Republicans: Democrats don't have a plan. Republican Plan: Stay the course!

But is stay the course really a plan?

No, in reality I think we all know it means: Let's just sit there while we figure out what to do next...... Republicans tout that as if it's a plan just so they can say the Democrats don't have one but it really isn't.

Here's what I think will happen if Democrats regain power. They will begin a slow troop withdrawal and inform the wannabe government in Iraq that it's now or never. Step up! They will use diplomacy and bring in other countries to assist by using the U.N. for what it's for. Build a U.N. peace keeping force. Because be honest, that's what the mission is right now. We're not fighting terrorism we're over there trying to keep the peace in a country that's in-fighting while it's impotent government stands by scared to leave the green zone.

Simply keeping our troops in harms way with no plan out of pure stubborness and political ambitions is not a plan.

You see the Republicans can't change course. Simply because they've campaigned on stay the course so long to do anything else would be to admit they were wrong for following the president. The Democrats have already come to terms with that and the ones that voted for the war are readily admitting it was a mistake (or at least stating they did it because of what was put before them). The first step in reform is to admit there is a problem.

Republicans are weak and they know it. The American people are finally starting to realize the difference between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. While the real terrorist nations arm themselves with nuclear weapons we sit by and play diplomacy and threaten one of the richest oil nations with sanctions...

If the democrats don't regain power this November I agree with a lot of analysts that they need to take a look at their party and what it really is.

 

What is the democrat plan for anything? Does anyone have a clue? they complain about everything, but never offer a solution. Complaining is all well and good; but if they can't offer anything better ... even if they win in November, it'll be very short lived.

A UN peacekeeping force? Have those ever been effective? Come on now. Pulling out of Iraq is a huge mistake; and its really the administration's fault for not framing this well enough and making it a viable alternative.

 

All you just did was prove my point. Republicans don't have a plan. Their plan is to keep saying the Democrats don't have a plan

You just did it again.

OK let's play your game. Say the Dems don't have a plan (which they do, the plan is to begin troop withdrawals slowly NOW and show the world and the Iraqi government that we are serious about leaving. The Dems just don't know how to get that across yet...) But say they don't.... Do you think stay the course is a plan or cloaked attempt at stalling because they don't have a plan?

Ahh the argument I was waiting for.

A) A UN peacekeeping force to me means less U.S. lives on the ground and less U.S. dollars being spent every month.

B) Yes I know, it's painful. Allowing a peacekeeping force in the region would be the final admission that we aren't fighting terror in Iraq.

C) It's time for us to admit we can't clean up this mess that we created alone.

D) A U.S. lead peacekeeping force would fair no worse than the current situation.

Actually you're wrong. I think everyone (on both sides) has come to realize the mess this administration got us into isn't going to allow us to just leave tomorrow.

You see conservatives try to act as if they are the only ones that know pulling out of Iraq tomorrow is a bad idea and anyone who is not a conservative thinks the opposite. They like to paint ANYONE who says ANYTHING about pulling out as someone who wants to pull out all troops tomorrow.

You mean it's the administrations fault for not having a plan besides stay the course?

 

Let's assume this is the democrat plan (even though its far more likely that they'd push for an immediate withdrawal, which is articulated by a number of them). What does this mean? Well, it gives the terrorists over there a timetable when we are leaving. So all they have to do is bide their time; and when we are gone, they can take over at their leisure. Yeah; that's a good situation. Too many (including you apparently) seem to think that the people killing Iraqi's and our soldiers are on some noble mission; when in fact, all they are are terrorists shipped in from Iran, Syria and other countries.

Its hard to imagine you seriously believe that the fighting over there is not related to terrorism. Us pulling out is only a victory for the extreme islamists. Is a victory for them, in the long run, good for us? No, it is not. So why do you want us to pull out? Pulling out now (even by substituting an ineffectual UN force) is just asking for another islamic group to take power over there. The UN force would not be able to stop it; nor would it probably try to.

So, this is a cost saving measure; not a long term solution to the problem? Save a few bucks now; but at the cost of what? Short term solutions are what gets us into these fixes.

