Buchanan's suggestions for debate questions

[iamthewalrus109]

Pat Buchanan: "If U.S. commanders in Iraq tell you we need 50,000 more troops to win the war and prevent the loss of Iraq, would you send them?"

"Is this is a winnable war, if our objective remains a pro-Western democratic Iraq? And how long will that take and what will be the price?"

Nothing could get things going in the proceedings then these types of questions.

Buchanan in his WND article today makes an apt point,

"Should Kerry be elected, he will find himself in an LBJ-1968 situation, commander in chief of an army fighting a war his own party no longer wishes to fight and wants to end. For Kerry to soldier on, he would have to go to Congress and recruit Speaker Hastert, Tom Delay and Bill Frist to defeat an anti-war coalition led by Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy, backed by Howard Dean and Jesse Jackson.

As for President Bush, given the solid support he has from inside his party, he would have more time to fight the war and exit with honor. But support for present levels of fighting will not long endure without signs of either imminent victory or early withdrawal."

He's almost right here, if people want to see an winable end to this conflict, I think GWB has the upper hand here. Iraq will have to be handled properly in the debates by John Kerry, or he is ultimately doomed.

-Walrus

[Jacquelita]

As for President Bush, given the solid support he has from inside his party, he would have more time to fight the war and exit with honor.

Walrus - do you really believe it is possible to exit with honor at this point? How does spending more time, taking more lives and extending a terrible situation translate into an honorable exit?

[tw]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

As for President Bush, given the solid support he has from inside his party, he would have more time to fight the war and exit with honor. But support for present levels of fighting will not long endure without signs of either imminent victory or early withdrawal."

Your logic demonstrates how Americans responded previously under Nixon. By far the largest American casulties occured during Nixon as he bled this nation economically, politically, socially, militarily, and honorably. Well at least we bleed honorably while sacrificing our best people.

War without purpose is historically a most foolish enterprize. Just like in Vietnam, no strategic objective nor an exit strategy exists. Most ironic is the reason for this war - a 'war on terrorism'? How often can he promote this lie and still have public support? Go right back to 1968+ when another president lied repeatedly while nation supported him. Did this nation learn a lesson? 30 years later, a whole new generation again believes 'might makes right'. Still a nation believes the world must be wrong and only the US president could be right. Facts, numbers, objectives, 'no exit strategy', and the lessons from history again become irrelevant.

Real honor begins in first admitting the mistake. Only then can insiders begin a logical process of extraction planning. Currently we have the 7000 mile screwdriver micromanaging generals - deciding which cities they can and cannot attack just like in Nam. We have no exit strategy and never will when war is justified by political ideology; not based upon 'real world' facts. Just as in VietNam, our loyal allies (S Vietnamese or Iraqi) disappear when the battle starts. My god. How many more similarities do we ignore in the name of honor? Is George Jr that much more important?

Just like in Nixon's time, Americans believed only because he is president. Facts be damned. Promote fear and a public forgets to be logical. 50,000+ Americans were sacrified to teach us this lesson. In only 30+ years, we dishonor their ultimate sacrifice for the 'honor' of George Jr?

Westmoreland told Johnson that he will need another 0.5 million soldiers. Asked what the enemy's response will be, Westmoreland said the Vietnamese would match his troop strength. Still Americans then blindly believed we could win the war - facts be damned. Already insurgent strength has doubled in only 1 year. How many more similarities before Americans realize a lying president will never solve anything? Even history is begging Americans to fix this big mistake before George Jr's stubborn ideology and honor makes things worse.

The sooner we define a 'real' objective and plan an exit strategy, then the easier that solution is to implement. Again, lessons from history. The VietNam war was understood as a lost cause in 1965 (Making of a Quagmire). The nation learned it was unjustified in 1969 (Pentagon Papers). And yet still the public took many more years - after 1972 - for most Americans to finally understand the mistake. A war that was only killing hundreds annually would soon start killing hundreds every day.

We are suppose to be smarter - having been educated in history. This election will determine whether America is doomed to relearn the lessons of history. The mythical 'war on terrorism' is a lie. Bin Laden is two countries away and still running free because we are slowly being swallowed by another Quagmire. Why? Because this president lies. The lessons of history dictate that we define a real world objective AND plan an exit strategy. Neither will happen with George Jr as president.

What will happen after November? The real monetary costs of this war will be revealed. Those costs will be shockingly high in part because the real president (Dick Cheney) has decided, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Is that also honorable?

[TheSnake]

I've heard estimates that the war in Iraq has costed 500 billion dollars. We need to withdraw and protect our borders. We have thousands of troops that can do the job.

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by TheSnake

I've heard estimates that the war in Iraq has costed 500 billion dollars. We need to withdraw and protect our borders. We have thousands of troops that can do the job.

Sheesh, 500 billion...and vital programs, etc. suffer because of that.

http://costofwar.com/

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Is...CostOfWar.html

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/costsofwar/

[iamthewalrus109]

In reading the replies of my intital post to Pat Buchanan's suggestions to debate topics I was immediately made aware of a few points. Regardless of why we went to war or who's dying in Iraq, we have no choice but establish a coherent plan of action for withdrawal and establishment of some sort of freindly government. Simply picking up a leaving, leaves us begging for a larger conflict.

Although it appears we are on the way to a larger conflict anyway, our attitude of the last 20-30 years had already put us in an untennable situation with much if not all of the third world, as well as many emerging countries. The IMF, the Cold war, oil, our relationship with Israel and a host of other issues stemming from the post World War II have already put us in this situation. Granted day after day of what we have seen in this last week in Iraq, killing innocent civilians to save equipment in a Bradley vehicle and so forth, only deepens the hatred, but it existed none the less, hence 9/11. The die has already been cast I'm afraid, there is no turning back. It would be nice to think that we could just call all the troops home and play nice, defend our borders, but I don't think so. The damage has already been done. The only move now is towards complete isolation and complete restructuring of our economy, including alternative energy resouces, immigration reform and beefing up local economies, but the big corporations will never let this happen, and as we know this is what drives all 1st world governments to action. The consumer society and mass comunication will continue to dilude the citizenry of this country until we are destroyed by our own dellusions. Then the question is, without a complete reformation of the US government, who can best lead us in this mess under the current system and conditions? Not in some fantasy world of what could be, but instead of what is and what is actually possible.

- Walrus