senior congressman calls for withdrawl

[blackumbrella]

U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, dean of the state's congressional delegation and an avowedly strong supporter of President Bush, says it's time for the United States to consider withdrawing from war-ravaged Iraq.
Coble, a Republican from Greensboro, is one of the first members of Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- to say publicly that the United States should consider a pullout.

The 10-term congressman, head of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said he is "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq." [...]

Coble said he arrived at his position only after many months of searching in vain for evidence that the Bush administration had a post-invasion strategy to deal with the transition to Iraqi self-government.
...
Coble said that if he had known there was no post-invasion strategy at the time of the vote on the war-powers resolution he would have "insisted that we keep our powder dry while we do some probing and planning."


source

 

[wisten]

 

[TiderinVA]

This guy must have played football once too often

without a helmet. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the President and/or the war, pulling out now would total insanity. It would make total sense if we wanted Iraq to become like Iran or like Lebanon during the worst part of their civil war, total anarchy. Not only that, it would look like we were a bunch of pansies that can't take a shot and we were leaving with out tails between our legs. It would have horrible consequences down the road for the U.S. in terms of power and prestige. Sorry but that's a terrible idea.

 

[bandersnatch45]

I noticed the other day that liberal columnist Joseph Galloway and all of NPR were calling for us to cut and run out of Iraq. Both of these pieces stated quite clearly that the war was "unwinnable". NPR even had some old has-been diplomats chanting this mantra.

Two weeks ago another NPR lib, Daniel Pinkwater, stated that he thought we should "dust off" the term "quagmire" to describe the situation in Iraq. There's no dust on that term as the libbies have been beating that horse to death long before we ever went in to that particular country.

As the libs seem stuck in the Viet Nam era maybe next they'll be calling our soldiers "baby killers".....

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

We can't pull out now as much as I was against the US going in to begin with.

We just need to reinstall a tyrant and let him deal with the fanatics as they should be dealt with.

 

[Queasy1]

Coble said he arrived at his position only after many months of searching in vain for evidence that the Bush administration had a post-invasion strategy to deal with the transition to Iraqi self-government.

Gee, if he just waited a whole 18 days he could have waited to see the results of an election. Instead, the maroon has given our enemies more fodder to work with.

Thanks Rep. Coble. I hope your constituents call for your withdrawal from Capitol Hill.

 

[Tidewater]

We can't pull out now as much as I was against the US going in to begin with.

We just need to reinstall a tyrant and let him deal with the fanatics as they should be dealt with.

I believe that perhaps the best thing we can achieve in Iraq may be something similar to Egypt. Mubarak is "elected" just like Saddam was, by 99% of the vote. While Egypt is not exactly a Jeffersonian democracy, it is reasonably stable. Egypt has some significant advantages over Iraq, however. It is more unified ethnically (all Arab), and religiously (mostly Sunni Muslim) whereas Iraq is divided ethnically (Arab, Kurd) and religiously (Sunni, Shi'a). There is an Iraqi proverb, "It is better to have a thousand years of oppression than one day of anarchy."
My suspicion is that whoever ends up leading Iraq (probably Allawi, at least in the short term) will be not entirely democratic, not pristine on human rights, but he will restore order eventually. And the US will leave as this is happening, but will tell the Iraqi in charge what the ground rules are (no WMD possession, no declared intention vis-à-vis Kuwait, no support of international terrorists) and leave the rest up to him. Anybody that can bring order to Iraq is probably not going to be a choir boy.
But on the other hand, pragmatists told Reagan not to call the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire" and not to demand that Gorbachev "tear down this wall." It just might be possible that Iraq will become the first functioning Arab democracy, and thus serve as a model for the spread of liberal (in the John Locke and Edmund Burke sense of the term) democracy throughout the Middle East. I'm not overly optimistic on that score, however. We may hav of the vote. While Egypt is not exactly a Jeffersonian democracy, it is reasonably stable. Egypt has some significant advantages over Iraq, however. It is more unified ethnically (all Arab), and religiously (mostly Sunni Muslim) whereas Iraq is divided ethnically (Arab, Kurd) and religiously (Sunni, Shi'a). There is an Iraqi proverb, "It is better to have a thousand years of oppression than one day of anarchy."
My suspicion is that whoever ends up leading Iraq (probably Allawi, at least in the short term) will be not entirely democratic, not pristine on human rights, but he will restore order eventually. And the US will leave as this is happening, but will tell the Iraqi in charge what the ground rules are (no WMD possession, no declared intention vis-à-vis Kuwait, no support of international terrorists) and leave the rest up to him. Anybody that can bring order to Iraq is probably not going to be a choir boy.
But on the other hand, pragmatists told Reagan not to call the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire" and not to demand that Gorbachev "tear down this wall." It just might be possible that Iraq will become the first functioning Arab democracy, and thus serve as a model for the spread of liberal (in the John Locke and Edmund Burke sense of the term) democracy throughout the Middle East. I'm not overly optimistic on that score, however. We may have to settle for a stable Iraq. In any case, defeatism from any quarter at this stage is counter-productive, and undermines even this limited goal.

