NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone has got so caught up in the "Bush is warmongerer! Evil Bush" etc rants during the mid term elections it would seem, that people have not focused on a rather gaping hole in the democrats campagin. Ok you oppose the war, what do you propose to do about it? Pull out? Iraq would descend into chaos. I'm not sure what the democrats are saying here, other than Bush is bad. Thats just negative campagining and is easy. What exactly would they do instead?

Everyone has got so caught up in the "Bush is warmongerer! Evil Bush" etc rants during the mid term elections it would seem, that people have not focused on a rather gaping hole in the democrats campagin. Ok you oppose the war, what do you propose to do about it? Pull out? Iraq would descend into chaos. I'm not sure what the democrats are saying here, other than Bush is bad. Thats just negative campagining and is easy. What exactly would they do instead?


Too late. :)

The thing about a political campaign is that no plans are required. They, in fact, often backfire. All you have to do is make the other guy look worse and BAM! you win.

Too late. :)

Actually, there are various "islands of stability" within Iraq, which can be found mostly in the Kurdish-controlled areas, but also in other isolated regions where there are few people. The only real trouble is in the major cities, while it is relatively peaceful in smaller towns. If we just nuked Baghdad, the whole problem would more or less go away.

The thing about a political campaign is that no plans are required. They, in fact, often backfire. All you have to do is make the other guy look worse and BAM! you win.

Would you not agree that it is somewhat decitful of the democrats to criticise the Republicans for the war if they have no legitmate alternative. Its crying over spilt milk

Actually, there are various "islands of stability" within Iraq, which can be found mostly in the Kurdish-controlled areas, but also in other isolated regions where there are few people. The only real trouble is in the major cities, while it is relatively peaceful in smaller towns. If we just nuked Baghdad, the whole problem would more or less go away.

So, what you're saying is that Iraq is in chaos.

:)

And nuking Baghdad wouldn't solve anything, since it would set off the rest of the ME, which tends to be unwise, at the very least.

Would you not agree that it is somewhat decitful of the democrats to criticise the Republicans for the war if they have no legitmate alternative. Its crying over spilt milk

And here we reach the truth of party politics in the USian states.

Everyone has got so caught up in the "Bush is warmongerer! Evil Bush" etc rants during the mid term elections it would seem, that people have not focused on a rather gaping hole in the democrats campagin. Ok you oppose the war, what do you propose to do about it? Pull out? Iraq would descend into chaos. I'm not sure what the democrats are saying here, other than Bush is bad. Thats just negative campagining and is easy. What exactly would they do instead?

You aren't sure because you aren't listening.

The major Democrats are saying that we need a measured withdrawl, and that Bush is not the guy to do it. Things are only getting worse under Bush.

Look at it this way. If you ran a car company and the engineering team designed a car that blew up as soon as someone turned the key. Then you, the businessman who owns the company, says to the lead designer, "what's wrong with this car."

Engineer, "Nothing's wrong with it. It works fine."
You, "It blows up."
Him, "it's 'Spectacular.'"
You, "I'm firing you."
Him, "You think you can get someone to design a better car?"
You, "I can design a better car."
Him, "What's your idea?"
You, "Make it not blow up."
Him, "That's not an idea. You don't have any idea how to build a car."
You, "My shoe is a better car."
Him, "It's not a car."
You, "But it doesn't explode."
Him, "You haven't gotten any better ideas from other engineers because they don't have any. My car might blow up, but at least I built it. It might kill everyone who buys it, but at least they'll have paid for it first. Unless they test drive it, but the dealer will still have paid you. No engineer will build a better car for you than my Combustia. I might be completly incompotent, and any guy who walks in off the street might be better than me. But I'm here now."
You, "I guess you're right. How soon can you have these things on the showroom floor."

Would you not agree that it is somewhat decitful of the democrats to criticise the Republicans for the war if they have no legitmate alternative. Its crying over spilt milk

I think that it is deceitful of you to disregard a number of ideas that Democrats have offered. However, I expect nothing better from the Republicans.

And, TBH, I'd rather have a party without ideas than a party with consistantly bad ideas, at this point.

"I guess you're right. How soon can you have these things on the showroom floor."

Please tell me you write for a living.

