Who do you agree with more about Iraq?

[nini2287]

Jones was the Congressman who originally coined the term 'freedom fries' and at first was a staunch advocate of war in Iraq.  However since then he has had a change of heart and advocates for the Bush administration to set a timetable for the removal of troops.

I have always opposed the War in Iraq on grounds that the weapons inspectors found no WMDs and that there was a lack of international cooperation.  However, I feel that now that we are in Iraq our troops must stay as long as necessary to secure the country as well as possibly to prevent Civil War or the return of Saddamites.

So who do you agree with more?

[DanielX]

Oddly enough, you. I'm sort-of convinced Bush got the wrong Ira on this one (ie - we should've gone after Iran first).  But since we're in Iraq, we'd better fix it up or else everyone and his brother will be convinced the US is a paper tiger.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oddly enough, you. I'm sort-of convinced Bush got the wrong Ira on this one (ie - we should've gone after Iran first).  But since we're in Iraq, we'd better fix it up or else everyone and his brother will be convinced the US is a paper tiger.

We don't attack countries that really have WMD.

[??????????]

Oddly enough, you. I'm sort-of convinced Bush got the wrong Ira on this one (ie - we should've gone after Iran first).  But since we're in Iraq, we'd better fix it up or else everyone and his brother will be convinced the US is a paper tiger.

We don't attack countries that really have WMD.

Think of the broader strategy and it all falls into place. Keep repeating. Iraq is just a stepping stone.....look at the map. What two countries with US troops currently in them border a MAJOR enemy of the US?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So who do you agree with more?

You

[The Duke]

"You pressed you referring to me.  The correct answer is you."

-Smokey the Bear interactive statue

I more agree with you as your view seems the more serious one that actually considers consequences instead of exploiting things for expediency.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oddly enough, you. I'm sort-of convinced Bush got the wrong Ira on this one (ie - we should've gone after Iran first).  But since we're in Iraq, we'd better fix it up or else everyone and his brother will be convinced the US is a paper tiger.

We don't attack countries that really have WMD.

Think of the broader strategy and it all falls into place. Keep repeating. Iraq is just a stepping stone.....look at the map. What two countries with US troops currently in them border a MAJOR enemy of the US?

Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan both border China, but I don't think that invading China will convince them to revalue the yuan.

[minionofmidas]

Oddly enough, you. I'm sort-of convinced Bush got the wrong Ira on this one (ie - we should've gone after Iran first).  But since we're in Iraq, we'd better fix it up or else everyone and his brother will be convinced the US is a paper tiger.

We don't attack countries that really have WMD.

Think of the broader strategy and it all falls into place. Keep repeating. Iraq is just a stepping stone.....look at the map. What two countries with US troops currently in them border a MAJOR enemy of the US?

Georgia and Alabama.

[Angel of Death]

I have always opposed the War in Iraq on grounds that the weapons inspectors found no WMDs and that there was a lack of international cooperation.  However, I feel that now that we are in Iraq our troops must stay as long as necessary to secure the country as well as possibly to prevent Civil War or the return of Saddamites.

Are you saying that you have absolutely no defeat conditions? Or are you just deliberately keeping them secret?

[MODU]

I agree with "MODU" more:  We were right to go there, and we should stay till Iraq can take care of her own.    And fortunately, it looks like they are getting closer to that end with each day they successfully carry out a mission without US support.

[Democratic Hawk]

Jones was the Congressman who originally coined the term 'freedom fries' and at first was a staunch advocate of war in Iraq.  However since then he has had a change of heart and advocates for the Bush administration to set a timetable for the removal of troops.

I have always opposed the War in Iraq on grounds that the weapons inspectors found no WMDs and that there was a lack of international cooperation.  However, I feel that now that we are in Iraq our troops must stay as long as necessary to secure the country as well as possibly to prevent Civil War or the return of Saddamites.

So who do you agree with more?

You - but I must admit I was always in favour of the war in Iraq

Dave

[David S]

Oddly enough, you. I'm sort-of convinced Bush got the wrong Ira on this one (ie - we should've gone after Iran first).  But since we're in Iraq, we'd better fix it up or else everyone and his brother will be convinced the US is a paper tiger.

Same argument was used in Vietnam. 60,000 American lives later we decided to get out. The American people got tired of seeing their kids come home in body bags.

