DEMOCRATS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOUR PULL OUT ?
Last night Democrat Presidential candidates debated in Charleston, SC basically over the same rhetoric that has been played in the political venue over and over again.
Last night though as far as debates go this one took on a little different twist. The public was invited through YouTube to ask the candidates questions and then those questions were in turn played to during the debate.
The overwhelming majority of questions were on Iraq which was no surprise but for the Dems the direction that most of those questions took was a surprise.
Rather than the questioning on Iraq following the Dem agenda of pulling out and leaving Iraq and the region to their own devises as they have been pushing for quite some time, the questions asked, "what happens after we leave?"
Never in their pull out agenda have the Dems proposed or even suggested what will take place after the US leaves Iraq. Their contention has actually been that we are the cause for the terror presence and the sectarian violence taking place and that if we pull out it will all go away and the Iraqis will have peace and together with their Muslim brothers sing the Islamic version of Kum Bah Yah.
It now seems that the American people who the Dems claim they speak for are concerned about the void that will be left if we were to leave. It would also seem that despite their claims and rhetoric to the contrary that the American people still see terrorism as a threat and that our presence actually is helping to prevent another attack here at home.
Especially now with the situation in the mountains of Pakistan and the obvious move by Al Qaeda with the recent attacks against the weak Musharraf government, that Al Qaeda is attempting to cause that government to collapse.
Then replace it with a Taliban type puppet fanatical Islam government that is controlled by Al Qaeda. Thus giving them a base of operations and an already OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR ARSENAL!
With this response in questioning and the concern expressed by the American people will the Dems finally wake up to the threat of terrorism and the necessity to fight fanatical Islam in their back yard instead of ours? Not likely.
This issue has become a political football for the Dems and they see it and their current strategy of oppose, obstruct, accuse and pull out as the measn of gaining the White House in 08 and a stronger hold on Congress.
Maybe this response in a Democrat debate format by the American people is beginning to show that this obstructionist and surrender strategy by Dems is staring to back fire on them.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:53 AM
6 Comments:
the failure of the Democrats and the liberal wing that has overrun them displays their lack of real foresight. If you look at the farmajority of liberal policy whether foriegn or domestic, it looks good now, but spoils like potatoe salad in the sun. From the perputual retardation of growth in black Americans with Affirmative Action, the failure of a solution in the Thrid Rail to childish belief of peacful coexistance in Iraq. The simple-minded logic is relative to a teenager
Here is what will happen - the continued bloodbath in the grab for power.
Al Qaeda will never take over the country. Al Qaeda is Sunni. Two thirds of the country is Shia. The Iranians would never allow a violent Al Qaeda government Hell bent on the destruction of Shia (almost as much as the destruction of Israel and the U.S.).
There would be a power struggle that would go on for years and eventually a pro-Iranian Shia theocracy would emerge.
The alternative is for the U.S. to continue to prop up a corrupt and largely incompetent Shia-dominated government. Several more thousand U.S. soldiers will die and tens of thousands more will be severely injured. Another half a trillion dollars will be borrowed from the Chinese so that we can fund this ridiculous occupation. Tens of thousands of civilians will die in the ongoing sectarian violence and in the end, there will be a pro-Iranian Shia theocracy.
Either way it sucks. The question is which option is in our national interest.
How many millions will die with al-queda in control of Iraq? You never specified numbers of deaths that will occur during the power struggle in option one. Are you suggesting that a power struggle between to radical theocracies would be bloodless?
The sight of millions of Iraqis conquering fear and braving death to cast their votes was an uplifting, awesome, and humbling event to most people. The Iraqis are responsible for the government of their choice. If the Iraqis can cast aside their skepticism in favor of hope, why can't more democrats do the same? The Iraqi voter is no different than an American voter. We sometimes vote for the wrong party -as evidenced by the 06 election cycle. If the current government in Iraq does not provide what it promised to its citizens - the politicians will be summarily voted out of power.
The war on terror is shorthand for the war against terror groups of international reach and those who support, harbor, train and supply them, which is a pain to type over and over. I do have to thank you, though, for admitting that the fight in Iraq is part of it. The fighting in Iraq has cost less than 2% of our GDP. This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP. WW2 was a whopping 130% of a year's GDP to see us to victory.
No one will die when al Qaeda controls Iraq. You know why? Because as I said, al Qaeda will never control Iraq. The majority Shia will NEVER, EVER let that happen.
That is like me saying how many Americans will die when Martians take over the U.S. It is just a patently foolish argument that is just the latest reason for us having to stay.
We are long past the point at which we can avoid a bloodbath - that is occuring right now. It is also long past the point at which a pro-American, Western-style democracy will sprout up. The fact that there was little to no plan for the post-Saddam vacuum allowed crime and lawlessness to overtake the country and give rise to the civil war. It also virtually ensured that there will be no Jeffersonian democracy. We and the Iraqis can thank W for his utter lack of competence on that point.
Whether we stay or go, thousands of Iraqis are going to die as a result of civil war. The only questions for American interests are (1) How many American soldiers will be killed and wounded? and (2) How much money do we want to borrow from the Chinese (and other nations) to pay for the occupation? The U.S. is not paying for it with tax money - taxpayers are just paying back the interest that we owe to our nation's creditors.
The "War on Terror" has no realistic objectives and will never end. It is a poorly defined, poorly planned, and poorly managed effort. Had we just declared war on bin Laden and actually taken care of him - you know the guy who was actually responsible for 9/11 - we wouldn't be fooling around in an expensive nation-building effort in the middle of a civil war. The latest NIE proves how ridiculously foolish invading Iraq was.
Public opinion is coming back on Iraq, thanks to the success of the surge.
We're going to win this one.
Thanks for this here...keep up your good work!
zzzzz2018.9.19
coach outlet online
moncler jackets
longchamp outlet
pandora outlet
coach outlet
nike shoes
soccer shoes
longchamp
moncler jackets
ralph lauren uk
Post a Comment
<< Home