qphotonyc wrote:
or 'stay and play'?

The Senate says "no", including most Democrats.

qphotonyc wrote:
i'm just riffing on the semantics of the debate is all.
'cut and run' has never been proposed by any dem, but every gop pol uses it as if they had. 'stay and play' is its counterpart- a derogatory characterization of the admin's position.
what's no good for the goose is no good for the gander.

What is, is. We did it in Viet Nam and some worry that we will do it again in Iraq.

Lens N Light wrote:

What is, is. We did it in Viet Nam and some worry that we will do it again in Iraq.

We also did it in Lebanon and Somalia.  That's all I can think of.   

Lens N Light wrote:

What is, is. We did it in Viet Nam and some worry that we will do it again in Iraq.

The difference being Viet Nam was not in an economically vital region to the US economy,
Yeah we worried about all those communist dominos falling,
But in 1975 south East Asia could sink into the ocean and economically it made no difference to the US.

There are those who will argue that if the Middle East falls into chaos due to our early departure it will have a significant effect on oil production and prices.
I tend to agree.
We won't cut and run because of it.

Chris Macan wrote:

The difference being Viet Nam was not in an economically vital region to the US economy,
Yeah we worried about all those communist dominos falling,
But in 1975 south East Asia could sink into the ocean and economically it made no difference to the US.

There are those who will argue that if the Middle East falls into chaos due to our early departure it will have a significant effect on oil production and prices.
I tend to agree.
We won't cut and run because of it.

So why did John Kerry introduce a resolution in the senate to accomplish just that very thing? (It was defeated.)

StudioMona wrote:
damn right it's about oil!!!   oooops, wrong thread hahahaha  rotflmao hi Vivus!!  *SM waves frantically to get Vivus' attention****

Hi, Mona!  Wear your helmet!   

Vivus Denuo wrote:

Hi, Mona!  Wear your helmet!   

while I give my valedictory speech ??? damn right I will LOL

qphotonyc wrote:
or 'stay and play'?

dunno about the rest of yah, but I be stayin' and I am gonna be playin' 

woop wooop wooop

edit: what are we playing first?

Lens N Light wrote:

So why did John Kerry introduce a resolution in the senate to accomplish just that very thing? (It was defeated.)

For political points.
It had little chance of going any where.

Lens N Light wrote:

So why did John Kerry introduce a resolution in the senate to accomplish just that very thing? (It was defeated.)

the tally was 60-39, only 11 votes shy of winning. not too shabby for the 1st round. let's see what happens in the next congress: 'stay and play' or 'cut and run'.
btw, here's a related piece on how out of touch certain pols are with the public on iraq:

Polls, Pundits and Pols
You'd never know it from some of the reporting and bloviating on the debate over an Iraq withdrawal, but all major polls show that the public favors withdrawals, with strong support for a timeline or total pullout within a year.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp … 1002726568

StudioMona wrote:

dunno about the rest of yah, but I be stayin' and I am gonna be playin' 

woop wooop wooop

edit: what are we playing first?

'kill or be killed'

Chris Macan wrote:
It would be foolish to cut and run at this juncture,
Or even to say when we plan to bolt by.
Good or bad we started this....
To walk away would only lead to further destabilization of the region.
And it's a region we need.

God bless the Oil Economy.

Sady, I agree with this.  It also frustrates me that we've been placed in the position.  It would appear Bush didn't learn a great deal of history (his major at Yale) while in college.  If the parallel between Iraq and Vietnam aren't clear, then I truly don't have much faith in our current president to really understand much about the world around him.  That said, I believe it's too late to cut-and-run or to set a time table.  It's also sad to know that by the time we do leave, another X number of Americans and Iraqi will be dead.  /tim

"If people want to get to know me better, they've got to know my parents and the values my parents instilled in me, and the fact that I was raised in West Texas, in the middle of the desert, a long way away from anywhere, hardly. There's a certain set of values you learn in that experience." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2006

Chris Macan wrote:

The difference being Viet Nam was not in an economically vital region to the US economy,
Yeah we worried about all those communist dominos falling,
But in 1975 south East Asia could sink into the ocean and economically it made no difference to the US.