Yes I agree. It'd be an admission that we've given up. Which is what the terrorists want and that'd stengthen their hand.

I know. Look at the constraints already put upon the UN force in Lebanon. They cannot disarm a terrorist group, engage a terrorist group or do anything (essentially at all). That's not what would happen at all in Iraq is it?

 

Heres a video for ya:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/02/video-fahrenheit-911-in-the-code-of-silence/

Just watch the last 30 seconds or so and see if you do not believe that these are terrorists over there. Watch the whole thing - you might see a few of the points you bring up in there

 

Ok now you're just spouting classic conservative catch phrases alah Karl Rove. Why do I say that? Because you keep on trying to say we're fighting terrorists over there when we're fighting sectarian violence and a burgeoning civil war. Nice try though.

A slow withdrawal is not a timetable. It also doesn't mean leave the country empty and undefended. A slow withdrawal means get off your ass Iraqi government! It also means a U.N. peacekeeping force in there to assist them. What's that? The U.N. peacekeeping force is not as effective as a U.S. precense? I shall repeat... Get off your ass Iraqi government! Yes this war is slow and tough but it doesn't have to be this tough for U.S. forces and tax payers. It should be on the Iraqi government.

No us going there and ruining world opinion of us and losing the repect and backing we had from the world was a victory for Islamic extremists.

So what's your plan? Stay the course? What's your guarantee that if there even ever is a stable democracy in Iraq that once we leave the same thing won't happen?

You have to seperate this thing in your mind partner. There is a civil war brewing which is the main battle going on in Iraq. The handful of "terrorists" left in Iraq or only there to fight us! Just because we are there! We probably have more terrorists integrating into our society right now than are on the ground in Iraq. You've got to stop trying to convinve the people that the war in Iraq is the same thing as the war on terror. They're not buying it.

So stay the course or die is the Republican plan. That's politics not truth. It's up to the Iraqi government to decide how bad they want to adapt this government we've presented them with.... ok we invaded their country, overthrew their government and told them what to do but... same difference I guess. Either way whether you try to put the burden solely on our shoulders or a UN forces' it's still misplacing responsibility.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/0...de-of-silence/

No islamic terrorists over there. Indeed.

Ok, no timetable then. So, in essence, this has already been set. Bush said we'd leave when the job is done. If you are not in favor of a timetable. What's the problem? If you are not looking for a time frame, no time frame has been set. In other words - a timetable is EXACTLY what you are looking for.

Yes, the Iraqi government should do more (of course); but its not capable of it. You cannot just whip up an army and police force and expect it to be totally effective right away. It takes time; and backing. The US presence leds immediate credibility to the government over there and deters (some) anti-democratic people from being more violent. You want to replace us with the UN? Again, when has the UN been effective at keeping the peace anywhere? Serbia? Lebanon? Anywhere. Gimme an example of success.

The government is doing more all the time; they are taking more security responsibility (and taking a lot more casualties) - but again; you cannot expect them to come up and do everything at once. If you say they aren't doing enough now; you want to entrust them with doing everything? Seems you want to set them up for failure.

No, if it were my plan. I wouldn't be fighting it like this at all. I think lots of things were planned poorly. Setting up a democracy happened too fast. The military is being way too kind and pussy-footing around exterminating the terrorists over there. These idiot defensive wars piss me off. But what they are doing, is what they are doing.

And retreating, tail between our legs, isn't? Please. Watch the video posted - anti-iraq quotes are being used as propoganda for the enemy over there. they use past failures to drum up support and keep fighting.

 

hmm...let me take a stab at this. Firstly, remember I'm not a Repub, nor a god-forsaken democrat.

On this particular issue, Dems do have a mixed view of 'plans'...some more rational than others. Unlike most people here, I actually watch them in session sometimes. Do I agree with the overall perspective of the Dems on this?

No.

I do think the Repubs and the Dems need to have a more cohesive plan, but not as demonstrated. Simply put, they should have goals written down (helped by generals on the field), which demonstrate the necessary steps in which the Iraqiis are qualified for such a huge transfer of power. More or less, I'm sure most people assert that this should be done over a general amount of time.

