I think Graham is the one that doesn't get it. It's not about Obama. Obama isn't up on the podium because he thinks we need to withdraw from Iraq. He's on the podium because American's in general think we need to withdraw from Iraq and he happens to agree.

This is the kind of gross ignorance that just never ceases to amaze me. This is just more scare tactics by the republican party to sway people to voting for them by calling towards the American people's safety.

Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq. That's not important. We want to withdraw from Iraq. That's what matters, and you, sir, don't get that.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Sublime620]

Yes, Graham gets it entirely correct.

At the time of the surge, the choices were withdraw and leave the country in a civil war or sending more troops to stabilize the situation. Leaving Iraq in chaos and civil war would have destabilized the entire region, at which point Iran would have become the dominant player.

The surge stabilized the situation and bought more time for the Iraqi government to take over.

i think this surge is due to al queda changing tactics and eshifting focus to afghanistan & pakistan for attacks in said area, regrouping or they are moving into place for an attack on europe.

Originally posted by jamie83 Leaving Iraq in chaos and civil war would have destabilized the entire region, at which point Iran would have become the dominant player.

It is not about Iran (except for the Israelies and the neo-cons). Iran will become a dominant power anyways.

It is about what happens if those insurgents turn on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other oil producing countries. If Saudi comes under attack oil prices skyrocket and destabilize the world economy. I believe that was the original plan to begin with. Osama has always wanted to take out the Saudi rulers.

I was completely against the Iraq war from the start. I thought it was obviously justified by a pack of lies. However now that we have stirred up that hornets nest I do not believe we can just walk away and let the middle east burn. It may seem like the convenient solution for many Americans (many of whom thought it was a great idea to go in their to begin with, and now they are tired of it and want to just take our toys and go home) but that doesn't make it a good idea.



[edit on 4-9-2008 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by jamie83
Yes, Graham gets it entirely correct.

At the time of the surge, the choices were withdraw and leave the country in a civil war or sending more troops to stabilize the situation. Leaving Iraq in chaos and civil war would have destabilized the entire region, at which point Iran would have become the dominant player.

The surge stabilized the situation and bought more time for the Iraqi government to take over.

After pushing the goal post back for 5 years in Iraq, after invading under false pretenses in the first place, after "Mission Accomplished", after profiteering and over 500 billion dollars of our tax money down the drain, after every lie and justification we were led to believe was true, people still find a way to justify this mess.

There are two major things that have stemmed the tide of violence in Iraq. One was giving Sunni tribal leaders lots of weapons and tons of cash to fight Al Qaida in Iraq. That was not part of the surge. That started before the surge was even being talked about.

The other was Muqtada Al Sadr declaring a cease fire. That also was not part of the surge. In fact, for 9 months after the surge began, it didn't seem to be having any effect. Then Al Sadr declared a cease fire and suddenly sectarian violence in Iraq dropped off very quickly.

Of course, the right wingers quickly jumped to give credit to "the surge." But if that was the case, the surge should have either worked almost immediately or there should have been a gradual de-escalation of ther violence over a nine month period. It shouldn't have been a situation where the surge didn't seem to be working at all and suddenly nine months later out of nowhere it started working.

But what bothers me even more is how republicans are trying to characterize the whole war as being a great success because there is less violence now than there had been. I guess only having a couple dozen Americans killed every month rather than over 100 and having fewer terrorist attacks that kill scores of people demonstrates fantastic "success."

[edit on 5-9-2008 by matttheratt]

[edit on 5-9-2008 by matttheratt]

Originally posted by matttheratt
But what bothers me even more is how republicans are trying to characterize the whole war as being a great success because there is less violence now than there had been.

If the idiot neo-cons had bothered to READ history they would realize that history is repeating itself. The Brits had nearly the EXACT same situation when they "liberated" Iraq at the turn of the century. At first it seemed easy, then a few months after the war was "won" the insurgency started and they could NOT stop it. They even begged London for chemical weapons because towns like Fallujah were so vehement in their opposition that they thought wiping out the entire town was the only solution.

The Brits managed to suppress the violence for a while and slap a dictator on the situation, then they got OUT. That is exactly what the U.S. will probably do. Heck, at some point we probably won't even care if the dictator is all that friendly with Iran, as long as he can put a lid on the can of worms and we can get out we will probably be satisfied.