How can you conclude the US is a paper tiger? Let's look at the facts;
We destroyed the Iraqi military in a matter of weeks.
We destroyed many buildings and much of their infrastructure.
We killed thousands of Iraqis
We overthrew their government and put their leader in jail. Our soldiers were lounging around Saddams pool while he sat in jail.

I would simply remove our troops from Iraq and leave one message; "next time its no more mister nice guy."

[angus]

Jones was the Congressman who originally coined the term 'freedom fries' and at first was a staunch advocate of war in Iraq.  However since then he has had a change of heart and advocates for the Bush administration to set a timetable for the removal of troops.

I have always opposed the War in Iraq on grounds that the weapons inspectors found no WMDs and that there was a lack of international cooperation.  However, I feel that now that we are in Iraq our troops must stay as long as necessary to secure the country as well as possibly to prevent Civil War or the return of Saddamites.

So who do you agree with more?

I call it the Carol Moseley Braun position, as she was the only candidate in that lousy lot of seven that were presented to the hapless democrats last time 'round that I agreed with.  I, too, was very much against spending several hundred billion dollars in this way (not at all a conservative thing to do, regardless of what terms Howard "temper tantrum" Dean uses to label it.)  But, like Ms. Braun said in the debates, "We American's don't cut and run.  We broke it, so we fix it."  Not that I often agree with the bitch, but on this particular issue, she's dead right.

[WalterMitty]

walter jones is quite insane.  i find it odd that the democrats love him so much now.  the man is really a jesus freak and totally unfit for office.

i said that back when he was a democrat in the state legislature, and i say that now.

[TX_1824]

I was originally against the war. We should have focused more on Afghanistan. This is one of the major disagreements I have with the administration. Now that we are there we have to finish the job. Leaving now would be a victory for radical Islam and that is just not acceptable. A timetable is a bad idea as well.

[Cashcow]

I was originally against the war. We should have focused more on Afghanistan. This is one of the major disagreements I have with the administration. Now that we are there we have to finish the job. Leaving now would a victory for radical Islam and that is just not acceptable. A timetable is a bad idea as well.

[Beet]

Jones was the Congressman who originally coined the term 'freedom fries' and at first was a staunch advocate of war in Iraq.  However since then he has had a change of heart and advocates for the Bush administration to set a timetable for the removal of troops.

I have always opposed the War in Iraq on grounds that the weapons inspectors found no WMDs and that there was a lack of international cooperation.  However, I feel that now that we are in Iraq our troops must stay as long as necessary to secure the country as well as possibly to prevent Civil War or the return of Saddamites.

So who do you agree with more?

Definitely you.

[Joe Republic]

walter jones is quite insane.  i find it odd that the democrats love him so much now.  the man is really a jesus freak and totally unfit for office.

i said that back when he was a democrat in the state legislature, and i say that now.

Oddly enough, considering Walter Mitty's record as a terrible judge of character, I'll have to agree with him here.  Jones really is an awful politician.  He was a jackass when he supported the war ("freedom fries"; I mean come on!), and he's a jackass now he's against it.

Anyway...

I was originally against the war. We should have focused more on Afghanistan. This is one of the major disagreements I have with the administration. Now that we are there we have to finish the job. Leaving now would a victory for radical Islam and that is just not acceptable. A timetable is a bad idea as well.

.... this is almost exactly my position too.  Which means I voted Option 2.

[nini2287]

I have always opposed the War in Iraq on grounds that the weapons inspectors found no WMDs and that there was a lack of international cooperation.  However, I feel that now that we are in Iraq our troops must stay as long as necessary to secure the country as well as possibly to prevent Civil War or the return of Saddamites.

Are you saying that you have absolutely no defeat conditions? Or are you just deliberately keeping them secret?

Provided that the insurgents don't gain an atomic weapon and threaten nuke Israel or if they have the capabilities the U.S., I really don't think we should concede defeat at all.

[Smash255]

I agree more with yours, but 100% agree with Feingold's stance.  We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, & that  while we shouldn't set a time table we should set some sort of outline off what specifically needs to be done, what needs to be accomplished in Iraq in order for our troops to come home instead off a blanket statement like the administration makes.  Be more specific rather than geralizations

"There are not just two alternatives -- stay there forever and cut and run," he said. "There's a rational alternative -- that's where we need presidential leadership -- how long will this last, what makes sense, what needs to be done in what order and when can the troops come home? That's how we can tell the world we're not trying to occupy Iraq.

"The president has it completely turned around."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/bush.speech/index.html