 

[bamabake]

I noticed the other day that liberal columnist Joseph Galloway and all of NPR were calling for us to cut and run out of Iraq. Both of these pieces stated quite clearly that the war was "unwinnable". NPR even had some old has-been diplomats chanting this mantra.

Two weeks ago another NPR lib, Daniel Pinkwater, stated that he thought we should "dust off" the term "quagmire" to describe the situation in Iraq. There's no dust on that term as the libbies have been beating that horse to death long before we ever went in to that particular country.

As the libs seem stuck in the Viet Nam era maybe next they'll be calling our soldiers "baby killers".....

Liberals have no crediblity and their views on this war should be summarily dismissed. Without "All Things Conciderd" NPR would be a complete waste of air space.

 

[Pachydermatous]

"'Coble,' eh? Does that rhyme with 'noble' or 'bobble?'"

 

[Pachydermatous]

Liberals have no crediblity and their views on this war should be summarily dismissed. Without "All Things Conciderd" NPR would be a complete waste of air space.

I had a slight affection for NPR when they stuck to classic music. But being badgered by lefty propaganda is too high a price to pay. Now I'm confined to my truck's six-play CD and my computer's musical attainments. :biggrin:

 

[jthomas666]

Liberals have no crediblity and their views on this war should be summarily dismissed. Without "All Things Conciderd" NPR would be a complete waste of air space.

Dude, take a valium. You vented on NPR in another thread this morning, so I guess you just don't like them very much. And while All Things Considered is great, but I have great fondness for A Prairie Home Companion and Whaddya Know?

So, what about the republican who has said we should withdraw from Iraq? Does he get summarily dismissed as well, simply because you don't like what he has to say?

That having been said, I'll repeat what I said from the beginning--once we invaded Iraq, we became morally obligated to stay until the bitter end.

If you want a society in which everyone believes in the same thing and everyone has the same goals, go join an ant colony.

 

[Pachydermatous]

So, what about the republican who has said we should withdraw from Iraq? Does he get summarily dismissed as well, simply because you don't like what he has to say?

No one ever said all Republicans come equipped with the same attitudes or even backbone. Unrest has been the state of the party ever since the Black Republicans (radicals) fought it out with Liberal Republicans immediately after the Civil War --- with the consequence that the Liberals won and Reconstruction was abandoned.

Another revolution erupted when Teddy Roosevelt challenged the old, lethargic regime which the Liberal Wing had become and set the party on the path of progressivism. Although Teddy was ultimately defeated by this Old Guard, his ideas were adopted by Democrats and to this day set the tone for modern Democrat dogma. Unfortunately, during the reign of the Second Roosevelt, the brief tenure of Harry Truman and the chaotic rule of Lyndon Johnson, Teddy's thoughts were compounded with an admixture of socialism and taken to their ultimate absurd exteme. This touched off a fight among Liberal and Conservative Republicans which endures yet.

A third revolt came during Reagan's presidency when Blue Collar Republicans wrested control of the party from the East Coast Brahmins (the Henry Cabot Lodges, the Rockefellers and other stultifying monuments to immobility). We Blue Collars run the show now, as the nation's Red-Blue map testifies. We have perhaps been bitten by Libertarianism and are not at all sure that either Democrat socialists or mega-corporations which give lip service to free enterprise and free trade have our best interests at heart.

 

[bamabake]

messed this one up

 

[bamabake]

Dude, take a valium. You vented on NPR in another thread this morning, so I guess you just don't like them very much. And while All Things Considered is great, but I have great fondness for A Prairie Home Companion and Whaddya Know?

So, what about the republican who has said we should withdraw from Iraq? Does he get summarily dismissed as well, simply because you don't like what he has to say?