Everyone has got so caught up in the "Bush is warmongerer! Evil Bush" etc rants during the mid term elections it would seem, that people have not focused on a rather gaping hole in the democrats campagin. Ok you oppose the war, what do you propose to do about it? Pull out? Iraq would descend into chaos. I'm not sure what the democrats are saying here, other than Bush is bad. Thats just negative campagining and is easy. What exactly would they do instead?

In 2004, Kerry's plan was "piss off our allies and expect those who opposed us going to war to clean up our mess". Bush's plan was "stay the course".
Two years later, Bush doesn't have a plan, since he's denied that "stay the course" was ever a plan. It's a moot point that the Democrats don't have a plan, because the Republicans don't either.
When we left Vietnam, it was a mess. Worse, our troops came home expecting to be welcomed as heroes and instead were spit upon. In the years that followed, veterans were refused jobs by employers who were afraid they'd have a flashback and shoot the place up. But if we had "stayed the course" in Vietnam, we'd still be there, there'd still be a draft, the maximum age would be raised to 50, there'd have been no dot-com bubble to burst because our brightest minds would be in Vietnam or in graves, and we'd be rationing our butter.
If we pull out of Iraq, it's going to be bad but still better than if we "stay the course".

Everyone has got so caught up in the "Bush is warmongerer! Evil Bush" etc rants during the mid term elections it would seem, that people have not focused on a rather gaping hole in the democrats campagin. Ok you oppose the war, what do you propose to do about it? Pull out? Iraq would descend into chaos. I'm not sure what the democrats are saying here, other than Bush is bad. Thats just negative campagining and is easy. What exactly would they do instead?

The thing is that Bush isn't doing anything about it! Iraq doesn't have anywhere near the troops necessary to secure the country and the violence has not gotten better in all this time. In point of fact, it's gotten worse. The Democrats are not saying 'pull out now'. At least not many of them. They're saying, 'this plan isn't working and Bush isn't doing anythng to change that.'

And they're right.

Kerry's plan was to retreat slowly. Bushes plan is to stay until 2010. I think Iraq is none of our buisness at all. Afganistan is where we should be. But whatever,

You aren't sure because you aren't listening.

The major Democrats are saying that we need a measured withdrawl, and that Bush is not the guy to do it. Things are only getting worse under Bush.

Look at it this way. If you ran a car company and the engineering team designed a car that blew up as soon as someone turned the key. Then you, the businessman who owns the company, says to the lead designer, "what's wrong with this car."

Engineer, "Nothing's wrong with it. It works fine."
You, "It blows up."
Him, "it's 'Spectacular.'"
You, "I'm firing you."
Him, "You think you can get someone to design a better car?"
You, "I can design a better car."
Him, "What's your idea?"
You, "Make it not blow up."
Him, "That's not an idea. You don't have any idea how to build a car."
You, "My shoe is a better car."
Him, "It's not a car."
You, "But it doesn't explode."
Him, "You haven't gotten any better ideas from other engineers because they don't have any. My car might blow up, but at least I built it. It might kill everyone who buys it, but at least they'll have paid for it first. Unless they test drive it, but the dealer will still have paid you. No engineer will build a better car for you than my Combustia. I might be completly incompotent, and any guy who walks in off the street might be better than me. But I'm here now."
You, "I guess you're right. How soon can you have these things on the showroom floor."


*intrigued* I want a Combustia. :)

And nuking Baghdad wouldn't solve anything, since it would set off the rest of the ME, which tends to be unwise, at the very least.

I'm not seriously suggesting that we should nuke Baghdad. I'm simply saying that if Baghdad was somehow erased from the picture, Iraq would seem a whole lot more stable. The large majority of the violence occurs in Baghdad and the outlying areas surrounding it -- without it, Iraq would seem almost peaceful, with the exception of places like Samarra.

I'm not seriously suggesting that we should nuke Baghdad. I'm simply saying that if Baghdad was somehow erased from the picture, Iraq would seem a whole lot more stable. The large majority of the violence occurs in Baghdad and the outlying areas surrounding it -- without it, Iraq would seem almost peaceful, with the exception of places like Samarra.

And whichever city insurgents are invading at any given moment. Like Al Sadr did last week.

And remember: Where goes Baghdad, so goes Iraq.

I think that it is deceitful of you to disregard a number of ideas that Democrats have offered. However, I expect nothing better from the Republicans.

And, TBH, I'd rather have a party without ideas than a party with consistantly bad ideas, at this point.

