I'm going to do what grim normally does and demand more evidence for the full picture of RP's position here. Grim, I'm sure you can agree on this, and understand where I'm coming from. And no, I'm not looking for another knock down drag out fight. We continue to prove to each other, more often than not, that we are closer to the same ideas than we are apart. Here are some thoughts: Last debate, Paul was asked by Hannity after the debate...noting that a recent poll showed a number of democrats wanted/hoped for defeat in Iraq. I don't think anyone would be surprised at that. It's pretty much a given. Hannity asked RP if he felt the same way. RP's response (I'm paraphrasing here) "Of course not, no one wants defeat." That stuck with me. Not quite the way Christmas in Cambodia stuck with john kerry, but I do remember it. Work with me here, because I'm going to give you RP supporters an angle to use here that could be very, very effective for your message. Last month, I started a thread about how the surge in Iraq was working. There's no doubt it is. Now, some vehemently argued against that success, however, is this not the perfect opportunity everyone is waiting for? That strategy was all wrong (arguing the surge wasn't working, or we need more of something for a full picture). Let me tell you why. With success in Iraq, especially as good as it has been going, there is your legitimate reason for us to get out of Iraq. It's what everyone, including myself, has been hoping/waiting for (except some democrats, perhaps). The argument shouldn't be an attempt to take away our successes and most especially, the successes of our troops AND Iraqis, who have laid their lives down. This is not the smart argument. The smart position is to embrace those successes, acknowledge that "yes, this surge has worked, is continuing to work, and now that we have defeated al qaida in Iraq, it's time to come home." That's fair, is it not? Hopefully that's what we (not discounting there are still some islamists here) want? In the past month, we've seen a new video from bin laden acknowledging failures of al qaida in Iraq. More top leaders have been caught/killed. More and more Iraqis are standing up saying "enough" (finally) and fighting back against al qaida as well. News sources are struggling to find negatives to report. Dems are flip flopping on Iraq, taking note of the successes. So here's my point. There is no question that the surge in Iraq is working. We're into six months now, of reduced civilian AND military casualties, reports of Iraqis fighting al qaida, bin laden acknowledging failures and calling for muslims to join together when apparently they are fed up with al qaida killing at random and will, their own people. It's time to embrace these successes, note them, and start using them as a legitimate reason to bring our troops home. Once again, though we've had some knock down drag out battles here, I point out that GRIM and I are not far from the same page in terms of what we want. He's concerned about an immediate withdrawl. I say there is no better time than NOW to start talking about this. Violence is down, Iraqis ARE standing up and helping in the fight and more and more control is being handed over to Iraqi forces. This (to coin John McCain), "my friends", is success. It's a defeat for al qaida. Our troops have done remarkable, done what some said was impossible. It doesn't mean there won't be more violence, but as of right now, al qaida in Iraq is defeated. Iraqis point to this, the surge in Iraq points to this. So, with these successes and reduction in violence, it's time to come home. Let's not take the success away from our troops. Many have died for what we are seeing today. It's time to embrace the success, declare victory (rather than Harry Reid's declaration of loss) and bring our troops home. I can't think of a better exit strategy opportunity we could possibly hope for, than NOW!
I've not heard anything in the mainstream about Iraq or solders dying in over 3 weeks now... Seems the more important news has been what Dog said, and what Britney spends, oh, and if Heather Mills is crying again... The troops will come home, the war will whined down, and the Iraqis will govern themselves, but in the end, we will always have a presence over there. I think RP understands that, and even Hillary Scrotum Clinton understands that...
Thanks Grim. I've been very impressed with some of your views/points lately. I'd love to see some Republican candidates start using this as a positive exit strategy. I believe we can turn this success into a positive. I don't want our troops there any longer than necessary. In the last five years, I can think of no better time than now, to do so with our heads held high and knowing we've turned it over to Iraqis in the best scenario possible. I'd be a lot more inclined to support a "get them home now" candidate with this success. It's something I'm putting a LOT of thought into. We have success, no matter how large or small it may seem. That's the time to end a war. It's very thought provoking, which is why I want to see something solid about RP's position on this.
I'm really interested in seeing you prove this highly inaccurate statement. "democrats wanted/hoped for defeat in Iraq." So you understand the gross nature of your statement: Can you provide the You Tube link which shows those exact words from Hannity? Too Hard for you???.. Why don't you link to any respected poll,which proves your point, using those exact words. Good luck Neo-Con believer.
Try the non-mainstream media in America. Try public radio and television, try international news agencies. The Iraqis cannot govern themselves if we are there, any more than we could govern ourselves if the Chinese occupied Oregon. Iraq's enemies in the region will be America's enemies, not vice-versa. Any chance for diplomacy and normalization between Iraq and it's neighbors will have to be brokered through the White House. That is not independence or democracy in Iraq. As a taxpayer, I do not want my taxes to be used to bomb and rebuild foreign countries, I want them for bridges in Minnesota and levees in New Orleans. If I have to pay for defense, I want my soldiers at home defending the country. If I want to pay for bullets, I want them shot at criminals or invaders. If I want to pay for embassies, I want them in our ghettos and Indian reservations.
Did that.. They are all silent. Don't confuse individual states inability to govern themselves with the federal governments responsibilities. The fed should be protecting us and providing for a common defense.. The states and local governments are in place to provide for infrastructure... My guess is Minnesota could get a new billion dollar football stadium built and approved faster than a bridge... Same goes for NO.. Your solders are defending your country. They do it at home and abroad.. Protecting our shores starts by preempting attacks off shore.
Did that.. They are all silent. Don't confuse individual states inability to govern themselves with the federal governments responsibilities. The fed should be protecting us and providing for a common defense.. The states and local governments are in place to provide for infrastructure... My guess is Minnesota could get a new billion dollar football stadium built and approved faster than a bridge... Same goes for NO.. Your solders are defending your country. They do it at home and abroad.. Protecting our shores starts by preempting attacks off shore.
Well what happens when Iran attacks us citing that "The US owns nuclear weapons" as a reason? Thats justified right?
I'm not sure I understand your point... Can you come up with a valid argument and a reasonable comparison next time?