Rudy Giuliani : Expect another 9/11 if you elect a Democrat

[Dave]

I think this election will be won by the person with the strongest position on getting us OUT of Iraq as soon as possible. That is the issue that is splitting our country apart right now. My understanding is Romney supports the war. How could his being president and us continuing in Iraq, be in any way good for our country?

It would be a sad day for this country if the election were decided by who can get our troops out the quickest. Mitt Romney supports the war in the sense that he feels it can be won, as do I. Do you not think that the election of Clinton or Obama would cause extreme hatred among supporters of the war and split the country further?

 

[vyo476]

It would be a sad day for this country if the election were decided by who can get our troops out the quickest. Mitt Romney supports the war in the sense that he feels it can be won, as do I. Do you not think that the election of Clinton or Obama would cause extreme hatred among supporters of the war and split the country further?

Anything short of a miraculous and complete victory in Iraq before the election comes up (all optimism aside I don't see that happening) will mean that whoever wins the Presidency in '08 will have to deal with Iraq. And no matter which decision is made - stay or go - it will split America further.

It's a "screwed if we do, screwed if we don't" situation.

 

[marilynj55]

It would be a sad day for this country if the election were decided by who can get our troops out the quickest. Mitt Romney supports the war in the sense that he feels it can be won, as do I. Do you not think that the election of Clinton or Obama would cause extreme hatred among supporters of the war and split the country further?

There are other threads in this forum about should we be/not be in Iraq. I don't think we should have gone there in the first place. Pres. Bush led us into Iraq based on outright lies, etc. It's totally about the oil, not any of those whitewashed things like democracy for Iraq, getting rid of a despot, none of those. Iraq wasn't tied to 9/11, etc. We went in there based on lies, period, so as far as "winning," winning what? This is a waste of lives.

And, since supporters of the war are in the minority in this country (plus they are ill informed and so I don't think their opinion should be given that much credence), no, I don't think the election of a pres. who gets us out quickly is going to split the country even further.

 

[vyo476]

There are other threads in this forum about should we be/not be in Iraq. I don't think we should have gone there in the first place. Pres. Bush led us into Iraq based on outright lies, etc. It's totally about the oil, not any of those whitewashed things like democracy for Iraq, getting rid of a despot, none of those. Iraq wasn't tied to 9/11, etc. We went in there based on lies, period, so as far as "winning," winning what? This is a waste of lives.

And, since supporters of the war are in the minority in this country (plus they are ill informed and so I don't think their opinion should be given that much credence), no, I don't think the election of a pres. who gets us out quickly is going to split the country even further.

Here's your scenario.

We elect a President who has promised to get us out of Iraq fast (doesn't matter which one). American troops start leaving in a real hurry. Maybe they make it out before we wind up in a mess like we did in Saigon in the 70s but maybe not; in any case, before too long American combat troops are no longer in Iraq. Iraq falls into chaos and civil war; even more people die; and everything our soldiers have fought and died for goes circling the drain. Plus, we got the Iraqis into this situation (while we did do them a favor by removing Saddam we also took the fairly stable Baathist state and turned it into a sectarian killing ground) and I kind of feel like its our responsibility to at least help get them out of it again.

So what happens when the Iraq our troops have been dying to hold together for the last four years crumbles to bits because we left as fast as possible? Division of America, thats what. Remember, at the onset there were a whole lot of states that supported this war and a (slim) majority of the people were behind it. You'd have the people defending our complete and hurried withdrawal and you'd have people pointing at the result overseas and telling them they'd made the whole thing a giant mockery of life. Sounds pleasant, no?

And as for what we're fighting for...maybe President Bush and the cabinet had their own reasons for getting us into Iraq. Whatever. Our troops aren't there for oil. They didn't sign up for oil. They signed up to be members of the United States Armed Forces, to defend democracy. In Iraq they're fighting to establish a free, equal government of the people, by the people. That is why they choose to fight everyday. If they didn't believe in that cause than you'd be seeing a whole hell of a lot more desertion than we've seen so far.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

and everything our soldiers have fought and died for goes circling the drain. Plus, we got the Iraqis into this situation (while we did do them a favor by removing Saddam we also took the fairly stable Baathist state and turned it into a sectarian killing ground) and I kind of feel like its our responsibility to at least help get them out of it again.

We never turned anything into a sectarian killing ground. There wasn't any notable sectarian violence until the bombing of the Sammara by Zarqawi's AQI in Feb. of 06.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

If they didn't believe in that cause than you'd be seeing a whole hell of a lot more desertion than we've seen so far.

...and re-enlistment levels wouldn't be consistently surpassing the military's target numbers.

 

[vyo476]

...and re-enlistment levels wouldn't be consistently surpassing the military's target numbers.

I remembered you saying that but I wasn't sure where the figures came from so I didn't feel comfortable posting it. Thanks.