There are those who will argue that if the Middle East falls into chaos due to our early departure it will have a significant effect on oil production and prices.
I tend to agree.
We won't cut and run because of it.

Of course, it could also be argued that despite the resumption of oil from Iraq, the price of oil has not decreased, it has increased.  True, the supply is constantly interrupted, but one would have expected some sort of downward bump when the supply was semi-restored.  It hasnt' occurred.  If so, then I'm not sure how eliminating Iraq's oil supply in the future because of choas would cause prices to increase.  /tim

Tim Baker wrote:

Of course, it could also be argued that despite the resumption of oil from Iraq, the price of oil has not decreased, it has increased.  True, the supply is constantly interrupted, but one would have expected some sort of downward bump when the supply was semi-restored.  It hasnt' occurred.  If so, then I'm not sure how eliminating Iraq's oil supply in the future because of choas would cause prices to increase.  /tim

The un-certinty in the region ensures that the futures market will not allow the price to decrease until it feels reasonably sure that the oil will still be flowing in 6 months or a year in the future. As long as we discuss leaving the area to chaos the prices will remain high even if the supply remains constant.

Tim Baker wrote:
Sady, I agree with this.  It also frustrates me that we've been placed in the position.  It would appear Bush didn't learn a great deal of history (his major at Yale) while in college.  If the parallel between Iraq and Vietnam aren't clear, then I truly don't have much faith in our current president to really understand much about the world around him.  That said, I believe it's too late to cut-and-run or to set a time table.  It's also sad to know that by the time we do leave, another X number of Americans and Iraqi will be dead.  /tim

First rule of history is to acknowledge one has made a mistake.

W & his cadre refuse to admit mistakes cause they view it as a sign of weakness. Tenet gets the medal of freedom. Wolfowitz gets nominated to become the World Bank President. Condi gets promoted to the State Department. Rummy not only gets his resignation denied twice, no less, but gets to keep is job but also gets a big pat on the bank.

IMHO, it takes a stronger man to admit ones mistakes than futilely stay w/ the status quo.

qphotonyc wrote:
looks like it's gonna be 'cut n run' after all...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 88,00.html

Peace deal offers Iraq insurgents an amnesty
From Ned Parker in Baghdad and Tom Baldwin

They've been flirting w/ this off & on for the last 2 years. I'll believe it when I see it happen.

qphotonyc wrote:

the tally was 60-39, only 11 votes shy of winning. not too shabby for the 1st round.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp … 1002726568

Actually it was the third round the first one only got 6 votes, the second 13 and finally cut and ran on third defeat in one day!!
True if they wait long enough it will be over.
BTW we have been in Germany of over 60 years, Korea for over 50 years and the post war headlines in the NYT were the same we won the war but were losing the peace. Casualties in Germany after the war were 3 times higher than in Iraq including the war and post war.
bob

Vivus Denuo wrote:
I don't understand or agree with this philosophy of "We started it, we have to stick with it," or "Good or bad, we must stay the course."  So, we have to stay there until the Sunnis and Shiites make peace?  How many more centuries will that take?  No!  We toppled Saddam and ousted his government.  Mission accomplished.  Let's go to Darfur or the Congo where we can do some freakin' good!

I suspect your logic would result in $9/Gallon gas.
Not the result we were hoping for when we hit Saddam.

The we started lets stick with it theory applies to stabalizing the country and setting up a functioning government. We don't have to stay till every one loves each other just till a system of law is in place to reduce the frequency of killings and keep the peace.

If the mission had been simply to remove Saddam there were simpler cheaper ways to accomplish that.

Robert Helm wrote:
Actually it was the third round the first one only got 6 votes, the second 13 and finally cut and ran on third defeat in one day!!

it only demonstrates that stay and play is in its last throes, to borrow a phrase from cheney. the iraqi insurgents have made a u.s.troop withdrawl timetable the prereq to ending the violence, our amb is working on a deal that includes one, and most americans support it. shows how out of touch one-party rule has left d.c.
only the gop congress and bush admin favor open ended commitment.

"Do you think the U.S. should or should not set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq?"

