I hope Rummy reads this

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would you possibly talk about the Nixon administration when talking about Vietnam? Why wouldn't you talk about the Kennedy or Johnson administrations. Nixon wasn't the one who put us in Vietnam. This proves my point about what I said before. You're just looking for an excuse to bash the republicans. You associate the republicans more with Vietnam than the Democrats. It's good that Nixon was President during part of Vietnam so that you can blame him for it.

I'll bet that if Clinton was President right now, you wouldn't be saying a word. Do you think that any of these poeple like Martin Sheen or Barbara Steisand would be complaining right now if Clinton was in office right now. If you do think so, then you are very naive. None of thse people were complaing when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Bosnia.

By the way, way befor 9/11 even happened, Kerry was on the show Face the Nation saying that we should consider going into Iraq on our own. So if you voted for Kerry, how can you complain about Iraq? He wanted to go in there even before Bush.

Rupert,
Not sure why I'm trying to explain this. I'll just say that I lived through it.
Nixon had a "plan" to end the conflict in Viet Nam. It was called "Vietnamization". It didn't work.
While he was playing the charade to American voters in 1968, and got himself elected because of belief that his strategy would be successful, two of my friends died there and one came back crippled for the rest of his life.
I have no love for Clinton, Streisand, or Sheen. As I've said to you before, "Don't paint me!"
So, back to the question I asked, "What strategy would you suggest to disengage US involvement?", or..."If you think we should remain, explain."

btw, since you mentioned Kerry, I'll quote him, "How will you explain to the last man to die there that he has died for a mistake?"

It comes down to this...
1) Should we stay or should we go?
2) If stay...why?
3) If go...how?

Don't paint me. Answer me.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Not sure why I'm trying to explain this. I'll just say that I lived through it.
Nixon had a "plan" to end the conflict in Viet Nam. It was called "Vietnamization". It didn't work.
While he was playing the charade to American voters in 1968, and got himself elected because of belief that his strategy would be successful, two of my friends died there and one came back crippled for the rest of his life.
I have no love for Clinton, Streisand, or Sheen. As I've said to you before, "Don't paint me!"
So, back to the question I asked, "What strategy would you suggest to disengage US involvement?", or..."If you think we should remain, explain."

btw, since you mentioned Kerry, I'll quote him, "How will you explain to the last man to die there that he has died for a mistake?"

It comes down to this...
1) Should we stay or should we go?
2) If stay...why?
3) If go...how?

Don't paint me. Answer me.
DTS

I think it's clearly too soon to leave. I don't know exactly how long we should stay for because I don't know excatly how far along we are in getting the Iraqi army and police fully trained. Once they are fully trained, I think we should leave. We can't stay forever. We should try to get out of there within a year or two.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it's clearly too soon to leave. I don't know exactly how long we should stay for because I don't know excatly how far along we are in getting the Iraqi army and police fully trained. Once they are fully trained, I think we should leave. We can't stay forever. We should try to get out of there within a year or two.

I certainly hope that strategy works, but I don't think it will.
The bulk of the army is Sunni, as is the police force. That's with US training. The dissertion rate for Shias is growing each day.
This mess won't last another year.
As I stated above, the status quo can not continue, especially with the Nov. elections coming.
Seems to me, from what I've heard, Republican candidates are distancing themselves from the administration. They don't want to run on that record.
Dems are not much better, but at least they don't have to run on policies that were decided by those that held all three branches of the federal government for the past six years.
btw...I've now stated that I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm registered Independent.
So,
Here it is in "poker terms"...
All in or... fold.
This "pot" is huge.
The whole world is watching how this hand plays out.
It's getting very close to the time where the cards are laid on the table.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I certainly hope that strategy works, but I don't think it will.
The bulk of the army is Sunni, as is the police force. That's with US training. The dissertion rate for Shias is growing each day.
This mess won't last another year.
As I stated above, the status quo can not continue, especially with the Nov. elections coming.
Seems to me, from what I've heard, Republican candidates are distancing themselves from the administration. They don't want to run on that record.
Dems are not much better, but at least they don't have to run on policies that were decided by those that held all three branches of the federal government for the past six years.
btw...I've now stated that I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm registered Independent.
So,
Here it is in "poker terms"...
All in or... fold.
This "pot" is huge.
The whole world is watching how this hand plays out.
It's getting very close to the time where the cards are laid on the table.
DTS

The majority of the army and police are Shiites not Sunnis. That is what has caused a lot of problems. When Saddam was in power, the Sunnis controlled everything. The army and police were Sunnis. When Saddam got booted, they lost thir jobs and power. They aren't very happy that they've lost their power. They want it back. That's what a lot of the fighting is about.