junior's stumbling speech

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]374155[/snapback]</div>

What's your plan?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]374149[/snapback]</div>

As stated, i have no plan. nor do i intend to have one. please read my posts in their entirety before demanding something from me. I have yet to argue against ANY plan proposed for the war in Iraq - i argue against those who put down a plan without suggesting an alternative.

As for WWII, we've had that discussion previously on here (yes, you and me talking about it)... the situation with Germany was entirely different than the one with Iraq, and really doesn't apply here (for one thing, we joined it to help our allies, who were being attacked, which is not the case here.

And as for Vietnam, yes we were attacked, in the Gulf of Tonkin on 2 August 1964. The second claimed attack on the 4th was falsified, which is where the similarities lie. HOWEVER, when we began open involvement in the war, there was already a war present, we didn't start it - it was started in 1959, and we didn't send ANY combat troops until 1965. So it also doesn't really apply to the Iraq situation, as a war was already present.

Feel free to debate those statements all you want - they're widely accepted and proven FACTS, not opinion, that clearly differentiate the start of the various wars in question.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 12:33 PM) [snapback]374149[/snapback]</div>

No, they didn't attack us. But they did declare war on us first. Our declaration of war was in response to theirs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]374127[/snapback]</div>

You wouldn't like my solution B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 11 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]374159[/snapback]</div>

why do you ask a question in response to a question. i will show you mine if you show me yours first :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 11 2007, 12:53 PM) [snapback]374169[/snapback]</div>

Try me - perhaps we are thinking alike?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 11 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]374165[/snapback]</div>

You should find that US forces were in Nam way before the GOT event. We were NOT attacked by the NoViet's.

I seem to remember us joining our allies that were attacked by Iraq too?

By the way, we agree.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 11 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]374175[/snapback]</div>

What would be your plan for the current middle east situation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 01:05 PM) [snapback]374172[/snapback]</div>

The civil war is now going to play itself out no matter what we do at this point. No happy ending, no rainbows. That's a tragedy for the Iraqi people, and the real legacy of Bush.

I've told you my plan, and discussed the downside already, at least from a U.S. perspective, see my earlier post on Iraqi oil bourse and Iraq allying with Iran. Of course, I think those "downsides" would happen when and if there were a free Iraq anyway, which is another reason that whatever we are putting in charge there is not going to be "democracy." But perhaps there is a plan that will make this all end nicely, and not be the huge clusterphuck that smart people like Scott Ritter (and even Colin Powell to a certain extent -- remember the Powell Doctrine on use of the military?) tried to warn us about. I'm willing to listen. So whip it out and show me what you got.

An aside to the audience:Yes, I know Saddam wasn't behind 911, and didn't have WMDs. I'm just in the habit of saying that since so many people I talk to assume that it's true, and it saves time in the discussion, and doesn't really change the point of bringing the troops home.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]374172[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps but I presume everyone believes that there is no easy solution and that it's Bush's problem because he's the one who created it. No excuses, no passing the buck, no blaming the democrats, it's all George's folly. That said, something dramatic has to be done. The question is that the American people have to decide what we really want to be: a war-mongering empire bent on conquering other countries just as the Romans did or what we've tried to be for quite some time which is a nation of peace that keeps the peace through diplomacy and calm, rational thinking. The beacon for the rest of the world to follow. What bedevils the rest of the world is in not recognizing that the United States has two personalities and which personality is dominant depends on the election every four years. I said at the beginning that I thought that Bush invading Iraq was a bad idea but if he did it, he had to do it decisively. He didn't do that and really pretty well mucked it up. It's pretty clear that in November 2010 there will be a democrat elected to the White House unless the republicans can get a candidate in to the running that is completely removed from the current administration. That's pretty tricky but a lot of them are already distancing themselves from W so who knows what November 2010 will bring? If the democrats are put in to the White House and are further put in power in the houses, the U.S. will have a new dominant personality and that could make things worse. Until the American people realize that we have to make the decision what we want to be, there can be no real solution. What I believe you won't like is what dramatic action we would have to take if and when we choose.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 11 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]374186[/snapback]</div>

If it were a civil war the kurds would be involved. still, give me a short synopsis of your plan and your greatest fears of its downside risk.

Your support of US Troops is quite disingenuous - you put them in greater harm by calling for their withdrawl by encouraging our enemies to do them greater harm.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 11 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]374201[/snapback]</div>

You mean 2008, right? Or was there something else in that speech last night that I missed?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 11 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]374201[/snapback]</div>

The only quesiton I have is how many more innocent [non-military] American's citizens will die above the 3,000 on 9/11 before the rest of us wake up?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 11 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]374205[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, yeah, 2008

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]374206[/snapback]</div>

Wake up to what? To the realization that invading a country that had nothing to do with 911 and destroying the government there is going to create a breeding ground for terrorism and a generation or more of Iraqis, who hated us before, but now have a real grudge? I agree, everybody wake up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]374206[/snapback]</div>

Do you think that W's speech last night, his accepting that he's made mistakes and that they're all his fault is a prelude to resigning from office?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]374203[/snapback]</div>

Disingenuous, you're projecting. What's your plan?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 11 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]374216[/snapback]</div>

He didn't accept that he's made mistakes. He said,

He's almost worse than Clinton on the parsing.

If he truly says he made mistakes, *then* I'd be looking for a resignation, but I took the speech, in spite of the hostage-forced-to-give-a-statement-while-corncobbed delivery, as "I decided this, and I'm gonna keep doing it my way, no matter what ISG or anyone else says."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]374203[/snapback]</div>

That's short-sighted. It is a civil war. Even your administration FINALLY copped to it. The Kurds are doing their own thing, hanging out up north.

For a plan? How about partitioning the country? I still think it's a better solution. Three parts: Kurdistan (made up of all the current folk: the only place where everyone "gets along," regardless of religion), a Shi'a state, and a Sunni state. Let them each run their part they way they choose, as long as they don't infringe on each other.

Oh, and btw, how 'bout the fact that "democracies" that we've helped initiate in the middle east has actually elected terrorists/US haters into power?

Face it, D Berman, MD (not to be confused with a dog), Saddam ran his country better than we can, or better than the current government in Iraq. Yes, he was a sadistic POS. Yes, he shouldn't have been a dick to the UN. Yes, he most certainly shouldn't have invaded Kuwait (which he paid for handsomely). However, I have to wonder if Dubya's experiment for democracy is a failure because it just flat-out can't work in that country. There was NO justification for this war. There is still no justification for this war. There will be no justification for this war. Don't confuse Afghanistan and Iraq, doc: they're two separate countries, just in case you weren't aware. OBL was not welcome in Iraq, just to let you know that, too. I suspect we made him happy by taking Saddam out of the picture.

It wouldn't surprise me if the democracy we've so heavily paid a price for in Iraq lands Al Qaeda in elected offices, similar to Hamas now. And that scares the hell out of me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 11 2007, 02:01 PM) [snapback]374224[/snapback]</div>

Any good politician knows how to 'parse'. But, and I didn't ask you by the way, isn't he leaning in the direction of resigning?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 11 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]374259[/snapback]</div>

Nothing I've seen or heard makes me think that, although looking at him last night, anything's possible. Two words to contemplate: President Cheney. Feel better?