1. Are these other idea linked to the conduct of the war, because I havent seen them, despite research. Can you elaborate
2. I'm not a republican, I'm not even American. I'm British and ATM have no particualr party loyalty

Declare "victory".

Also, didnt the democrats originally vote in favour of the war? So doesnt that make them even more hypocritical

I'm not seriously suggesting that we should nuke Baghdad. I'm simply saying that if Baghdad was somehow erased from the picture, Iraq would seem a whole lot more stable. The large majority of the violence occurs in Baghdad and the outlying areas surrounding it -- without it, Iraq would seem almost peaceful, with the exception of places like Samarra.

So Iraq is peaceful apart from the unpeaceful areas?


Kinda like how a burning building is cold apart from the hot parts?

Declare "victory".

Again?

Also, didnt the democrats originally vote in favour of the war? So doesnt that make them even more hypocritical

No. Here's why-IF they (the person running) voted for the war at the time it was on the information they had and with the albiet foolish assumption that the Bush administration would execute it properly.

NOW, the difference is-clearly the information was wrong and the execution has not been anything near what was expected. The Democrats aren't running on a Wayback Machine Platform, but rather the people who have been left in charge of the war have blown it and are seemingly incapable of even recognizing the mistake much less fixing it. Therefore they need to be removed so that we can take a look at the problem realisticly, which has not been the case with the administration so far, despite their rhetoric.

Short story, if you thought it was a good idea to do something and it turns out it wasn't, it's not hypocritical to recognize that. In fact, it's damn fucking stupid to stick with what was clearly a dumb fucking idea.

You aren't sure because you aren't listening.

The major Democrats are saying that we need a measured withdrawl, and that Bush is not the guy to do it. Things are only getting worse under Bush.

Look at it this way. If you ran a car company and the engineering team designed a car that blew up as soon as someone turned the key. Then you, the businessman who owns the company, says to the lead designer, "what's wrong with this car."

Engineer, "Nothing's wrong with it. It works fine."
You, "It blows up."
Him, "it's 'Spectacular.'"
You, "I'm firing you."
Him, "You think you can get someone to design a better car?"
You, "I can design a better car."
Him, "What's your idea?"
You, "Make it not blow up."
Him, "That's not an idea. You don't have any idea how to build a car."
You, "My shoe is a better car."
Him, "It's not a car."
You, "But it doesn't explode."
Him, "You haven't gotten any better ideas from other engineers because they don't have any. My car might blow up, but at least I built it. It might kill everyone who buys it, but at least they'll have paid for it first. Unless they test drive it, but the dealer will still have paid you. No engineer will build a better car for you than my Combustia. I might be completly incompotent, and any guy who walks in off the street might be better than me. But I'm here now."
You, "I guess you're right. How soon can you have these things on the showroom floor."

The thing is, I don't want to drive a shoe either. Neither shoe nor Combustia is suitable for me. I need another alternative.

Which, bringing it back to politics, means a 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party.

No. Here's why-IF they (the person running) voted for the war at the time it was on the information they had and with the albiet foolish assumption that the Bush administration would execute it properly.

So the Democrats cannot criticsie the Bush administration for going to war in the first place then.


NOW, the difference is-clearly the information was wrong.

But thats not exactly the Bush administration's fault is it.


and the execution has not been anything near what was expected. The Democrats aren't running on a Wayback Machine Platform, but rather the people who have been left in charge of the war have blown it and are seemingly incapable of even recognizing the mistake much less fixing it. Therefore they need to be removed so that we can take a look at the problem realisticly, which has not been the case with the administration so far, despite their rhetoric.

Well in fairness, if they are not offering an alternative stratgy, why should we trust in their ability to come up with one?

So the Democrats cannot criticsie the Bush administration for going to war in the first place then.


This supposes a hive mind, since that's not the case, many of the democrats can, in fact, critisize the administration for it, since it is clearer and clearer that Bush was presenting the information he wanted. If not out and out lying, at the very least not being the most forthcoming. And the greater issue is in the it was handled.

But thats not exactly the Bush administration's fault is it.
Once upon a time we had a president that had a plaque on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here." The people in charge got us here and won't see that they even make mistakes, much less do anything about them. You don't fire underlings for that...



Well in fairness, if they are not offering an alternative stratgy, why should we trust in their ability to come up with one?

As pointed out, they do in fact have one. You have to take your fingers out of your ears and stop shouting "Lalala, I can't hear you!"

