Does the GOP/Conservatives want to re-occupy Iraq or not?

[candycorn]

Anyone know?

I hear that they're not happy with our "no boots on the ground" policy but what is the alternative...more blood spilled for Tikrit, Fallujah, Basra, etc...?

Are any of those places worth more American deaths because there will be deaths involved if we go in. I don't think so.

Are you really interested in an answer or are you just bashing the GOP? I have found that most of you liberals only make threads like this to bash and when you get an actual answer, you either ignore it or ridicule it.

Me too. The purpose is to both get answers and to actually force the bashers to take a stand on what the course of action should be; not just assume the opposite posture of whatever decision is made. Do you deny that this is the reflexive posture assumed regardless of action?

If you are interested in an answer, here it is:

As everyone knows, the GOP and in particular conservatives, are splintered. There are conservatives who believe that we never should have left Iraq, ones that believe we should have left significant troops there in perpetuity, ones who think we should stay out entirely, and those who think it was a mistake to go in in the first place.

You will be able to find all of those types. THIS conservative believes we shouldn't spill another drop of American blood. I believe that if we do anything at all, we should bomb the invading army from the air and we should do it NOW, before they get to Baghdad. Probably should have done it days ago. Although Obama is completely inept at foreign policy, sometimes he accidentally gets it right as in the case of his "no boots on the ground" policy.

I think your policy is sound and I think it what we'll see eventually although I doubt we'll have much pilot involvement. Drones and missiles.

As to your question above, the only thing I can say is that they are concerned about the American lives already lost and don't want to throw away what those people died for. I can understand that, I don't support that belief, but I understand it.

I think "sunk costs" are usually an excuse. In this case, it's blood and treasure. But really how do you (I don't mean you personally but those who buy into "sunk costs") justify trading with Vietnam or even England we we spilled blood and treasure fighting them?

 

[candycorn]

Anyone know?

I hear that they're not happy with our "no boots on the ground" policy but what is the alternative...more blood spilled for Tikrit, Fallujah, Basra, etc...?

Are any of those places worth more American deaths because there will be deaths involved if we go in. I don't think so.

I suppose, by the actions of most professional pols in the GOP, that the one thing that want to occupy is the White House; of course they also want to have a larger majority of activist conservatives on the Supreme Court and to win enough seats in The Congress to fulfill their ultimate goal of transforming our democratic republic in an Oligarchy.

They are more than half-way there, soon enough the 1% will control everything, what you eat, drink and think. Welcome to 1984.

Fiscally (both policy wise and when it comes to their own pockets), the only difference between the average republican and the average democrat is how quickly they adhere to their benefactor's wishes. The GOP has turned it into a standing joke where as the Democrats politely snicker under their breath when the welfare of the average American is brought up.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Bullshit called on typical liberal bullshit from the liberal bullshit flinging siete.

What W had said was that we would leave Iraq when Iraq could stand on her own.

What Obumbler said and -- worse -- DID was to set a timetable, announce it publicly, in advance, and then keep to it, thereby rather preemptively leaving Iraq BEFORE it was able (obviously) to stand on its own.

And that timetable thing? A stroke of douche. It helped the shit-heels like ISIS formulate the plans for what they ultimately put into effect rather effectively, just recently.

Obumbler is just a flat out clusterfuck of fail.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Obama sucks but Bush signed the withdrawal agreement on global television in December 2008.
Iraq?s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com

Facts are not open to interpretation. ALL of you who blame Obama for Iraq are psychotic. If you actually believe that Iraq was won before 2009 then your mind is gone. It's not a joke anymore. You are psychotic and cannot tell reality from fiction. You are a threat to the General Welfare of the United States of America.

I would be tired of being wrong if I were.

But your post is crap and I remain correct.

THe Iraqi government had wanted us out for a while. What a fucking coincidence. WE wanted out for a while, too. But, being responsible, W wasn't in too much of a rush given the stakes. Obumbler? Quite the opposite.

When will YOU ever stop being disingenuous and reflexively just going down on the cheesedick moron we have the misfortune of calling "President?"