John wrote: > Why can't the current politicians pull a Richard Nixon > and declare an honorable victory in Iraq and get the > hell outa there?! > Because to do so would result in the deaths of millions of people? Just like what happened when the Dems voted to cut off funds to the Vietnam government. How are you going to withdraw all the thousands and thousands of Iraqis who voted to form a new democratic government?
> It is now time for the Iraqi's to determine their own > destiny. > How can they do that without the support of free nations like the U.S. and Britain? > They can either unite or break up their country into > sectarian groups. > So, you'd support ethnic cleansing. > The US made a mistake going in there in the first place. > You can blame that on the Dems - they could have prevented the mistake in the first place. But 98% of the Dems voted to authorize the president to use force to oust Saddam. It's too late to change your mind at this point and admit defeat. They should have thought about that a lot sooner. In my opinion, anyone who made a mistake and voted to go to war and now says it was a mistake would not get my vote. If they were wrong then, what makes you think they are right now to pull out? > The decision to enter into war was based on spurious facts > and an overzealous president Bush. > That would be President Bush to you, Sir. But I don't think that Secretary Powell or Senator Clinton presented any "spurious facts" when they made their case to go to war. Neither did John Kerry or John Edwards - they mave have been mistaken, but I think they made an honest mistake. Certainly they were overzealous, but so were 98% of all the other congressional leaders. > If he had thought out the consequences of his decision, he > would have selected another alternative. > Maybe so. > This entire political scenario in Iraq may not be due to > the people themselves. It can be blamed on the British > who artificially created the country of Iraq for its own > political gain and control over the oil fields in the Middle > East. > You might want to check your history books on this one - Iraq has been a country since the time of Babylon. > The current events in Iraq clearly shows that the people in > the country are irreconciably disparate. > You may want to check your demographics on this one too - most of the people living in Iraq are Arabs. Apparently there are some Kurds and Turkment as well, and one or two Semitics. > They have nothing in common to form a unified government. > They have already formed a unified government. > It appears that the only way to keep a sense of unity is > to have a strong authoritarian leader like Saddam Hussein. > No, that's the problem - for years the Dems supported the dictators like Saddam, instead of standing up to them. Bill Clinton tried to get rid of Saddam - he bombed a soap factory and killed a camel, but he couldn't even shoot straight, exept we can assume he shot straight at Monica. But even if he had deposed Saddam, what was he thinking when he bombed Iraq - there were no al Qaeda in Iraq! > In short, President Bush has opened a pandora's box. Now, > he is stuck in trying to find a solution and will regretably > not complete the job as he exits out of office. > Well, I predict that the U.S. will be in the Middle East for the next fifty years, just like the U.S. has been in Germany, Japan, and Korea for the past fifty years. My gripe is that the U.S. should have reinstated the draft and sent in over a million troops to the Middle East. That's the way to win a war, overwhelming force. But unfortunately, the Dems were not very smart - they thought they could win the war with a few thousand troops - they made a real big mistake. Have the Dems ever won a war?
