I just hope you have a plan that takes into account the realities of the situation. I have heard precious little of that kind of talk from your brethren on the left.

Please explain to me this, seriously: do you accept that passing a "non-binding" resolution will encourage our enemies in Iraq? If not, why? If so, how would you explain the wisdom of such a move?

Does authorizing someone to use force (Senate vote to authorize war) equal condoning all use of that tool?
>>NO, OF COURSE NOT. The resolution was specifically worded in reference to Iraq, not "all use of that tool."

The President's words in encouraging that vote were that he was going to "exhaust all diplomatic means." Did he do that Trey? Or were the wheels of war already in motion?
>>OF COURSE the wheels of war were in motion. Diplomacy without the backing of force is utterly impotent. We had to be ready in case diplomacy failed, which it did.

We authorize police officers to carry guns and wield lethal force. That gives them 1) protection and 2) a bargaining tool. If our police officers shoot first and ask questions after the fact, they are held accountable, yes?
>>Um, this is a little different. Just like police officers are granted a search warrant when there is sufficient evidence, we had sufficient evidence to go in and take out Saddam. Turns our the evidence we had and which was widely accepted was wrong on some counts. But, Saddam was still a threat to stability in the region and was not abiding by the cease fire he signed in '92.

How will more US troops bring peace between Shiite and Sunni and Kurd?
>>BY imposing order, defeating insurgents, and sending the message that attacks will not be tolerated. If you put a bunch of kids in a room with no adults, they'll go nuts. If you put one adult in there who says nothing, they'll still go nuts. It's not until you have someone in there exercising proper authority that the kids will behave. Same basic principle in Iraq.

How will military force yield political solutions?
>>THEY won't. I never said they would. But they will provide the stability necessary for the Iraqis to fashion a political solution without the distractions and animosities created by the violence.

Are American soldier's lives and US treasure limitless resources?
>>OF COURSE not. We have to weigh the value of those items against the merit of the cause. The vast majority of politicians backed the use of those forces and treasure to prosecute the war in Iraq back in 2002. NOw that things have gotten tough, they want to pull out. Understandable, but dangerous and foolhardy. We need to expend enough resources to win, and I think we can do so more quickly by cracking down hard. We were reluctant to impose too big a foot print early on because we didn't want to be seen as occupiers and oppressors. Plus, anytime we did do anything deemed too agressive, the press and Democrats would jump all over the military and President. So, we were too soft for too long, and the insurgents took advantage. It's time to show them that their behavior won't be tolerated.

Do we stay in Iraq permanently so the terrorists can't "follow us home?"
>>NO. I agree that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq, but it's not like they've given up on coming here. We just need to stay long enough to ensure a stable Iraq that doesn't turn into a terrorist haven or extremist Shiite stronghold.

How would terrorists "follow us home?"
If terrorists can follow us home, why don't they just come here now while we are distracted in Iraq? Could it be that is not an honest argument?
>>NO, I think it is honest. Terrorists themselves have called for fighters to come to Iraq to fight the great Satan America. They have said Iraq is their battleground. But I have no doubt they're not precluding an attack against the homeland, but just like us, if they have significant resources focused on one place (Iraq), they can't do as much other places (the US itself). Seems pretty straightforward to me. Perhaps mistaken, but not dishonest.

Last questions, because I don't understand conservatives right now:

1. Why are so many people who call themselves pro life very pro war (you know, this discretionary, pre-emptive war?)
>>ISN'T this a bit of a silly question from an adult? Being against the wonton, intentional taking of innocent life in the form of abortion doesn't preclude me from supporting using military force in a just cause. I wish no one had to die, but sometimes people simply do in order to solve a problem and prevent more deaths in the future. Shooting an enemy soldier or unintentionally killing a civilian is not the same moral act as intentionally taking an innocent life. I accept that sometimes diplomacy simply will not work and that in fact, the only way it can work is if it's backed up by the threat of force. Once everyone in the world is willing to play nice and talk things out, war will be obsoleted. But until then, it must be undertaken from time to time.

2. Why are conservatives outspending liberals?
>>HEY, you're assuming liberals would NOT have spent loads of money if they were in power! Give me a break. Conservatives betrayed their principles and spent too much, but in doing so, they violated the principles of their party and political philosophy. LIberals spending too much money would be fulfilling it.

