Feel free to offer some solutions

Bullshit on the court positions. The left-wingers stalled that process for six years. They can go fuck themselves. As far as anything else, get Bush out of the way, let the liberals take control of everything, and two years will be all the pain we will endure.

 

Lyman, they really don't know. Now they have the power, it will be amusing to find out what that is. Other than Pelosi and the Deanites, who will order us to drop our weapons and run to the Kuwaiti border.

 

Is there a solution somewhere in there?

 

Viable exit strategy? Here's one:

a) Set a deadline. 1 year, 2 years, 5 years. Anything. Set one, and stick to it.

b) Send *more* troops in. Seriously. ... Send more troops in, initially. Concentrate our troops, and make it the highest priority to train the Iraqis, with a deadline looming over their heads. "We are leaving at this particular time (gradually or suddenly, that can be debated), and we are sticking to it. We have gotten rid of Saddam, now it's up to you. And we won't interfere. This is your country -- it's your problem."

c) Go after bin Laden. For real this time. ... If we're going to keep our Middle Eastern military presence as large as it is, we need to be more serious about terrorists, not just toppling governments that are ambivalent to and/or support them. ... Yay, we got the Taliban. Yay, we got Saddam. Well, that didn't change anything. Governments can always be replaced. (Hell, we're the best at it. Domestic and abroad.) Governments can be controlled. ...

We started the current military action as a response to 9/11. I supported that action. America supported that action. ... But BushCo has turned this into a "1984"-style never-ending war. Well, I'm not in favor of that. ... Go get bin Laden. Go get those responsible for 9/11. Saddam was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. ...

That's a start.

 

See above.

 

I agree with buckdub about more troops. If you're going to fight a war, prosecute it aggressively or don't even bother.

 

Prevent the rolling back of civil liberties, nuke the Patriot Act, make our country less dependent on foreign oil, make our country far more with it on environmental issues (all of the election talk has overwhelmed recent dire ecological and economic consequences of global climate change),

Most importantly, BE MORE HONEST AND UP FRONT WITH OUR COUNTRY ABOUT ITS ISSUES! Govern the right way, not with he-said, she-said bullshit. Sadly, I'm not sure the Democrats are any better equipped for that than the GOP is.

The Democrats have a REAL opportunity in this election and the next to take the patriotic, flag-waving mantle away from the GOP. The GOP -- mainly Bush -- have governed through the auspicies of fear since 9/11. Fear terrorism! Fear Al-Qaida! Watch us roll back civil liberties all Americans hold dear, so we can protect you! Because you should be scared!

Fuck that. I'm an American and I hold my freedoms dear. I hope -- stupidly I presume, since I've heard not one Democrat actually use this line of thinking -- that we can stop cowering like a bunch of babies on issues like terrorism, etc., and live our lives proudly as Americans. With the civil liberties we hold dear, without the government getting in the way of any of us expressing our liberties. I'm tired of Republicans trying to scare people into living in an increasing controlling society. That's not the country any of us love.

The GOP governs via fear, the Democrats have an opportunity to govern without it, while still being pragmatic enough to protect us if need be.

If they can pull it off, THAT will represent major progress. Pragmatically and philosophically.

 

Yeah Dyepack. The Democrats wanted control, let them have it. They think this is a mandate for ALL their agendas. After two years of Pelosi poltics, the Middle East may be a disaster and gas may be at $8 bucks a gallon, but the populace will extinguish the liberals. This is like one small burp before its utter end.

 

Bubbler wants to get in and out of an airport quick. Like, Europe didn't have these issues before 9/11.

The only freedoms Bush wanted to take away are those that guilty people worry about losing.

 

I'm sorry, what? That would be different than how things are now? Please come back and tell me it would. I could use a good chuckle.

 

I really don't think you can set a firm exit date. As much as I hate to admit it, the Bushies are probably right about this. You set that date, it'll get out. And all those insurgents and newly-created terrorists have a date to shoot for. In addition, if something goes wrong and you have to move the date, you've just committed political suicide.

Speaking of political suicide, I don't think the country will tolerate sending in more troops. Maybe they would and I'm just underestimating them, but this has stretched on for so long and there are so many strong feelings about this war that I just don't think you can do it now. Plus, I'm not so sure it would actually solve the problems. We're not outmanned now, not by any stretch. Our problem in Iraq is the same as it was in Vietnam -- we're restricted by the rules of combat, the enemy is not. Had we sent in more troops early on, it would've made a huge difference. Now, though, I'm not so sure.

Also, even if we dump a million soldiers in Iraq, lock down every city and put an end to all violence, come exit day, civil war is still going to break out. There's no respect for the government in place and there never will be. This shit is gonna have to be worked out among the people there. We're just delaying the inevitable.

 

I agree that more troops would make a difference in Iraq, but that would be an extraordinarily hard sell in this climate. Not to mention the fact that if this election really was a mandate on the war, you're basically spitting in the face of the electorate that put you in office.

Want something more palatable? Pull out of Iraq within a year and devote the resources we now have there to Afghanistan. While we've all been watching Iraq disintegrate, the Taliban has enjoyed a resurgence in Afghanistan.

I'm not even sure the electorate would accept that, but it's better than trying to prop up a dead war. Nixon tried that in Vietnam and we all know how that worked out.

Then again, a big part of me thinks our ship has sailed in Afghanistan too. Historically, no one has ever successfully controlled it -- our presence there is becoming like the Brits in the 1830s, the only reason we have a friendly government there is because we prop it up, any popular support is waning by the day. It's only a matter of time (or past time) before we're fucked there too.