That having been said, I'll repeat what I said from the beginning--once we invaded Iraq, we became morally obligated to stay until the bitter end.

If you want a society in which everyone believes in the same thing and everyone has the same goals, go join an ant colony.

Dude, take a valium. You vented on NPR in another thread this morning, so I guess you just don't like them very much. And while All Things Considered is great, but I have great fondness for A Prairie Home Companion and Whaddya Know?



Fellow Dude:
I dont like NPR in general. When I listen to people like Juan Williams for example. He is an intellectually honest fellow in my estimation but damn near always wrong or just out there. I suppose I shouldnt be so strident in my comments.


So, what about the republican who has said we should withdraw from Iraq? Does he get summarily dismissed as well, simply because you don't like what he has to say?


He is wrong too. Why would you assume I would think otherwise? You even agree yourself that he is. He doenst get the summary dismissal because he isnt a publically funded radio station that spouts liberal BS every day. It is a waste of public money IMO.



That having been said, I'll repeat what I said from the beginning--once we invaded Iraq, we became morally obligated to stay until the bitter end.


See we agree that the republican fellow dude is wrong.


If you want a society in which everyone believes in the same thing and everyone has the same goals, go join an ant colony.[/QUOTE]


I never said that. You may not like or agree with me much and that is terrific but you should know by now not to read between the lines with me. If I wanted a one opinin world I would say so. I will say though that inasmuch as I can convice people that liberalism, for the most part, is a historical failure, outdated,lacks reason, common sense and is usually a recipie for failure I will do so. So I suppose I would prefer that more people actually have similar goals as me. Yes.

BTW NPR is an anC what about the republican who has said we should withdraw from Iraq? Does he get summarily dismissed as well, simply because you don't like what he has to say?[/FONT]


He is wrong too. Why would you assume I would think otherwise? You even agree yourself that he is. He doenst get the summary dismissal because he isnt a publically funded radio station that spouts liberal BS every day. It is a waste of public money IMO.



That having been said, I'll repeat what I said from the beginning--once we invaded Iraq, we became morally obligated to stay until the bitter end.


See we agree that the republican fellow dude is wrong.


If you want a society in which everyone believes in the same thing and everyone has the same goals, go join an ant colony.[/QUOTE]


I never said that. You may not like or agree with me much and that is terrific but you should know by now not to read between the lines with me. If I wanted a one opinin world I would say so. I will say though that inasmuch as I can convice people that liberalism, for the most part, is a historical failure, outdated,lacks reason, common sense and is usually a recipie for failure I will do so. So I suppose I would prefer that more people actually have similar goals as me. Yes.

BTW NPR is an anC what about the republican who has said we should withdraw from Iraq? Does he get summarily dismissed as well, simply because you don't like what he has to say?[/FONT]

 

[jthomas666]

I never said that. You may not like or agree with me much and that is terrific but you should know by now not to read between the lines with me. If I wanted a one opinin world I would say so.

Fair enough. You might want to avoid sweeping statements such as "Liberals have no crediblity and their views on this war should be summarily dismissed," though, as it really does suggest the "no opposing views allowed" mindset.

 

[bamabake]

Fair enough. You might want to avoid sweeping statements such as "Liberals have no crediblity and their views on this war should be summarily dismissed," though, as it really does suggest the "no opposing views allowed" mindset.

Fellow Dude:
I dont like NPR in general. When I listen to people like Juan Williams for example. He is an intellectually honest fellow in my estimation but damn near always wrong or just out there. I suppose I shouldnt be so strident in my comments.

See Strident.



Let me ask a question, please. If I did have a" no opposing views allowed" mindset, does that simply mean that I am close-minded or something more sinister? I am am genuinely interested your thought.

 

[jthomas666]

Let me ask a question, please. If I did have a" no opposing views allowed" mindset, does that simply mean that I am close-minded or something more sinister? I am am genuinely interested your thought.

In general terms: If you had a "no opposing views" mindset and simply ignored/dismissed such views, I'd consider you closed-minded. My brother's kind of like that. I don't discuss politics with him, even though we share some views, because he _knows_ that he is right and simply will not acknowledge the possibility that a different viewpoint might have some validity. A challenge on the smallest part of an issue turns into a confrontation. You just can't argue with a brick wall.

If you had a "no opposing views" mindset and rounded up those with opposing views and shot them, I would consider you something infinitely more sinister.