This supposes a hive mind, since that's not the case, many of the democrats can, in fact, critisize the administration for it, since it is clearer and clearer that Bush was presenting the information he wanted. If not out and out lying, at the very least not being the most forthcoming. And the greater issue is in the it was handled.

Well untill it can be demonstrated that the Bush administration was not entirely forthcomming (IE evidence they had but they intentionally did not release) then you cannot criticise them. Supposition is not genuine criticism. Just supposing they had information is not really enough


Once upon a time we had a president that had a plaque on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here." The people in charge got us here and won't see that they even make mistakes, much less do anything about them. You don't fire underlings for that....

I would say that if the Bush administration went to war on infomation which they were given, and the infomation was faulty, then thus it should be the people who gathered the infomation who are at fault (and given that a few years ago the head of the CIA resigned, we can see that it has had some affect)


As pointed out, they do in fact have one. You have to take your fingers out of your ears and stop shouting "Lalala, I can't hear you!"

No, what you have said is this

"Therefore they need to be removed so that we can take a look at the problem realisticly"

They could look at the problem realisticly now, and give us an alternative. Thus they havent. So what do they want to do? Slowly withdraw, use the counter insergency tatics that some of the army has suggested (but would involve more troops, and is politically costly) what exactly?

Iraq is a no-win situation. The best we can do is spare Kurdistan and create a new state out of the northern part of Iraq (if we have someone good grease the diplomatic wheels with Turkey and explain that Kurdistan is simply made out of parts of Iraq, and that no Turkish land will be harmed in the making of Kurdistan, then that ought to shut them up.)

There are a few things we can do:

Focus on Kurdistan - the rest of Iraq goes to hell, but it's headed there anyway. Kurdistan becomes an independent state and a reliable ally in the Middle East. Iraq becomes a theocracy and a terrorist hellhole that seeks to build nukes.

Pull out now - all of Iraq goes to hell, where it's headed anyway. Very few U.S. soldiers are harmed in this transition, but the 2,000-plus died effectively in vain. We're fucked in the ear diplomatically in the Middle East. Iraq becomes a theocracy and a terrorist hellhole that seeks to build nukes.

Stay the course - or whatever they're calling it now. The insurgency continues to make American soldiers miserable, and from here, there are a few possibilities.

--Iraq listens to Saddam - and tosses the evil oppressors out Iran-style. Ayatollah al-Amok takes charge and becomes a Khomeini figure. A lot of Iraqis join due to outright America-hatred, unlike in Iran, when the average Iranian wasn't a virulent America-hater but was firmly behind a movement of self-determination. Many Americans become hostages, and if we're lucky, the 2008 election will be the way to get them home.

--Iraq continues to turn chaotic - and the U.S. finds itself in the middle of a civil war. Sunnis against Shi'ites, with the Kurds up north huddling in fear. Bush can't get a Kurdish state to save his life, and the next President doesn't really feel the need to. Well, maybe if we want another ally over there, we buddy up to the Kurds. Regardless of the Kurds, two possible outcomes happen.

++Sunnis win - and a largely secular, Ba'athist-esque government takes over. Another Saddam steps in, and we're no farther ahead then we were in 2002. That government probably wants the U.S. out and will fight for it. We're too exhausted to fight this guy, so we just come home.

++Shi'ites win - and a religious government takes hold, and anyone who's a Sunni gets shot. Another Khomeini steps in, and the U.S. gets the hell out while the getting's good. We're actually worse off than in 2002. No point in kicking this guy out; someone worse will just take his place.

So there you have it. The only thing we can do in Iraq is help out the Kurds. And Dubya needs to take a course in diplomacy in order to make that happen.

Best analysis yet.
*nods in approval*

*nods in approval*

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. **bows** **conks head on floor**

The democrats are calling for something..._anything_...to be done. Bush and many Reoublicans (and some Democrats) are unwilling to make a timeline, send over enough troops, develop a proper exit strategy...basic things that should have been done before we even considered our "preemptive strike". The democrats are saying "Who cares if the war was wrong or right. We are there, and we are failing. Something needs to be done" while the Republicans are painting that as wanting to "cut and run", but continue to pretend everything is sunshine and roses over there.

Also, didnt the democrats originally vote in favour of the war? So doesnt that make them even more hypocritical
Amazingly, people have the ability to change their minds, particularly when they voted for the war three years ago. The situation has changed significantly. The intelligence (as shaky as it was) has fallen through. The mission statement has changed dozens of times. Despite our "victory", the war continues to flounder. It isn't the least bit hypocritical.

It is sad, however, that people who realize their errors are painted as "flip-floppers" and "hypocrites". Ben Franklin opened the Junto, where definite statements were fined. You had to be willing to change your mind, and accept that maybe the way you saw it yesterday was wrong. Emerson wrote that you should be willing to speak your mind and your truth, even if that changes. Speak as loudly today as you did yesterday, even if it is a blatant contradiction, so long as you honestly believe what you are saying. I would much rather have someone do that than stick to the same mantra, despite the fact that situations have changed. Things change, and so should opinions. It isn't hypocricy. It would be hypocritical for the dems to say "The Republicans still support the war" while they, themselves, still did. It is not hypocritical to say "Yes, we all supported the war three years ago, but I have realized that I was wrong. They still haven't."

Also, didnt the democrats originally vote in favour of the war? So doesnt that make them even more hypocritical

No, changing your mind based on new evidence is not hypocrisy.

If I was in charge I would seriously start thinking about partitioning Iraq by creating an Independent Kurdistan, a Shi'a Republic of East Iraq and a Sunni Republic of West Iraq.

After these states are set up it will be a case of moving people of these sects into their allocated state, forcibly if needed, as it is increasingly becoming the case that if they do not get out of the way they will be massacred.

Shi'a Iraq will probably become a vassal state of Iran quicker than you can say 'Allah'u Aqbar', likewise Sunni Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Kurdistan on the other hand has a very secularist, pro-Western, pro-Israeli (shocking, I know) and anti-Arab political culture and will be a profound ally in the region.

Its regrettable that it would come to this, but I have finally pulled my head out of the sand in light of recent events and I no longer believe that Iraq has the capacity to survive as a morally-justifiable state.

Also, didnt the democrats originally vote in favour of the war? So doesnt that make them even more hypocritical

Just like Chamberlain was hypocritical in 1940 by changing his view from Appeasement to Anti-Appeasement, and fully supporting Winston Chuchill in his new government?

If I was in charge I would seriously start thinking about partitioning Iraq by creating an Independent Kurdistan, a Shi'a Republic of East Iraq and a Sunni Republic of West Iraq.

After these states are set up it will be a case of moving people of these sects into their allocated state, forcibly if needed, as it is increasingly becoming the case that if they do not get out of the way they will be massacred.

Shi'a Iraq will probably become a vassal state of Iran quicker than you can say 'Allah'u Aqbar', likewise Sunni Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Kurdistan on the other hand has a very secularist, pro-Western, pro-Israeli (shocking, I know) and anti-Arab political culture and will be a profound ally in the region.

Its regrettable that it would come to this, but I have finally pulled my head out of the sand in light of recent events and I no longer believe that Iraq has the capacity to survive as a morally-justifiable state.
I can agree with all of it except for forcible relocation. Sure, draw the lines along the major population boundaries, but if people don't want to move, there is absolutly no reason we should force them. Unless you suggest we start a mini Inquisition. I doubt they'd expect that...

The democrats are calling for something..._anything_...to be done. Bush and many Reoublicans (and some Democrats) are unwilling to make a timeline, send over enough troops, develop a proper exit strategy...basic things that should have been done before we even considered our "preemptive strike". The democrats are saying "Who cares if the war was wrong or right. We are there, and we are failing. Something needs to be done" while the Republicans are painting that as wanting to "cut and run", but continue to pretend everything is sunshine and roses over there.

I think the reason they don't want to draw up a time table for withdrawl is to avoid the terrorists 'waiting it out' untill they are gone, so then they can really bring the place to its knees

Also saying "something" has to be done, is not a viable and real policy statement. If the democrats have something to say, then say it. Otherwise it is not genuine criticism


Amazingly, people have the ability to change their minds, particularly when they voted for the war three years ago. The situation has changed significantly. The intelligence (as shaky as it was) has fallen through. The mission statement has changed dozens of times. Despite our "victory", the war continues to flounder. It isn't the least bit hypocritical.

I think it is hypocritical of the democrats to criticise the republicans for the decision to invade, without at the same time suggesting they themselves are at fault. What would be more mature is to say that they both got it wrong due to unceritan evidence. I think that it is hypocritical to say "something" has to be done without specifiying the something. I think that the Republicans are not the idiots that most people portray them as, they know that the situation is deterioting, they just have diffrent views as to how to solve it. However thus far the democrat view seems to be that the Republicans are wrong, but dont as yet offer a specific alternative, other than something being wrong.


It is sad, however, that people who realize their errors are painted as "flip-floppers" and "hypocrites".

People who realise their errors is one thing. The democrats can happily say they were wrong to support the invasion, but they cannot criticise the republicans for the decsison. All they can do is say that the evidence was flawed


It isn't hypocricy. It would be hypocritical for the dems to say "The Republicans still support the war" while they, themselves, still did. It is not hypocritical to say "Yes, we all supported the war three years ago, but I have realized that I was wrong. They still haven't."

Indeed, there I agree. However complaining about a mistake 3 years ago is not the question. What I am asking is what specificly they plan to do now. All we seem to know is that whatever it is, it is against what the Republicans are currently doing. Does this mean they will pull out? Does it mean they want to fragment the country? What does it mean?

I think the reason they don't want to draw up a time table for withdrawl is to avoid the terrorists 'waiting it out' untill they are gone, so then they can really bring the place to its knees
I don't buy that. When you wage a war, you should have some very specific things: a viable entry plan, a course of action, a post-victory strategy, a post-victory time table for exit, and an emergency exit strategy. We had an entry plan, an underdeveloped course of action (we assumed that Iraq would be similar to Afghanistan, despite major cultural differences that facilitated Afghanistan), a weak (if any) post-victory strategy that failed quickly (and continues to do so), no time table, and no exit strategy. We shouldn't have to be calling for these things now, they should have been done years ago.

Also saying "something" has to be done, is not a viable and real policy statement. If the democrats have something to say, then say it. Otherwise it is not genuine criticismAnd most democrats I have seen have their chosen strategy, from establish a timetable (the majority), to send more troops over to do the job properly, to an emergency exit (the minority). I have yet to hear most Republicans even say that much. Additionally, while campainging, you never hear detailed plans of a platform, just a basic outline.



I think it is hypocritical of the democrats to criticise the republicans for the decision to invade, without at the same time suggesting they themselves are at fault. What would be more mature is to say that they both got it wrong due to unceritan evidence.They aren't saying the Republicans got it wrong and they didn't. They are saying that the Republicans STILL have it wrong, and are unwilling to change their policies.
I think that it is hypocritical to say "something" has to be done without specifiying the something.Most individual democrats have their position for their platform. I would say all, but I don't follow every single race. The ones I do have their plans, and have said them.
I think that the Republicans are not the idiots that most people portray them as, they know that the situation is deterioting, they just have diffrent views as to how to solve it."Stay the course" (or whatever that mantra has been replaced with) is not a viable option.
However thus far the democrat view seems to be that the Republicans are wrong, but dont as yet offer a specific alternative, other than something being wrong.Timetable, more troops, exit strategy.



People who realise their errors is one thing. The democrats can happily say they were wrong to support the invasion, but they cannot criticise the republicans for the decsison. All they can do is say that the evidence was flawedThey can't criticize the repubs for their decisions three years ago (assuming that democrat agreed). What they CAN do is criticize the fact that they still stand by that decision, despite the new evidence.



Indeed, there I agree. However complaining about a mistake 3 years ago is not the question. What I am asking is what specificly they plan to do now. All we seem to know is that whatever it is, it is against what the Republicans are currently doing. Does this mean they will pull out? Does it mean they want to fragment the country? What does it mean?As with the republicans, that varies person to person. Research the candidates, and I promise you will find something.

It would seem that many people have a plan for Iraq. I do not think the Democrat party has a specific plan, but many Democrats do, and many Republicans also have plans:

http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

Happy clicking.

Edit: here's the Democratic plan
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/20060329_realsecurity.pdf

I can agree with all of it except for forcible relocation. Sure, draw the lines along the major population boundaries, but if people don't want to move, there is absolutly no reason we should force them. Unless you suggest we start a mini Inquisition. I doubt they'd expect that...

See, I would usually agree with you. But you have to wonder about the kind of people who would want to (for example) be Sunnis remaining in a Shi'a area, on the one hand there would be the sentimental old bitties who wish to stay there because it is where they have always lived, and for whom leaving them there would be an eventual death sentence, and the second kind of people, the ones who wish to stay there so they can continue to wage sectarian warfare against their enemy from within.

I place the emphasis on this second group, because I think there would be quite a lot of them, especially within the large cities, and it is worth the temporary infringement of their freedom to live where they wish to secure the freedom of everyone else not to be car-bombed or beheaded and stuffed in mass-graves.

But thats not exactly the Bush administration's fault is it.Not the Fault of the Gov.
Never the fault of the Gov.

Not a chance in hell.. ;)

See, I would usually agree with you. But you have to wonder about the kind of people who would want to (for example) be Sunnis remaining in a Shi'a area, on the one hand there would be the sentimental old bitties who wish to stay there because it is where they have always lived, and for whom leaving them there would be an eventual death sentence, and the second kind of people, the ones who wish to stay there so they can continue to wage sectarian warfare against their enemy from within.

I place the emphasis on this second group, because I think there would be quite a lot of them, especially within the large cities, and it is worth the temporary infringement of their freedom to live where they wish to secure the freedom of everyone else not to be car-bombed or beheaded and stuffed in mass-graves.
Yeah, I definatly get that...I just feel like it won't solve any problems without making things potentially worse...causing extreme segregation and civil rights disasters, etc.

Also, there is the issue of how to define people. Kurd is an ethnic group that could be muslim (rare, but does happen). There are other groups who live there too. You also end up with something similar to Afghanistan, where people choose their ethnic group based off of which gives them the best momentary advantage (many "Afghanis" are actually Uzbecks or Kurds)

Everyone has got so caught up in the "Bush is warmongerer! Evil Bush" etc rants during the mid term elections it would seem, that people have not focused on a rather gaping hole in the democrats campagin. Ok you oppose the war, what do you propose to do about it? Pull out? Iraq would descend into chaos. I'm not sure what the democrats are saying here, other than Bush is bad. Thats just negative campagining and is easy. What exactly would they do instead?

Add to the fact that all the insurgent groups are supporting the Democrats along with Al-Queda of course. Anything that helps get rid of the pesky Americans is to be embraced .

can you IMAGINE what it will be like if the Democrats get their way ?
After they repeal all the tax cuts and turn Iraq into a Jihadi playground along with a State puppet of Iran....do you ever think anyone will elect a Democrat for anything again ?

We need a bipartisan Congress ...what dont need is extremist. I would like to see Democrats make gains to reign in the one way rule without much compromise and to see the country get a bit more united .

If the looney tunes from the Democrat side get their wish ..they KILL the Democratic party for years to come..thats the danger ...the promise is a government that works toghether to compromise and to better reflect what ALL Americans want..not just some of them.

It all depends who is elected and the numbers . Ideally the democrats gain the house and the Republicans keep the Senate with a small majority.

That will not only send a strong message to the bedbugs in charge but should restore some balance to our representation in congress.

The big hope is that the Dems dont destroy themselves by winning. Because if they do some of the things they promised they will be destroyed in 2008..IMO a much more important election.

I hope they are smart enough to remember what happened to them in 1994.
and do not repeat themselves...but like Santa Clause ..I may be pissing up a rope with that hope too .

I don't buy that.

That isnt an argument. Please explain why you do not believe that


When you wage a war, you should have some very specific things: a viable entry plan, a course of action, a post-victory strategy, a post-victory time table for exit, and an emergency exit strategy. We had an entry plan, an underdeveloped course of action (we assumed that Iraq would be similar to Afghanistan, despite major cultural differences that facilitated Afghanistan), a weak (if any) post-victory strategy that failed quickly (and continues to do so), no time table, and no exit strategy. We shouldn't have to be calling for these things now, they should have been done years ago.

I thinlk the Republican idea has been to cross each bridge as it is come to, rather than draw up a long term plan for something that may/may not happen, but that is my perception. Not being Amercian, it could be a flawed perception


And most democrats I have seen have their chosen strategy, from establish a timetable (the majority), to send more troops over to do the job properly, to an emergency exit (the minority). I have yet to hear most Republicans even say that much. Additionally, while campainging, you never hear detailed plans of a platform, just a basic outline.

Strange, in British elections, politicans are always very keen that you understand their policies very clearly so that you may make an informed decision. Is that not the case in America?

But I am glad to see that the Democrats do have a stratagy in mind, even if it is a very broad one, and one that I may personally disagree with. If I was in command now I would be listening to the millitary and deploying the counter insurgency stragies that they suggest, even if it means deploying more troops. Iraq must be safer when we leave it than it was when we entered it.