3. WHAT HAPPENNED TO THE NEED FOR UP OR DOWN VOTES?
>>Not sure what you mean here.

4. Why do conservatives complain about tax burdenning people in the USA, yet they have no problem with LITERALLY trucks full of money unaccounted for in a foreign land?
>>THAT is a problem. I don't think conservatives don't have a problem with money being wasted in Iraq. The difference between a conservative and liberal is that conservaties believe that government will inherently tend to waste money and should therefore be limited and/or starved of it. The military is one of the few endeavors which is truly meant to be a government operation and we support it, but we also recognize that waste will occur, even in that noble endeavor.

He made some excellent points, leave now or too early and the blood of many innocent Iraqis is on "redeployment", get us out now supporters.

What is your plan?

Frank, Trey simply regurgitates the same Fox-approved talking points week after week in his never-ending quest to conflate "supporting the troops" with "supporting the president".

It's time to face facts, something I realize both you and Trey are loathe to do: For all intents and purposes, we've lost in Iraq. The Atlanta Hawks still have a mathematical chance of winning the NBA championship, in theory anyway, but those odds are better than America's chances of "victory" in Iraq. In any event, it's not where the smart money is betting.

You're old enough, if not smart enough, to remember America's last quagmire in Vietnam. People like you and Trey fretted mightily and publicly about the effect of "losing" on America's reputation. Well, Frank, America survived that debacle and it will survive this debacle, your hand-wringing notwithstanding. Trey acts as if foreigners still prostrate themselves on the ground at the sight of the American flag. Newsflash: George W. Bush has single-handedly destroyed most of the goodwill America used to enjoy in the world with his completely voluntary war.

There's going to be a civil war in Iraq. The Sunnis and the Shiites WANT to go to war, and there's very little America can do about it, except get caught in the middle as the bullets fly. Civil war is regrettable. Most American people think of "civil war" in terms of America's own civil war, but civil wars happen quite often in that part of the world (Tunisia, Morocco and especially Algeria come to mind). Neither faction views us as an ally, so why get involved?

The Kurds will sit this one out, they want civil war because it strengthens their ability to be an autonomous "country within a country" and control their own destiny.

The Iraq government is nothing but an American puppet (Vichy Baghdad if you will) and most people with an IQ above room temperature realize this. Want proof? Last month, the government floated trial legislation granting amnesty to any Iraqi citizen who injured or killed an American soldier. The American ambassador, John Negroponte, had the legislation removed from the Iraqi parliament.

Whether we admit it or not, right now we're an understaffed occupation force who has done a terrible job of occupying the country. The leadership that you and Trey worship has made some incredibly bad political decisions, two of the worst being "disbanding the Iraqi Army" (creating 200K unemployed people with both a grudge and a gun overnight) and "de-Baathifying Iraq" (all the "smart" people in Iraq joined the Baath party to get the good government jobs, when we fired them, we created an intellectual drain in the country that continues to this day).

There's more than enough blame to spread around within the leadership of the DOD and the leadership of the military as well. Donald Rumsfeld wanted to show off his vision of a "quicker, leaner" military, so he redlined 6 MP companies from deploying to Iraq to secure Baghdad after the major combat ended. General Tommy Franks quit showing up at the office after combat ended, leaving a horrific leadership vacuum on the ground in Iraq. The list goes on and on.

Nonetheless, the buck stops at the top. President Wartime Deserter was told he'd need between 380,000 and 500,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq. That would have required a draft, and he lacked the political courage to do the right thing. He attempted to half-ass the situation by sending 1/3 of the amount of troops needed and hoping that would work out.

It didn't. And because Bush has a fundamental character flaw that prevents him from owning up to his mistakes (a flaw, I would point out, that both you and Trey share with him) he cannot admit he was wrong. He's now proposing a politically expedient solution to a military situation by wanting to send a token 20,000 more troops into the Iraq meat grinder.

Frank, America essentially fired George W. Bush last November. They have come to the realization that he is simply not up to the job. The war in Iraq has gone on longer than World War 2 at this point, and there is no end in sight. President Bunnypants is content to play out the string and dump the problem on his successor, and I think most Americans realize...and resent...this.

You and Trey can babble on all you like and continue to question the patriotism of those who disagree with you, but the simple fact of the matter is America is no longer buying what you two as selling.

You want to know what my plan is? Resurrect the Powell Doctrine and send 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq. And if you cannot...or will not...do that? Leave Iraq. Now.

Rice, look up OPINION and FACT

Point by point:
"we've lost in Iraq": That’s news to me. It ain’t over till it’s over and although you WANT us to lose, I THINK victory is achievable, if the Iraqis get their act together and take out ALL insurgents.