 

[vyo476]

We never turned anything into a sectarian killing ground. There wasn't any notable sectarian violence until the bombing of the Sammara by Zarqawi's AQI in Feb. of 06.

Sorry. I was using "sectarian" a bit too broadly. I meant to describe the general state of unrest and the near-constant attacks that we've seen since our invasion of Iraq.

 

[not2needy]

Scare tactics and more scare tactics. All the neocons want is to keep Americans on their knees in fear, that way they can continue to stuff their pockets.

 

[zerorelations]

That's right.

We can't let another Bush come by and scare the public by misleading them.

 

[vyo476]

I am not a neocon.

What about my scenario was a scare tactic? Do you suppose that Baghdad will be better off without the oodles of American troops it currently takes to keep a half-decent lid on all that bubbling violence? Even with thousands of American troops in the capital these insurgents (who hate the Iraqi government as much as they hate us at this point) are willing to stage bombings and ambushes. What do you suppose the place will be like without all those troops?

I'm not trying to mislead you. I'm just trying to point out the truth of the situation.

 

[not2needy]

I wasn't projecting my comment at you vyo, just a comment in general.
I think we should pull our people out of there and let them take care of their own business. Do you think they would come here to help us if we were in a civil war? I don't think so!
However if things proceed as they have in the past few years, a civil war is exactly what this country could be looking at. Americans are tired, tired of working themselves to death and still can't pay their bills because everything is so expensive they can barely afford to eat. Tired of watching the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and seeing the middle class just disappear before their eyes.
When you kick a dog into a corner, that dog will bite you to get out. That's where the USA is heading right now, it's time to take care of home.

 

[r0beph]

I'm a moderate liberal. I hate the term liberal in it's current misnomer usage by neocons which dilute the real platform. I believe fully in the sanctity of human life and the choices made by a human and for said life to be lived in relative peace without fear or harassment. I often find myself on both sides of the left/right fence. As I've stated in many other posts (relatively new here so you've not seen my reiteration of things being so far from black and white 100 times over) that things simply are not binary. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is however balance. This said let me get to the meat.


Iraq is definitely a problem. People go on and on about Bush Admin., et al lying to induce the war. Fact is at this point that matters so little it's pretty much a moot point to even mention. The primary problem now is we're there, they have a flaky infrastructure, the political stability of the region is like a house of cards on a vibrating bed with a quarter gnome leaning precariously close to the coin slot. Whoever gets in office in 2k8, it is my hopes that s/he doesn't a) choose to stay without due objectivity and b) doesn't pull out without prophylacticary measures. The region needs to be stabalized, I'm no military specialist so I can't truly say how to go about this. But you can't be all for stayin or all for pulling out, what everyone should be for is the quickest course of action leading to the cessation of the NEED for foreign military presence. In other words Iraq needs to be stable, self-sufficient, self-governing, and self-policing. But I digress.

---------------------edited
Not2needy
In regard to what you said, leaving iraq to its own in this condition would be a mistake. I love the idea of protecting our own as much as the next guy, I just consider the world as my own. Under the Baathist regime it wasn't great, and he did do some nasty stuff. But it was stable and people could live better than they do now and without resentment towards us. When you have a country in shambles that you caused by toppling the dictatorship, leaving it behind will create another afghanistan, and that place is a pure mess. I don't want to see that. We need to create stability quickly, pull out, and support stability from afar.
---------------------edited

Democrats didn't cause 9/11, nor did republicans. This whole arguments would raise my blood pressure if I was predisposed to such health problems. Terrorists caused 9/11 and they were victorious in what they did. Terrorized this nation to the point where someone can without a smirk use the threat of another attack of similar stature as a mudsling tactic against an opposing politico. I also hope for an administration that focuses heavily on cleaning up the mental perturbations caused by this attack, not the direct mental health issues, but the mass-conscious mental health. Cease the fear mongering, bring some peace of mind to us, lessen the ideology and support for police state safety.

The multitude of issues surrounding the 2k8 election is immense. In fact if they started campaigning full on 3 years ago they'd still not have covered everything that needs speaking on.

 

[vyo476]

I wasn't projecting my comment at you vyo, just a comment in general.

Ah. Gotcha.

I think we should pull our people out of there and let them take care of their own business. Do you think they would come here to help us if we were in a civil war? I don't think so!

We tried being isolationists. Hitler happened.

However if things proceed as they have in the past few years, a civil war is exactly what this country could be looking at. Americans are tired, tired of working themselves to death and still can't pay their bills because everything is so expensive they can barely afford to eat. Tired of watching the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and seeing the middle class just disappear before their eyes.

You wouldn't have been reading Marx when you wrote that would you?

 

[not2needy]

Ah. Gotcha.


We tried being isolationists. Hitler happened.



You wouldn't have been reading Marx when you wrote that would you?

LOL, No in fact i have never read Marx, but if he wrote or said things of that nature i guess i would have had to agree with him, especially in light of what we are looking at here at home right now.