This plan should be reviewed monthly for progress, and the general should be vigorously questioned as to lack progress...or commended for real movement. Privately the general should have some sort of pullout according to that plan, which should only be shared with certain officials...which should make sense and be adaptable if situations change.
-----------------
As for mostly any other issue, dems don't really have plans. For 25 years they voted primarily on a moratorium drilling offshore. Till that suspension of drilling, oil had no real history of huge drops in production. Even though our demand was rising we essentially went from producing around 10 million barrels a days to nearly a flat 4 million, and this highly corresponds with the moratorium.

The dems say they want to invest in a different industry of energy...well, fine, but what do we do in the mean time? Are we willing to be wholly dependent on foreign sources of energy? Dems are completely impractical on this issue.
-------
While I don't like the Repubs goals on SS, I find the dems do nothing attitude silly. SS and medicare will die (although medicare will be first). While the repubs do give a plan I don't agree with, the dems are fail to admit that SS and medicare will fail or will be political unviable in the near future...so they decidely come-up with next to nothing in a plan.

Watch CSpan everyones and a while, and you'll find both parties wrong at times...but you'll find the Dems humerous.

 

you know whats funny is most repubs who are up for election are talking about withdrawling troops and they have pretty much the same plan as democrats

This is what they sound like

Democrat : We need to get out of Iraq so we should begin a phased withdrawl of troops

Republican : We need to stay the course but we should begin a phased withdrawl of troops

Just out of curosity can any of you guys supply a link to a where an actually democrat , an actual public servent not a blogger, says we should just immediately pull out of Iraq?

I think the ugly truth is the only way to control Iraq is to act like Saddam, we could stop all the fighting tommorrow, if we just started mass executing people they would stop fighting

 

Well, to some level I think you're right. Some of these individuals will never get along, although I wouldn't say it's all of them.

 

No way. According to republicans democracy will just settle in if we stay long enough and everyone will be skipping in the streets and having smores parties on weekends.

 

and democrats believe that if we just up and leave it will happen. terrorists will take their toys and go home and the democracy flourish peacibly.

oh wait. what terrorists?

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/01/video-american-muslim-rappers-salute-iraqi-jihadis/

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/02/video-fahrenheit-911-in-the-code-of-silence/

 

You think showing videos of U.S. forces being attacked are proof that terrorists are in Iraq today? Lemme break it down for you.

A) There are no dates

B) The first video actually shows Saddam's statue being pulled down indicating it was from 3 years ago when we invaded.

If you're going to make a fool of yourself try not to use propoganda links. They make it worse.

Or are you from the GTech school of post links and hope they don't check em out?

 

I know. It;s like US humvees have been in Iraq for 20 years now and have been blown up by IED's for that long too It doesn't happen just about every other day. Being purposefully obtuse or defensive of the terrorists, one of the two.

But what terrorists. I know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/04/ixnewstop.html

That's because the first video is a propoganda piece showing support for Iraqi terrorists. Seems to have worked on someone too .

 

No but they were doing it 3 years ago which is where the video is from. Sorry I was just pointing out a fact there tonto. Defensive of terrorists... lol if only I were one of those silly people and you could write me off so easily. Alas I'm not. Try a different approach.

Ok maybe I am obtuse. Were you actually making a point here?

 

lame comment^^^^^

 

Someone must have blogged that republicans believe this, so it must have been true to say it.

 

the people fighting in Iraq are Iraqis

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041115-1602.html

Thye are just locals, not Al Queda

 

Is that why the #2 guy in Al qaeda was just arrested in Iraq?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060903/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

The same group (al qaeda) is blamed for much of the continued sectarian violence there. Al qaeda (and Iran and Syria) are encouraging the sectarian violence, trying to do what everyone seems to want (force us to pull out) so a real civil war CAN start. Handing them the victory they want. Some people are only too eager to play into their hands.

 

they just took the name to sound tough, they just took the name "al queda in Iraq" when we got there

then the military drums up "Al queda" because people who don't actually READ the news think they are actually involved with Bin Laden

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html