Skip to comments.Reid Forces Senate All-Nighter on Iraq
Posted on 07/16/2007 7:05:31 PM PDT by Anita1
U.S. Senate Democrats, hoping to raise pressure on President George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans to pull troops from Iraq, have scheduled an around-the-clock war debate starting on Tuesday.
"I think that the American people deserve what we're doing and that is focusing attention every minute of the day on what is going wrong in Iraq," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters on Monday in unveiling the rare marathon work day.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I miss Rick - and Jim Talent. Two terrible losses.
...”Byrd’s been dead for a while. They just been pulling a Weekend at Bernie’s for the last few years.”
The ones who stayed home to "send a message" did exactly that.
SOB’s ought to be working as hard to secure our borders instead of surrendering to our sworn enemy.
Think again, Harry.
Just listened to ABC Radio news, and ABC and Dems are working together: Durbin says "Not a stunt, military not sleeping." and ABC then plays audio of soldier complaining about lack of sleep. They should just rename it "American Broadcasting and Democratic Party Operative Company".
I love it when our elected leaders stab our soldiers in the back.......:(
All Reid is gaining is reinforcement of the idea Democrats would rather lose this war.
Thats going to be a huge issue in the 2008 campaign, and it will revive completely the viewpoint of a McGovern Democratic Party.
Sucks for the troops seeing this, but politically this is going to be a huge boost for the GOP come election time.
Once again the world is reminded Democrats cannot be trusted on America’s national defense issues.
Somewhere, bin Laden is smiling about Reid’s gambit. Way to go Harry....(eyes rolling)
Byrd’s been dead for a while.
Could we get a page to check his pulse to see if he has one.
Proof that Dimocrat Party power is more important than innocent lives and American best interest. They are going for broke because they KNOW that if a Dim becomes president before a troop withdrawal, they can't pull out of Iraq because the catastrophe that would follow would be on THEIR heads.
If they succeed in a pullout by April they can waive it has a victory for Dims and blame the resulting massacre on Pres Bush and the GOP.
We should withdraw from Iraq through Tehran. Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the 15 rules for understanding the Middle East
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
The more frantic the Dems become on getting our troops out of Iraq, the closer I know we are to victory. The Dems sense of urgency shows how much they are invested in our defeat. Stunt or not, they are undermining our troops’ morale, negating their sacrifice, and sending the wrong message to the Iraqi people and the enemy. This is TREASON writ large.
Well put, SB. It’s almost as if they have no other issue... maybe those empty theaters for “Sicko” turned into a cold glass of water in their faces, and they realized they don’t have an issue to ride next year...
Did U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd get a cot tonight?
7/17/07 | me
Posted on 07/17/2007 10:11:14 PM EDT by mdittmar
AN INTERESTING ANALOGY........
WW II - Analogy
During World War II — the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces. Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work. They gave the script to their famous broadcaster “Tokyo Rose” and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI’s morale.
What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:
1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.
Does this sound familiar?
Hillary, Harry, John, Teddy, Nancy, and etc. have picked up on the same message and are broadcasting it on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., to our nation’s citizens and our troops?
The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. Come to think of it, didn’t Tokyo Rose tell the troops she was on their side, too?