Me, I'm a moderate. I appear liberal because this board skews heavily conservative, but I'm a moderate. I go to some liberal boards, and some of them strike me just as whacked as some of the conservatives here. :biggrin2:

One thing about moderates is that, more than liberals or conservatives, we NEED to discuss the issues in order to clarify our positions, because there is no moderate ideology to use as a touchstone (The closest thing I've managed to come up with is "When in doubt, vote against the incumbent").

The various "debate" shows feature someone from the right and someone from the left. There's rarely anyone from the middle. And the result is all too often akin to discussing something with my brother--the right stakes a claim, the left stakes a claim, and then they yell at one another until the commercial break, during which they take a sip of chamomile tea to restore their voice for the next segment. Each side goes away happy, but nothing is ever resolved--and they don't want to resolve them because then they'd be out of a job. The center becomes No Man's Land, strewn with landmines planted by both sides.

That's why Jon Stewart so correctly took CNN's Crossfire to task, because they took a format that could be used to honestly engage the public in some incredibly important issues, and instead they churn out Point/Counterpoint without the laughs.

OK, this is starting to ramble a bit, so I'll just stop now. Don't know if this helps or not.

 

[bamabake]

Well that would be my own assesment of a "no opposing views" mindset. The way your, well warned me, how did it go:

Originally Posted by jthomas666
Fair enough. You might want to avoid sweeping statements such as "Liberals have no crediblity and their views on this war should be summarily dismissed," though, as it really does suggest the "no opposing views allowed" mindset

"might want to avoid". That made me curious. I am not sure why I might want to avoid all sweeping statements, although you didnt use the word all, it seems infered.

I concider myself open minded and closed minded. I am well read, educated, compasionate. I volunteer my time and resources here and there. One could call me a good liberal in many ways if they were so inclined based on many factors. However I choose to look at what you might call close mindedness as conviction. To me my convictions are based on years of experiance, thought, reflection, discussion, historical perspectives, you get the point. I imagine that you too have some deeply held convictions. I have never met a true "moderate" when anl honest assessment is done of what they hold true and dear as convictions. There is not much gray in my world. However, believe it or not, I will not cling to anything for the sake of it. If someone can prove to me that I am wrong, or there is a better way to do something etc, I am actually eagar to embrace it. After all who doesnt want to get it right.

 

[Tide and True]

Thanks for your insights, Wisten. Apparently you're kindergarten class, to the envy of us all, is equipped with internet access. It's not fair, really. All we had were those crummy wooden blocks and crayons.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that, Rep Coble aside, conservative support for the war has been waning for some time. Just recently, for instance, military experts at the extremely pro-war Stratfor group issued the following statement:

The issue facing the Bush administration is simple. It can continue to fight the war as it has, hoping that a miracle will bring successes in 2005 that didn't happen in 2004. Alternatively, it can accept the reality that the guerrilla force is now self-sustaining and sufficiently large not to flicker out and face the fact that a U.S. conventional force of less than 150,000 is not likely to suppress the guerrillas. More to the point, it can recognize these facts: 1. The United States cannot re-engineer Iraq because the guerrillas will infiltrate every institution it creates. 2. That the United States by itself lacks the intelligence capabilities to fight an effective counterinsurgency. 3. That exposing U.S. forces to security responsibilities in this environment generates casualties without bringing the United States closer to the goal. 4. That the strain on the U.S. force is undermining its ability to react to opportunities and threats in the rest of the region. And that, therefore, this phase of the Iraq campaign must be halted as soon as possible.

Their suggestion? Withdrawing U.S. forces to the periphery of Iraq and letting the inevitable civil war take place.

 

[TexasTide]

I don't understand the need for a unified Iraq. Who cares if it is divided into 3 countries? Worst case they fight against each other but at least that would keep them occupied and that's what they are going to do anyway. And, if it's 3 seperate countries there is a chance of protecting one faction from another. As it is, the dominant party will oppress the others which will lead to retaliation by the minorites. This just sets the stage for another dictator to step in and take control. They blame all their problems on the West so they ignore their own differences and the cycle begins again.

If the Kurds want to continue to be somewhat civilized and peacable then we may at least gain one ally and one stable country. I just don't see a stable unified Iraq as being plausible.

I say we stay there until after the election then get out. We've done what we said we would do. The only way to "win" is to level the country, which we could do if we desired.