"smart enough": Well, I’m smart enough to remember all the boat people fleeing Vietnam, the re-education camps, the millions slaughtered and how Vietnam’s result ENBOLDENED Bin Laden to consider us a paper tiger. Smart enough to know America will be weaker with Iran pulling the strings in Iraq. Feeling a little stupid now ricey? Darn, I wasn’t going to stoop to your level of name calling, but since you call me Frank, which is not my name I just can’t help myself Hawkeye. P.S. I’ll gladly share my real name when you share yours.

"There's going to be a civil war": Well since you can predict the future, what are next weeks lotto numbers and what stocks do you guarantee will have the highest returns also I need you to provide the next 5 World Series winners and Kentucky Derby winners.

"The Iraq government is nothing but an American puppet":, That must be why they have a member that has been convicted in Kuwait of murder and is very anti-American.

"disbanding the Iraqi Army": If they stayed and attempted a coup you would have called them incompetent for leaving them armed. By the way, didn’t the majority of them just take off their uniforms and walk away? I don’t remember any disbandment ceremonies.

"all the "smart" people in Iraq joined the Baath party": All the smart people were Nazis in Germany. The definition of insanity is doing things the same way and expecting different results. Using Saddam’s henchmen, with blood on their hands from mass graves seems prtty STUPID to me.

"General Tommy Franks quit showing up at the office": Please provide the link to that FACT.

"President Wartime Deserter": As much as you want to believe that “fact, The President served honorably in the National Guard and had sufficient service points to HONORABLY complete his obligation. Look into Kerry’s record of an EARLY RELEASE and get back to me. He never lied about American troops being Jengis Khan, or met with the enemy in Paris while an officer.

"Bush has a fundamental character flaw": Which is why he was elected twice. Just because he doesn’t manage by polls and get oral sex doesn’t mean he’s bad. Again, your OPINION. Bush derangement syndrome proved a good tactic for Air America too, NOT.

"longer than World War 2": Last time I checked, WWII started in 1939 and ended in 1945, around 5 ½ years. Or are you talking about only US involvement from 1941 to 1945, 4 years.
President Bunnypants, That’s a new one. I’ll remember the respect you have for the office if or when a Dem gets in and you blast people for lack of respect.

I don’t challenge anyone’s patriotism, don’t put words in my mouth. I want your side to show me how we will be better off with Iraq in flames as our last helicopter flies away. For four years you have been attacking the President, not the terrorist, who are the ones killing our troops. Just asking you to show us your PLAN. Haven’t seen anything more than meaningless resolutions ans handing victory to the enemy, hey, but that’s just my OPINION.

" Sending 500,000 troops": I’d rather the Iraqis stand up myself, but if you want an army of occupation, good luck getting the Democrats to approve that, 25,000 scares them.

Major Pinnochio, you asked for FACT about General Tommy Franks dereliction of duty in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Check out pages 155-156 in Pulitizer Prize winning author Thomas E. Ricks' book Fiasco. The chapter title is "Army Leadership Goes MIA" and several officers, including some on the record strongly criticize General Franks for (direct quote here) "putting his pack down early". Franks literally quit showing up at the office.

Corroboration of this account can also be found in Bob Woodward's book State of Denial where JCS chief Richard Myers is so exasperated that he cannot reach Franks that he has to embarrassingly ask Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to issue a rare direct order to General Franks, a four star general of the United States Army, to return Myers' phone calls. I don't have the book in front of me so I cannot give you the exact pages.

Call it whatever you like, but please don't call it leadership!

This is the most contentious issue of my lifetime, and as such, passions run wild. But here is to the heart of your point:

ArmyMajRet posted:

Point by point:
"we've lost in Iraq": That’s news to me. It ain’t over till it’s over and although you WANT us to lose, I THINK victory is achievable, if the Iraqis get their act together and take out ALL insurgents.

Army, victory is achievable if the Iraqis take out all insurgents. Does that sound POSSIBLE ON ANY LEVEL? And do the words "US soldier" fit into Iraqis eliminating Iraqi and other insurgents? You found your own answer. Do we keep soldiers in this accurately described meat grinder perpetually; with no view of an exit? How long are you willing to keep US troops in the middle of warring Iraqis? 5 more years? 10 more?

I appreciate your desire to see victory snatched from defeat in Iraq, but these days, you and I aren't paying the price Army. Not even through taxes or war bonds. No price at all really. I feel we owe our troops an exit ticket at this point. A light at the end of an endless tunnel.

Cheers to you, brother,

Kevin "Hack" King (now what IS your name?)