I've read so many negative threads about how our government is so wrong in the way it's approached the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq. I've yet to hear one plan or positive approach as to how the Liberals would have handled these crisis or yet hear what they would do. I'm a Conservative and I tend to disagree with most, if not all i've heard from Liberal Democrats. Just negative comments is all I hear, nothing constructive and certainly, NO PLAN as to what they would have done or will do. It's gripe, gripe, gripe...Where's the Beef?

Can the Democrats actually tell us what they would have done or will do for protecting our nation and handling any potential threat from terrorist or out of control nations?

Taking a page from France, their natural ally, surrender early and often.

Treaty of Versailles all over again. Par for the course with that party, so out of touch.

Can I make you a deal on a good French Military Rifle? Never used, dropped only once......

Hey I'm sure you can find the Democrats Plan on E-BAY!

since youall won the election, the real question is, do you have a plan that makes sense?

For how liberal Democrats would have dealt with this war, please read my postings here:

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=99665&page=49&pp=15

Excerpt:

#724 Yesterday, 11:58 PM
KirkVining
democraticunderground.com Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,469

The part you don't get is that a lot, if not alll Arab dictators come to power with popular support. Step away from the brainwashing for a mnute and hear this fact: Saddam Hussein was a popular ruler in Iraq. He had a following among all the major ethnic groups in Iraq because he was not a religiuous jihadist - he was a socialist who appealed to Arab nationalism. If another dictator takes power there - it will be because the people want him in.........

The solution to the problem in Iraq is quite simple - partition the damn place. We would end up with a friendly Kurdish government, which would allow us to base troops because they are afraid of all their neighbors, and from there we could keep our eye on the radical Sunni socialist state that is guaranteed to emerge in the area known throughout history as Mesopotamia. Where we lose, and why we should have kept Saddam around is in Southern Iraq, where the really juicy oil fields are and all the ports are, and 60% of the people live. We are going to lose this chunk to the Iranians - the price we will pay for this folly, and the reason Iraq was invented as a country in the first place. How do you think the Sunnis, only 20% of the population - ended up in charge of Iraq? Because we and the British arranged it that way, to keep the Iranians from becoming the dominant oil power on the planet. It's the reason we supported Saddam in the Iran/Iraq War, and the reason we did not kick him out in 92. The neo-cons blundered in thinking that Iraq, an artificial country, was a candidate for democracy. It simply is not, and we have just shot ourselves in the ass.

How about an M-16 dropped in Vietnam? You guys are headng us to the same kind of dishonor. The French aren't the only ones who know how to surrender - the Republicans have done it once before under the exact same circumstances.

Treaty of Paris all over again. Par for the course for Henry Kissenger's Vietnam fu*k up party.

The first rule would be to build strong relationships with the most self-determining Muslim nations we can find. This would not be Saudi Arabia and Pakistan or Iraq. Best place I can see to begin is Iran. Apologize for supporting the Shah and try to establish strong trade and cultural ties with the Iranians. And, while we're at it, apologize for supporting non-democratic regimes throughout the Muslim world in places like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Which brings up another snippet in the other thread:


Quite an assumption. That's a nice dream, but the Kurds have made it clear from day one they want out. They are not interested in sharing government with the Shiites. They are constantly pushing us behind the scenes to partition Iraq. If they do participate, they have made it clear they will do it only as a de facto state. They refuse to use Kurdish troops anywhere but Kurdistan, in fact they have the only "Iraqi" force that doesn't run away and we have got zero use from them all during this war except in Kurdistan. When was the last time you heard of Kurdish militia defending an Iraqi police station, or fighting al Sadr militia? It's because they refuse to fight outside of Kurdistan. That will not change. In addition, how are the militias of the Shiites going to be able to "crush the insurgency" when the US Army can't pull it off? They would have to invade Sunni Iraq - and your 20% figure has one great big gaping hole in it - those 20% are all members of Sunni tribes that stretch into Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Yeman, and the Emirates and even into Egypt - an enormous hole caused by the American propaganda -fed view that this is actually some kind of nation. There is a natural nation there, but it ain't on any map These tribal connections are the people making this insurgency work in the first place, and we Americans have been totally ignorant of this component because we see Iraq as some kind of country - none of these places are, they are just parts of The Arab Nation that was parcelled out to kings, dictators and princes by the British and maintained by our support of these fascist regimes - the real cause of the lack of democracy in the Middle East.

I guess your right Kirk, Lydon realized he "f--ked" up that campaign in Vietnam so bad that he got the h-ll out of D.C. He left that to Nixon to finish up. Heck Humphrey couldn't win the '68 Election. The Democrats had nothing but a riot at there convention.

The Democrats had NO PLAN THEN and NO Plan NOW!

Iraq was not a crisis (it is now). Iraq was a nothing (see 'pimple on flea's butt'). The idiots who turned this nothing into a crisis should should be taken to task for their actions. BTW, one needn't be liberal nor democrat to oppose unwarranted invasions or wholesale slaughter. It wasn't OK when the Soviets did it and it isn't OK now.

Kosovo was no crisis either..........but we invaded there anyway under Clinton.....when he should have been focused on OBL instead of monicas lips...

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Well, if Bobby Kennedy hadn't got shot, the man guarenteed to have been the next President, then we would have done the right thing and just got the hell out. Instead we got Nixon and his "secret plan" which was no plan at all, that got tens of thousands more of our guys killed for nothing, the same $hit you losers are doing in Iraq.

Saddam was popular all right.....You praised him or his thugs came and dragged you away at night for torture if you were lucky........you were worm food if you weren't.

We didn't get rid of him in '92 becasue the idiots next door in Iran were an even worse choice....

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche