<p>Check the link. :)</p>
<p>I did and I see nothing that refutes conyat’s post.</p>
<p>A couple of points about the US economy.</p>
<p>It grew at an anemic 1.6% in 2005. By comparison, the PRC’s economy grew at 10% and has done so for the last few years.</p>
<p>The US national debt is propped up by massive investments by the PRC, Japan, India and others. Should the PRC decide to invest elsewhere, the effects on the US economy would be massive and possibly calamitous.</p>
<p>P2N, why don’t you check out what IAVA and the Disabled American Vets have to say about Republicans and their support of the military? Body armor (if you accept your links’ dubious premise that since the Republicans weren’t specifically spoonfed the information that body armor would be purchased with the appropriation, they weren’t really voting against it), is just one of many, many bills in question. Altogether I think 300 votes or so went into IAVA’s grading.</p>
<p>
conyat, Reagan won the Cold War 20 years ago when he walked out of the Reykjavik Summit when Gorbachev insisted we shut down SDI. The man had a spine. Reagan was willing to limit nukes, but not compromise our security. He never caved. Of course he sought diplomatic solutions. But our enemies knew he would protect the USA by whatever means necessary, if diplomacy failed. They could not dictate our foreign policy under Reagan. Today’s Islamic terrorists believe that we are too weak-willed to outlast their onslaught. Sadly, our new legislative branch will only encourage that line of thinking.</p>
<p>
Reagan won the Cold War because he was willing to do whatever it took. We had the economic resources and strength of will to continue SDI, and the Soviets knew that Reagan would never back down. Our economic might was overwhelming and the communist system couldn’t keep up. </p>
<p>For all of the complaints about Iraq, I never hear a good analysis of what’s wrong and what needs to be done to fix it. All I see is that the insurgency continues. To me, the solution is to send in enough troops, armaments, etc to get the job done as soon as possible. The only problem I see is that we’ve tried to do this on the cheap – it’s usually “pay now or pay later” as I see it. Withdrawing precipitously – which is what I believe the anti-war faction within the Democratic party wants – is the same as admitting defeat. Once we do that, we can never win again.</p>
<p>Different enemy altogether, SS. That’s the problem. You are part of the group that thinks you can fight this enemy with traditional firepower.</p>
<p>The past six years have proven, without a doubt, that we can’t.</p>
<p>Time for a new strategy. The Reagan strategy won’t work this time.</p>
<p>AM, even if we accept your point that the strategy of traditional firepower doesn’t work, what is the alternative? All I ever hear is that “stay the course” is a losing proposition. Has ANY Democrat proposed a better solution?</p>
<p>Other than “cut and run” of course.</p>
<p>
Never said that. But we have never come close to fighting in Iraq using all our traditional firepower resources, so we’ll now never know if that approach could have won, will we? The terrorists know that we will not bomb mosques or schools, so they oprerate from mosques and schools.</p>
<p>Nope, don’t think so, SJ. I think both sides of the aisle are woefully underprepared with solutions.</p>
<p>In the last analysis, a modified “cut and run” may be what is the most palatable to the American people though. I suspect that we will begin gradual withdrawals shortly.</p>
<p>SJM: “stay the course” is a slogan, not a strategy.</p>
<p>A strategy involves taking the puzzle pieces you have and assembling them into a picture you want. You say you want “a stable Iraq capable of self-defense.”
As a goal, that breaks down immediately at “a stable Iraq.” You can’t assemble the pieces there into a stable Iraq because there’s no center to hold. The pieces are unwilling to be joined with each other–physically, politically, militarily. What national forces there are are weak, corrupt, and riddled with informers for multiple factions. You’re trying to build a house with termite-infested wood. Saying “hammer faster, hammer longer, hammer harder” isn’t going to help any.</p>
<p>Well, just to be difficult, I’ll point out that Iraq was held together by a brutal tyrant – therefore, it is capable of some unity, even if only through fear. Why do you presume to suggest that it can’t be held together by a different goal – say, freedom and self-governance? Just because you hold the opinion that the various factions will never unify doesn’t make it a fact. You still haven’t suggested any solutions, by the way.</p>
<p>It now comes to light that golani may not be the best person to make comments about the United States of America. War is not the answer. The American people have spoken. We’ve decided not to stay the course.</p>
<p>It now comes to light that golani may not be the best person to make comments about the United States of America. War is not the answer. The American people have spoken. We’ve decided not to stay the course.</p>
<p>I’m not even very politcally informed, but even I know–as Bush refuses to know–that we have to involve Iraq’s neighbors in this. An unstable Iraq will affect them. They’ve been glad so far to let us do all the mixing-it-up with the terrorists–takes the burden off them. </p>
<p>Bush’s huge failure–and pundits already speculate that this administration will be the worst one in history in doing damage to our nation–is his refusal to “play with others.” To see the world as negotiation, instead of right or wrong. His and Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s utter inability to see another point of view has become a tragedy for Iraq and our nation. </p>
<p>I am constantly astonished to read people’s assumptions that all Arabs are alike! Many hate each other more than they hate us. (Kind of why I had to quit the Duke thread–too many references to “those blacks”–like all blacks think alike!)</p>
<p>Golani doesn’t belong anywhere in this conversation for several reasons. First of all, he’s a hypocrite. If he is so confident in the Iiraq War and believes we need troops there, he should go fight it . The army needs warm bodies. Let me forward your info. to a recruiter. But we all know that is not going to happen. He could care less about American troop deaths. He rubs his hands in glee when the amount of Iraqi deaths go up. His cabal has celebrations when the body counts grow. Its simple why too.</p>
<pre><code> He has no loyalty to America or American politics. He is Israeli and thinks about American foriegn policy from the mindset of how will this help Israel, not too far from the way Liebermann thinks actually. He’s not a senator of Rhode Island, but one from Tel Aviv. Golani is just (openly) anti-Arab and anti-Muslim and he and his “Stern Gang” wish to inflame these tensions because it draws attention away from the apartheid state that is as stable as a deck of cards.
</code></pre>
<p>“I’m not even very politcally informed”</p>
<p>who would have guessed?</p>
<p>Whoa Mister.</p>
<p>I have problems aplenty with Golani’s hawkish views, but let’s not go calling Israel an “apartheid state”, ok? </p>
<p>Also, Lieberman was elected senator of Connecticut, not Rhode Island, and his first loyalty (no matter how you feel about Lieberman) is not Israel, but the US.</p>
<p>This Protocols of Zion nonsense bothers me just as much as Golani’s tripe.</p>
<p>It’s funny how (in the world, not here) some of the same people insisting that Iraq must be a democracy, whether they want to be or not, have no problem with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its repressive policies. Indeed, they are willing to send American soldiers to die to defend Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>The bottom line is, five years ago, Iraq wasn’t a significant source of terrorist activity. Our intervention has made it so. How likely is it that we can keep doing the same thing over and over and suddenly get a different result?</p>
<p>Cut and run pretty much sums it up for these lefties - however at least now they are admitting it</p>