They aren't saying the Republicans got it wrong and they didn't. They are saying that the Republicans STILL have it wrong, and are unwilling to change their policies.

In what sense have it wrong? Have it wrong in invading in the first place? Have it wrong in continuing these specific stratgies? Have it wrong in not drawing up a time table?


Most individual democrats have their position for their platform. I would say all, but I don't follow every single race. The ones I do have their plans, and have said them.
"Stay the course" (or whatever that mantra has been replaced with) is not a viable option.
Timetable, more troops, exit strategy.

A reasonable set of policies, aside from the timetable which I think is a bad idea. If there is one it should not be made public for danger of the terrorists basicly waiting out the American and British departure.


They can't criticize the repubs for their decisions three years ago (assuming that democrat agreed). What they CAN do is criticize the fact that they still stand by that decision, despite the new evidence.


What you are suggesting is that they be criticised for the invasion itself. There is little point in criticising that now, what needs to be discussed is the tatics around that. Which I am pleased to see the democrats are doing (even if in a limited fashion)

Also, there is the issue of how to define people. Kurd is an ethnic group that could be muslim (rare, but does happen). There are other groups who live there too. You also end up with something similar to Afghanistan, where people choose their ethnic group based off of which gives them the best momentary advantage (many "Afghanis" are actually Uzbecks or Kurds)

Hmm... But I also suspect it is these grey-area people who are a lot less likely to engage in secular warfare. The partition doesn't have to be exact, as long as some constituent states can be pulled together that do not have populations that are content on murdering each other.

That isnt an argument. Please explain why you do not believe thatI did. You actually quoted and responded to my justification. Stating that we shouldn't do it now because it will cause more problems is a cop out, and doesn't answer why we didn't have one from the beginning.



I thinlk the Republican idea has been to cross each bridge as it is come to, rather than draw up a long term plan for something that may/may not happen, but that is my perception. Not being Amercian, it could be a flawed perceptionThat method of waging war has always shown to fail. Always. Every single time. You need clear goals, objectives, plans, and strategies. You need to know how you are going in, and how you are getting out, be it victor, or as the loser and with as little loss of life as possible. Waiting untill we absolutly HAVE to leave is suicide. We did that with Vietnam, and look how spectacularly that withdraw was handled. To not come up with a long term plan is not only a copout and lazy, but immensly short sited and condemns us to failure.



Strange, in British elections, politicans are always very keen that you understand their policies very clearly so that you may make an informed decision. Is that not the case in America?You expect them to propose a bill during a campaign? No. they give the outline of their policy..."We need to leave Iraq now", "We need to send more troops", "We are doing fine how we are now". I understand their stance from that. If I need clarification, I can call their offince and question, or go to their website.

But I am glad to see that the Democrats do have a stratagy in mind, even if it is a very broad one, and one that I may personally disagree with. If I was in command now I would be listening to the millitary and deploying the counter insurgency stragies that they suggest, even if it means deploying more troops. Iraq must be safer when we leave it than it was when we entered it.Again, there is no "Democratic" strategy or "Republican" strategy. As with all policy, every person differs. There are just trends within the party.
The current admin does not listen to its generals. That is a major complaint.



In what sense have it wrong? Have it wrong in invading in the first place? Have it wrong in continuing these specific stratgies? Have it wrong in not drawing up a time table?Depending on the republican, all of the above. Ignoring reality, ignoring the experts, ignoring the will of both the soldiers and the people...you name it, they are failing at it. The war was wrong three years ago. It is wrong today. Atleast some of our congressmen have realize this.



A reasonable set of policies, aside from the timetable which I think is a bad idea. If there is one it should not be made public for danger of the terrorists basicly waiting out the American and British departure.
It still needs to be there. And the American public need to know about it. Part of that whole "transparent democracy" thing we pretend to have.



What you are suggesting is that they be criticised for the invasion itself. There is little point in criticising that now, what needs to be discussed is the tatics around that. Which I am pleased to see the democrats are doing (even if in a limited fashion)No, what I am suggesting is that they should be criticized, hell, even outright mocked, for not accepting that things have changed significantly, and we need to respond by changing our policy. This isn't the war of three years ago. The people who stand by that idea need to join the rest of us in understanding that something major has changed, and that requires major shifts in our policies and actions.

Those changes don't include preparing for another war with Iran or NK. They involve completing the job in Afghanistan and Iraq.