Republican Debate

**bawbie** · 11-29-2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Incyte

Did you know 10s of thousands of refugees are returning to Iraq each week? What does that tell you about the situation on the ground?

Did you know the violence in Basra went down 95% when the British pulled all their troops out of town?

What does that tell you about the situation on the ground?

**Incyte** · 11-29-2007, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

So, you're building a bridge, this bridge has cost upwards of $500 billion, cost thousands of people their lives, taken years to get to a point where it begins to resemble a bridge. I'm guessing you wouldn't have a chance to finish as you'd be fired, which is what should have happend 3 years ago. If your project was that poorly planned, poorly implemented and costly I doubt you'd have the option to finish, someone else would come in and decided to adapt, revise or scrap the current plan, I say we scrap it.

Someone was fired. That person was Rumsfeld. It took way too long for that too happen.

After Rumsfeld left we completely shifted our strategy in Iraq. It has worked. Now we're close to finishing the job.

**cmoneyr** · 11-29-2007, 12:52 PM

Now we're close to finishing the job.

What do you consider "close"? 13 years?

**Incyte** · 11-29-2007, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by bawbie

Did you know the violence in Basra went down 95% when the British pulled all their troops out of town?

What does that tell you about the situation on the ground?

I think you shouldn't believe statisitcs you find on the Daily Kos.

**Stormin** · 11-29-2007, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Incyte

Someone was fired. That person was Rumsfeld. It took way too long for that too happen.

After Rumsfeld left we completely shifted our strategy in Iraq. It has worked. Now we're close to finishing the job.

Sounds great. Now that we are that close to finishing the job, when do you think we will have the troops back home?

**Incyte** · 11-29-2007, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

What do you consider "close"? 13 years?

I used 13 years more to prove a point and wasn't arguing that we should be there for a literal 13 years.

As I stated before, I think we can start reducing our troop presence immediately. Actually we already have.

Petreus stated we should see a significant draw down this Spring. Let's start there and hope we can continue.

**cycloneworld** · 11-29-2007, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

I basically stopped reading your post after I realised you were a *****. How about you show me some evidence to the contrary, and if so then I will gladly agree with you. If they are capable of running their country as you say then let them run it, why do we have to stay there and support them?

Since you seem to like to throw out statements that have no factual backing....who is running Iraq right now? You said that we were, but I'd like to know who in the US is doing that?

There is a government setup that is made up of Iraqi citizens with no Americans. City's now have mayors and city coucil members...no Americans are part of that. Are we assisting with the setup? Most definitely. Are we running the country like you falsely claim? No.

**bawbie** · 11-29-2007, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Incyte

I think you shouldn't believe statisitcs you find on the Daily Kos.

You're funny!

But that is from an AP article.

Where is your stat on the rush of refuges coming back from?

**cmoneyr** · 11-29-2007, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Incyte

I think you shouldn't believe statisitcs you find on the Daily Kos.

Probably shouldn't believe CNN too probably?

**cycloneworld** · 11-29-2007, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

I agree that one "shouldn't take the easy way out. However, I am convinced that staying in Iraq is a fatally flawed policy. It is time for the U.S government to come to the same realization.

I respect that position 100%. Do you propose immediate withdrawl then?

**cmoneyr** · 11-29-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Since you seem to like to throw out statements that have no factual backing....who is running Iraq right now? You said that we were, but I'd like to know who in the US is doing that?

There is a government setup that is made up of Iraqi citizens with no Americans. City's now have mayors and city coucil members...no Americans are part of that. Are we assisting with the setup? Most definitely. Are we running the country like you falsely claim? No.

Sounds as though by your account they are completely self-sufficient then? Great, time to go home boys. We wanted a self-sufficient Iraqi government, we got city mayors, town councils, governments with no American members...why exactly are you saying we should stay again?

**cycloneworld** · 11-29-2007, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

Sounds as though by your account they are completely self-sufficient then? Great, time to go home boys. We wanted a self-sufficient Iraqi government, we got city mayors, town councils, governments with no American members...why exactly are you saying we should stay again?

Security mainly. And rebuilding of infrastructure we bombed the **** out of.

**Incyte** · 11-29-2007, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

Probably shouldn't believe CNN too probably?

The problem in Basra had very little to do with sectarian violence. And yes, it's a good policy not to believe CNN.

Also, note the Brits didn't leave completely but kept a presence at the airport. That's far different from withdrawing from the country completely.

**alaskaguy** · 11-29-2007, 01:10 PM

Who owns Iraq?

I assert that at the current time frame that the U.S. "owns" Iraq.

The U.S. pays hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the favors of locals and to reconstruct the country.

In addition, the U.S. military polices Iraq.

The Iraqi public overwhelming requests that the US military withdraw from their country. When the US government doesn't repect the Iraqi requests to end the occupation, it is rather clear that it is the US that owns Iraq.