US to surrender

With their brave "nonbinding resolution" the dems have made clear their intention to give Iraq away and surrender to terror. An American defeat in Iraq has been inevitable,Bin Laden knew it from the start. The only question now is, How much of the aftermath can be blamed on Bush? Standby for that "resolution"

The entire blame rests with Bush. He is the one that decided to go to war, and he is the one who had supreme control over what the US military did in Iraq, what its objectives were, how it went about winning them, etc. The entire debacle will ultimately rest with Bush, not the congressmen who could see that we simply don't have the competence to stabilize iraq.

Nygdan
Bush is just the mouth piece the decisions are made in committees full of high ranking members of the armed forces.Bush may have input however the when and how is not his domain

Holy crap Reap... are you serious? Throughout his entire reign Bush has deep-sixed any 'advisor' that saw fit to dissent from his view. This whole debacle is the work of a handful of people and Mr. Bush is at the center of it. What has happened to this country at the hands of these individuals in the last several years is, in my view, unprecedented in its arrogance and sheer cavalier nature. Mr. Bush publicly swore an oath to the Constitution and the American people and irrespective of whatever 'advisors' HE saw fit to enlist the buck stops with HIM. And 'War on Terror"? What the hell does THAT have to do with Iraq and Bin Laden?

I don't believe for a minute that pulling out of Iraq is "surrendering to terrorism".
It would be simply getting us out of where we have no reason to be.
The American people would have a little taunting to deal with from the terrorists, but it's a small price to pay for what Bush "could" get us into.
Then we could focus our time and resources on fixing "us" like we should have instead of going over there.

If the USA just packs up and leaves, the jihadist will claim victory, claim that the USA is weak and deserving of death, giving those who live only for death and glory the go ahead with terrorism in this country.


Roper

But then we would be here, protecting our country here.
It would be easier to protect ourselves than to invade where we aren't even sure they are.

Hrm, if they were saying "pull out of Afghanistan" I might agree.

But they aren't, they are saying pull out of Iraq.

Are you missing the news going on about how al-Quada is re-emerging in Afghanistan and Pakistan as strong as ever?

Aren't they the ones that supposedly are responsible for 9/11?

Aren't they the terrorists the US declared a global war on?

I thought the US declared war on ALL terrorism?

I still think we should just stay here and fix us before we go out and try to fix the world.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The entire blame rests with Bush.

I suppose, like vietnam and the deaths of millions in the aftermath, absolutely no responsiblity lies with the leftist anti-american groups who spread propaganda which emboldened the enemy and got americans killed?

Well, there is plenty of blame to go around.

^

Well, if it weren't for Bush's decision to invade Iraq, there wouldn't BE ANY propaganda to spread now would there?

Look, I'm not your typical liberal bashing on our Chief-of-Staff... but President Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq. Most Americans agree with that and the Iraqis themselves should start taking a stronger step in defending their OWN COUNTRY.

I don't agree with what the Dems are doing, but there HAS to be a withdrawal sometime... with the amount of money being spent daily, the amount of lives lost daily; withdrawing slowly earlier isn't such a bad idea - it'd force the Iraqis to be serious about their own nation.

I would blame the Democrats a few Republicans that want to unfund the war and troops and bring everyone back ASAP.

United States will loses not because of President Bush who wants the Military to stay there till the job is done that meaning Iraqi Security can control the problems themselves.

It will rest on the shoulders of the House and Senate that try and bring them all home.


If Bush brought them home right now upon his order, he would be blamed for bringing them home to early and letting Iraq fall to terror once again.

What ever he does or doesnt do he gets blamed for, its just a Democrat agenda to besmirch the faces of Republicans!

I just heard a Democrat my aunt the other day!!!! I cant believe they are raising the state taxes here in PA

I was like its the Democrats that you helped vote into state office THERE AGENDA WAS TO LOSE THE WAR AND RAISE TAXES!!!

Originally posted by jtma508
Holy crap Reap... are you serious? Throughout his entire reign Bush has deep-sixed any 'advisor' that saw fit to dissent from his view. This whole debacle is the work of a handful of people and Mr. Bush is at the center of it. What has happened to this country at the hands of these individuals in the last several years is, in my view, unprecedented in its arrogance and sheer cavalier nature. Mr. Bush publicly swore an oath to the Constitution and the American people and irrespective of whatever 'advisors' HE saw fit to enlist the buck stops with HIM. And 'War on Terror"? What the hell does THAT have to do with Iraq and Bin Laden?

If you know Bush's history hes a complete mess up that daddy never thought would turn out right.. failed businesses, failed elections, finally became governor, didn't really change or do anything drastic.. did coke at yale, partied through college, was an alcoholic ....

It turned out he was a good yes man. The military and the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) laid out the plans, he said cool dude, went on camera, made an ass of himself but got their general point across. While he has all kinds of powers, people have to follow him first.. Cheney has a much bigger influence among the military and the MIC the Bush could ever dream of.

Originally posted by Reap
Bush may have input however the when and how is not his domain

He is supreme commander of all american military forces. Agreed, he is not a general, but that doesn't matter, HE is responsible for the success or failure of the military.
And regardless of the small scale strategy, he IS responsible for the large scale strategy. He has to know at least enough to be able to tell that his general who've been saying 'its going to magically get better by doing nothing' needed to at least be replaced, even if he himself couldn't think up a better alternative strategy to theirs. Just like with Lincoln, he didn't know how to win the civil war in terms of tactics, but he knew that when a general constantly failed, he needed to be changed.

So its his reponsibility.

xphilesphan
I suppose, like vietnam and the deaths of millions in the aftermath, absolutely no responsiblity lies with the leftist anti-american groups who spread propaganda which emboldened the enemy and got americans killed?

