Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

Exactly. I find it hard to believe that in only 9 areas was progress unsatisfactory.

Because you have been there right? I mean you not just giving an opinion upon which you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about right? It is fine to be against the war. I understand that argument very well. But don't make an argument that it isn't going well when you are simply basing that upon not liking the war. You haven't the first clue whether 9 of 16 areas are going well or not based on any type of real evidence do you?

#1- Fox news has never said that if you disagree with the War in Iraq that you are against the troops.
#2- Fox news is one of the best non biased news sources.
Should we blame NBC news for everything that democrats say or think?

Just for the record, I am assuming you were using that as sarcasm, but I had to comment.
I always find it funny how the left bash Fox, Rush and the other news sources but they defend CNN, ABC, CBS, and the other news which lean sto the left. The one thing about Rush and the other talk shows is that they tell you up front that they lean to the right. The other news sources hide behind the "I'm a reporter and just report the news" then add their left leaning stance on the subject. I myself listen to all kinds of news form Fox, NPR, national news and many other sources. The left on the other hand calls Rush, Hanaty, and other right leaning names as they cannot stand them but then they preach free speech.

i don't think I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. the decision to go to Iraq has already been made. now that the united states is footing the bill, alone, it has every right to dictate( yes, i said dictate) the actions of the Iraqi government. to take a vacation now is just plain stupid. and to be in charge, like we are, and let it happen without any backlash, is crazy. this war was disaster from its conception, and it keeps getting worse. to worry about pissing someone off now is like closing the barn door, after.....
We don't agree on very much but with whats going on over there and the importance to get Iraq back on their feet their 3 week vaction (or what ever time they took off) was ill timed if we are hearing the whole story. There could have been oher reasons that they have taken the time off which we do not know about.

I kinda like Bob Feller's idea (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/indians/2007-07-25-Feller_N.htm"):
For example, on a trip to the White House with other Hall of Famers last year, he told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice what had to be done in the Iraq war: He thought 450,000 troops should go take over the oil and establish a curfew in Iraq.

"I told her, 'I've never seen a war won by talking,' " Feller says.

Personally, I think Biden and Thompson have the right idea diplomatically, with a little Edwards thrown in. No reason to leave any permanent bases in Iraq when we have them within striking distance elsewhere.

Because you have been there right? I mean you not just giving an opinion upon which you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about right? It is fine to be against the war. I understand that argument very well. But don't make an argument that it isn't going well when you are simply basing that upon not liking the war. You haven't the first clue whether 9 of 16 areas are going well or not based on any type of real evidence do you?

Uh-huh. So you must have been in Iraq to be so sure that I'm wrong and things are going well in the remaining 7 areas of progress, right?

If things are going so great, why can't we leave?

I kinda like Bob Feller's idea (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/indians/2007-07-25-Feller_N.htm"):


Personally, I think Biden and Thompson have the right idea diplomatically, with a little Edwards thrown in. No reason to leave any permanent bases in Iraq when we have them within striking distance elsewhere.

The more I hear what Biden has to say overall, the more I like him. Too bad he's got no shot really. His chance passed 20 years ago I suppose after those plagiarism charges. Maybe he's got a chance to be a VP.

Uh-huh. So you must have been in Iraq to be so sure that I'm wrong and things are going well in the remaining 7 areas of progress, right?

If things are going so great, why can't we leave?
The difference is that I have a report that tells me that 7 of 16 are going well. You simply have your skepticism to disbelieve that. Skepticism is usually very affected by emotion. I am simply pointing out that you say you "find it hard to believe" yet you gave no resaon why and I suspect it is because you don't really have any concrete reasons.

And where did I say it was going great? Good old fashioned misdirection with that comment if you ask me. Don't have a good argument, then just project an opinion into someone else's argument to weaken it I guess.

Does it bother you that Patraeus has very little experience in combat?

No. Some of our nation's best military leaders were ones who never saw combat (e.g., Gen. George Marshall - the guy who pretty much won WWII). I know that Iraq war opponents jump to the immediate conclusion that everything ever affiliated with Bush is pure-evil, corrupt, etc., but I have never heard anyone criticize Petraeus.

In that regard, it would be nice to see Iraq war opponents or Iraq war supporters not be so one-sided. I know the war is a polarizing issue, but that doesn't make it a black and white issue. Not everything is "bad" or "good", there is some room for "I don't knows" or "undecideds."

That leads me to my final point. I was less than thrilled when the repubs were trying to use 9/11 and terror threats to their political ends in 2004. They repeatedly tried to remind people that we were at war and that AQ was looking to kill Americans. It was simply disgusting. Equally disgusting, however, is how the Dems are doing everything in their power to paint as bleak a picture as possible of the war in Iraq. Obviously, they know that Bush's legacy, the public's happiness with repubs (via their connection with Bush), and the fate of the 2008 election lies in Iraq. Accordingly, they paint as bleak of a picture as possible of what is going on in Iraq. I know they rightly criticized Bush for using war as a political tool, but they are doing the same thing but no one (yet) has recognized that they are hypocrites. Both parties use American blood as a political tool.

No. Some of our nation's best military leaders were ones who never saw combat (e.g., Gen. George Marshall - the guy who pretty much won WWII). I know you, as an Iraq war opponent, jump to the immediate conclusion that everything ever affiliated with Bush is pure-evil, corrupt, etc., but other than you, I have never heard anyone criticize him.

In that regard, it would be nice to see Iraq war opponents or Iraq war supporters not be so one-sided. I know the war is a polarizing issue, but that doesn't make it a black and white issue. Not everything is "bad" or "good", there is some room for "I don't knows" or "undecideds."

SGG I agree. I would hope that none of our Generals have combat experience. That would be best since it means we haven't been at war.

Both parties use American blood as a political tool.

They use everything as a political tool and that is a huge reason our system is totally broke.