand that when any person regardless of background, and is not power hungry gets a taste of democracy then they will be won over to such ideas. This is a foundational conservative value. And it is one that the President believes whole heartedly.
The time frame this takes place is greatly increased when the area is overrun by terrorists supported by Iran. I also believe there is a fundamental difference between dissent and disloyalty. Disloyalty occurs when inapprorpiate dissent takes place. Dissenting is not the issue it is "How" one dissents that creates disloyalty. So now we have those who claim to be conservative disenting in the exact same way as the libs. On this issue there is no differnce between the libs and Libertarians.
Even dissent needs to have a restraint that does not allow it to venture into disloyalty.
God Bless -
The Republicans on Iraq are like the Democrats on domestic social programs. Neither group will admit that the program is bad. Instead, they just say that their pet programs need to be managed better, have more money thrown at it, yada, yada, yada.
-
When are we going to learn, that if there is something worth giving American lives for, that you go in with overwhelming force, do what it takes to win, and leave?
Executing a war in this manner requires strong leadership. If you are not going to do this, don't go in. -
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Last time this was done was in WWII. Korea began the slide down the slippery slope of trying to "armchair quaterback" war by politicians rather than let the military do it's thing.
Nothing is going to change, cause the politicos love the power over others, and we the peoplle keep putting these pseudo-statesmen back in over & over in spite of their pseudo-leadership.
We're getting the government we deserve; unfortunately!! -
-
These United States should not have a permanent military base on any soil other than our own. We should not be using our military in foreign adventurism.
-
What does win mean? -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
When did you become a republican ?