An entirely different situation. Rumsfeld was no kissinger, and Nixon, he went after the bastards, and at least he knew when to pull out.
SO no, its not 'the lefts' fault that Bush is an incomepent commander in cheif. Iraq isn't in chaos right now because of the left, its in chaos because the military hasn't been able to control the situation, and that is ultimately Bush's fault. He shoudl've seen, at least by the time that the mosque of the Golden Dome was bombed, that they'd need to 'change tactics'. But he didn't, because he's a nitwit, more concerned about how that'd look in terms of domestic politics than with winning the war.

K4rupt
but President Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq.

Invading IRaq wasn't the mistake, failing to secure the country was the mistake. Heck, even that wasn't the mistake, it was continuing to fail to secure the country that was.

THe military made a bold and risky decision in having a small invasion force, they figured it'd defeat the iraqi military easily (it did), and that it, being small, wouldn't have much of a 'footprint' on iraq, and the public wouldn't resent it as much and they wouldn't feel like they were being oppressed and under occupation (that didn't work). If it had worked, it'd've been a stroke of genius. BUt it didn't. So it should've been changed once it was obvious that it wasn't working.
They didn't change it. THATS where Bush's responsibility, as civilian Commander in Cheif of the military, lies.

koningkaos
United States will loses not because of President Bush who wants the Military to stay there till the job is done that meaning Iraqi Security can control the problems themselves.

It will rest on the shoulders of the House and Senate that try and bring them all home.

Thats simply nonsense. Iraq CAN NOT be controlled through american support of internal police forces, certainly not at this point. We need either a radically different plan, or we need to just leave. Beacuse without a radically different plan, all we are doing is loosing more soldiers and delaying the inevitable withdrawl, after which iraq will be ruled by whichever dictator can establish himself. And then we'll probably find ourselves back there again.

he would be blamed for bringing them home to early and letting Iraq fall to terror once again.

Iraw WILL 'fall to terror', and it IS bush's fault, because he was too incompetent to actually win the damned war. Its not the democrats fault for realizing this. With Bush, we're going to do to same old thing, and thats clearly never going to work there. Bush has the power to make a radically new strategy, but he's not, thats why we're failing to maintain security there, and thats why we're going to leave, not because of 'the left', but because bush has completely failed.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war against terrorists, Afghanistan did.

Iraq was just attempting to finish what his father started and making up lies to go to war.

There's no condition where a surrender would be considered. There's not an active declaration of war and there's no strong leader opposing us (just thousands of little warlords.)

Leaving, yes. Surrender, no. The endgame will be very much like Vietnam and if Iraq is lucky, they'll recover in 30 years. I'm thinking that is a bit too optomistic.

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
But then we would be here, protecting our country here.
It would be easier to protect ourselves than to invade where we aren't even sure they are.

Well, we have not had any attacks on US soil for 65 months and counting. At the same time, other nations have experienced attacks during the same period, like in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan in Russia, Mumbai, Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey. All but two of these countries have not had troops in Iraq. How do you explain that?

This whole issue was just petty politics. A non-binding resolution? what sort of crap is that?
Truth is, the majority of Dems voted for the war same as the Repugnicons, so to play a hard assed blame game, they would also have to admit that they too are responsible for the entire mess.

Non-binding? Makes one wonder just what we pay these bozos for

Disclaimer - we have a bunch of bozos running the UK as well so no replies about my Anti-american stance are required

Big business --> Think tanks --> Pentagon --> Bush.

Thats the trail to follow concerning Iraq.

Blaming Bush for Iraq is like busting someone for selling drugs on a street corner.
Sure you've stopped 1 person from selling drugs, but he will be quickly replaced, and the drug lord will be free to continue his business.

War is big business - President Bush is only one cog in the wheel.

Rockpuck - Do you really think GWB is a dumbass and with a little help of daddy and friends somehow just popped up as president? I'm a dumbass too and I think I'll have a shot at PM. Lets see how far I get.....

Secondly - If the coalition pulls out now..what will happen. Do you really think it will just get better?....that it all calms down becasue everyone loves peace?.....This is the very best case scenario.

Or what are the chances that with even increased lawessness and billions of potential oil revenue at stake there will be a fight. What's the chance that Shia, with Iran's help will go for complete control, Sunni's are completely disenfranchised and fight the Shia, Shia death squads ramp up and slaughter millions of Sunni's, Kurds try and get out. Turkey fights Kurds, Saudi Intervene and back Sunnis. Saudi and Iran fight by proxy (Like Lebanon) or worse. UN has to intervene to stop the bloodbath.....surprise, surprise we're all back there again! This time however with a much bigger mess and from a position of weakness because oil is $130 barrel. Those increased oil revenues make Russia, Iran and Saudi even stronger. The US trade deficit completely blows out, US Dollar falls through the floor, Interest payments on outstanding US bonds (of which there are trillions) skyrocket. US Taxes jump to pay interest to China/Japanese bondholders, inflation increases, mortgage rates triple, massive household default due to high debt ratios, big unemployment etc etc. Apart from the potential sunni massacre and refugee nightmare and economic chaos we have not even started with Salafi/Wahhabi extremists filled with Jihadi confidence really stepping up the fight with western influence on "Muslim Lands" and anything weak that can't be defended initiating civil wars and establishing Sharia law. Pakistan will fall to the Mullahs...and have Nukes. How safe will you feel then?.....Worst Case Scenario

Iraq is a skirmish in the grand scheme of things compared to the sacrifices made in WW1 and WW2.

Predicting the future is Folly. So the question is - What is the West, in particular the US, willing to pay to avoid the worst case....?? I'd say alot.