Posted on 11/24/2006 6:46:08 PM PST by kristinn
indeed, that is another angle on this that the "stay the course" freepers must accept:
if we spend the next two years doing exactly the same thing in iraq we have done for the last two years. If we find ourselves in 2008 - debating the same issues, taking 80 KIA every month, listening to Abizaid pontificate, negotiating with Maliki, daily stories of car bombings and militia killings - the Dems are going to win in a blowout in 2008.
what does open boarders have to do with Iraq?
I'm not quite understanding what you meant by giving them democracy 'too soon.'
The Bush-bots and open border people are the ones known well for using "troll" and "DUer" the most these days
That is the dumbest thing posted on this thread.............and that is saying something, since it's filled with stupidity.
Congratulations.
|
Saddam was not only paying money to Pali suicide bombers, but helping al Qaeda and murdering his own people.
If that weren't enough for him to be taken down, he broke the treaty he signed, after the Gulf War. Do you not realize what THAT means?
ONCE ONE OF THE PARTIES BREAKS THE PARTICULARS OF A PEACE TREATY, THEN THE PARTOES INVOLVED, ARE AT WAR AGAIN!
You want to be a missionary? Fine...go over to Iraq and preach! Don't sit there, in your safe and comfortable abode and preach on FR!
Mr Clinton gave us 911, what will Ms Clinton give us?
Ooooh... I touched a nerve, eh? So, you like Tancredo?
It was both nonsensical, and dishonest.
Deal with it.
To be quite honest this nation did not have a good start.. We had slavery, women was not allowed to vote unlike the those savage females voting in a muslim country (that was sarcasm)... You are right we are not superior, we are just lucky to be born an raised in the greasted nation on gods green Earth...
Iraqi voters risked their lives to vote in large numbers.
Your statement is wrong.
The people here who say that Iraqis don't want to be free are just plain ignorant.
Oooo.........I LIKE that one, Steve. :)
True, if we allow it. We absolutely shouldn't.
It is shiite majority, and post-invasion it will be weaker.
True again, but what you don't know is that the majority of Shiite Arabs HATE the Shiite Persians. Ayatollah al Sistani has a following in Iran, no wonder Sadr wants to kill him to take over for his masters in Iran. Again, we shouldn't let that happen.
..... don't overthrow the regime, but destroy much of the military and set their nuclear program back to square one.
Overthrowing the regime may be collateral from bombing Iran and that would be excellent.
One of the downsides of Iraq is that this makes it much tougher to do this politically.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.
The problem is we don't have that much time. There is soon going to be equipment issues and fatigue issues to deal with. Even local reserve and NG units are loosing their equipment to Iraq as well as what was sent there by active duty units. What goes to Iraq stays there. What was sent there may or may not see a replacement.
We've been deploying on borrowed time since Gulf War one. A fact neither the GOP or DEMs want to talk about or do anything about. I'm not so much concerned about Iraq as I am or entire defense infrastructure and as to how much more of this it can take while nobody is in the build up mode but rather still downsizing the military. It's insane.
It would be interesting someday to go back into the Amnesty Threads and see where those guys stand on the issue. :)
i agree with you. 4000 civilians isn't enough to force us on the same page. It will take a lot more then that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.