6/14-19/06

Should            52%

Should Not      42%

"Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal."

6/14-15/06

Timetable       53%

No Timetable    41%

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.  June 14-19, 2006. N=1,501 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Vivus Denuo wrote:
Mission accomplished.  Let's go to Darfur or the Congo where we can do some freakin' good!

on to miami!

qphotonyc wrote:

the tally was 60-39, only 11 votes shy of winning. not too shabby for the 1st round. let's see what happens in the next congress: 'stay and play' or 'cut and run'.
btw, here's a related piece on how out of touch certain pols are with the public on iraq:

Polls, Pundits and Pols
You'd never know it from some of the reporting and bloviating on the debate over an Iraq withdrawal, but all major polls show that the public favors withdrawals, with strong support for a timeline or total pullout within a year.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp … 1002726568

No, Kerry's entry was defeated 86-13. It was a later introduced resolution that was defeated 60-39. It proposed a phased withdrawal to begine late this year.

Lens N Light wrote:
No, Kerry's entry was defeated 86-13. It was a later introduced resolution that was defeated 60-39. It proposed a phased withdrawal to begine late this year.

I believe it was a "redeployment"...bringing certain units home or shifting them over the ONLY nation-state to attack us (Afghanistan).

Chris Macan wrote:

I suspect your logic would result in $9/Gallon gas.
Not the result we were hoping for when we hit Saddam.

The we started lets stick with it theory applies to stabalizing the country and setting up a functioning government. We don't have to stay till every one loves each other just till a system of law is in place to reduce the frequency of killings and keep the peace.

If the mission had been simply to remove Saddam there were simpler cheaper ways to accomplish that.

As for the result we were hoping for, that had to do with getting weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam Hussein's hands, wasn't it?  That's what we were told again and again.  Nothing about the price of gas.

I'm glad you agree we don't have to stay until everyone loves everyone else!

qphotonyc wrote:

on to miami!

LOL!

stavrophotography wrote:

Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq edit

Possible estimates on the total number of people killed in the invasion and occupation of Iraq vary widely. All estimates below are as of 11 June 2006, and include both the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the following Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006.
Iraqi Deaths     30,000-100,000 mostly civilians (The lower figure was given by G. W. Bush in a public speech on December 12, 2005[2]; the higher one comes from the September 2004 Lancet study). Lancet study.
U.S. armed forces     2,500 total deaths, 18,356 combat wounded (8,436 evacuated), plus an unknown number of non-combat injuries.     [3], [4]
Armed forces of other coalition countries     227 (113 British, 32 Italian, 18 Ukrainian, 17 Polish, 13 Bulgarian, 11 Spanish, 4 Danes, 3 Slovaks, 2 Australians, 2 Dutch, 2 Estonians, 2 Romanians, 2 Thai, 1 Salvadoran, 1 Fijian, 1 Hungarian, 1 Kazakh, 1 Latvian.)     [5], [6]
Non-Iraqi civilians     See Multinational_force_in_Iraq for civilian, journalist and contractor deaths for countries involved in the coalition. Here is an incomplete list of non-Coalition civilian casualties:

Colombia: 1; Croatia: 2; Egypt: 5; Finland: 2; France: 3; Guam: 1; Germany: 1; India: 2; Indonesia: 4; Jordan: 5; Macedonia: 3; Nepal: 19; Sweden: 1; Pakistan: 6; Russia: 4 (in addition to a diplomat killed in June 2006); South Africa: 18; Turkey: 34

In total, at least 568 non-Iraqi individuals have been killed since the 2003 invasion (311 contractors, 87 journalists, 20 media support workers, and 150 aid workers).

30,000 dead Iraqis?  It's OK, we're bringing them freedom.

Vivus Denuo wrote:
30,000 dead Iraqis?  It's OK, we're bringing them freedom.

Button up your overcoat,
When the WMDs are free,
Take good care of yourself,
You belong to me!
Shuffle off this mortal coil
Get shot at twice by three,
Oh, take good care of yourself,
You belong to me!
Be careful crossing streets,
When you're on a spree,
Wear your safety underwear
When you hide behind a tree,
Oh, take good care of yourself,
You belong to me!