Cut it way down, anyway. Learn a little about an old concept: self sufficiency.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Yeah, probably. I know, let's put a gun to their heads and insist that they adopt a free and democratic society!! Why hasn't anybody thought of this before?

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

The reason I went to such extreme is that any foreign involvement allows people/trade/interests to be jacked with by radical muslim terrorists and thus leaves us vulnerable.

It is impracticle, to say the least, to cut off all foreign involvement. Despite your feelings towards the oil economy, it is equally impracticle to stop that anytime in the next 50 years.

With those two givens any solution to the Islamic terrorist problem cannot involve the isolationism that you promote. This was obvious several decades ago.

The cat is now out of the bag. Discussing how to put it back in the bag or how it got out of the bag are really luxuries that we don't have. The cat must now be dealt with. Do we kill it? Declaw it? Train it to be a nice pussy? How will it react to those methods?

What is your solution based upon the contraints placed upon this country and others by the real world?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Let's take an example, shall we?

Iraq:

There are roughly 150000 US soldiers there. Each has one gun, for the sake of argument.

Do you really think they are aiming at the 12,000,000 that voted in the last election?

When 60+% of the country turns out to vote at risk of death or injury to do so, doesn't that kinda indicate that they support the election process and what it stands for?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

So I said "let's pack up our crap and go home, we, and the UN, can talk our way out of trouble with these Muslim folks. They'll leave us alone if we just leave them alone." referring to the Democratic plan for the war on terror, yes, dumb name, but that's what we got.

It is reportedly a straw man argument because no Democrat in any position of power has advocated that.

Let's get some definitions on the table first.

What is a position of power? Would a senator or representative be a powerful person that could change and effect policy? I vote yes.

What about the head of the Democratic National Committee? I vote yes again, this would be the guy that sets strategy for getting more Democrats elected.

Now, what is Diplomacy?

Answers.com defines it thus: 1. Process of conducting activities with another with tact in order to bring about a good relationship. An executive who is diplomatic in dealings with clients, suppliers, and employees is careful to say the right things at the right time to avoid ill will.

I like to refer to it as talking your way out of trouble, or talking about things.

So, let's look at some data.

First there's House Joint Resolution 73 sponsored by Rep. John Murtha on 17 Nov 2005. There were 105 Democratic co-sponsors for this resolution. The last one added his name to the document on 11 July 2006 - less than 2 months ago.

Here's the summery according to the LOC:
SUMMARY AS OF:
11/17/2005--Introduced.

States that: (1) the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date; (2) a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region; and (3) the United States shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

As I remember that resolution, the timetable for pulling out of Iraq was within 6 months. We would have gone home by now if it had become law. It would have been viewed as a victory for Al Qaida.

Let's move on.

Senator John Kerry, former and future presidential candidate for President of the United States, a powerful position indeed, sponsored 2 pieces of legislation. Senate Joint resolutions 33 and 36, summerized again by LOC as follows:

S.J.RES.36 SUMMARY AS OF:
5/8/2006--Introduced.

States that: (1) U.S. forces shall be [B]withdrawn from Iraq[/B] at the earliest practicable date if Iraqis fail to form a national unity government by May 22, 2006; (2) if Iraqis form a national unity government by May 22, 2006, the United States shall reach an agreement with such government on a schedule for U.S. combat troop withdrawal by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces to complete the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces; (3) the President shall consult with Congress on this schedule; (4) the President should convene a summit that includes leaders of such government, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), representatives of the European Union (EU), and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, to reach a political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance, and border security; and (5) the United States should maintain an over-the-horizon military presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

S.J.RES.33 SUMMARY AS OF:
4/6/2006--Introduced.

States that: (1) the President should convene a summit that includes Iraqi leaders, U.S. allies, Arab League members, Iraq's neighbors, and representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to reach a comprehensive agreement for Iraq that includes forming a unity government, security guarantees, disbanding the militias, and a process for reviving reconstruction efforts and securing Iraq's borders; (2) U.S. forces shall be withdrawn from Iraq at the earliest practicable date if Iraqis fail to form a national unity government by May 15, 2006; (3) if Iraqis form a national unity government by such date the United States should reach a withdrawal agreement with such government, and the President shall consult with and and present such withdrawal agreement to Congress; and (4) redeployment of U.S. forces to rear guard status in Iraq for security back-up, training, and emergency response should be accelerated.

All three resolutions involve pulling out of Iraq. If not immediatly, by the end of this year. 3 months away. How will the arab world see the pullout in December in light of the recent Hezbollah victory in Lebanon?

Interesting to note also, in Kerry's resolution he provides for troops over the horizon to pursue the war on terror in his Iraq resolution. De facto, Kerry acknowledges as does OBL that Iraq is part of the war on terror. Something the Democrats are trying to deny as this November's election draws nearer. Kerry introduced these resolutions all within the last 6 months. He wants us to discuss with Iran and Syria what we should do with Iraq and how the government there should work. I don't think Iran or Syria should really have an opinion that counts on how Iraq does or does not work. Surely he knew that Iran and Syria weren't too friendly with us, we were fighting a proxy war with them when he was introducing his resolutions...

Well, folks, it's late. I'll maybe go for part 2 tomorrow sometime when we'll look at some other folks who feel as though we should pack up our crap and go home and let the UN talk about it.

I feel pretty comfortable with what I said. No straw man needed.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Peragro, you make good points, but you are still making a straw man argument because none of the Democratic proposals you cite say: "They'll leave us alone if we just leave them alone." Maybe you will close that loop in part 2.

If I understand Murtha, he is saying that our presence in Iraq exacerbates the terrorism problem and that we can more effectively fight terrorists by pulling back over the horizon. While his approach requires us to eat some crow, I don't see any part of his plan that relies on the good faith of the terrorists. He just has a different way of fighting them. He hasn't convinced me that his plan would work, but he is not an appeaser.Diplomacy is not about talking. It's about listening.

Murtha's horizon included moving forces to the Pacific Island bases. Now that's what I call an horizon.

Well, here is an issue. Not so much about eating crow. It is about appearing weak. They know we are weak and they are strong. That is why they do what they do. OBL was surprised that it was so easy to get us out of Somalia. Think that didn't encourage him and his followers that a little more and they can get what they want? Now, what happens in a few years down the road when they want something else? They know all they have to do is behead a few people, drag a few corpses and what not and we will cave in. Think they won't exploit that? I would.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I think it's safe to say that had we adopted any of the three resolutions I listed as law, we would be royally screwed at this point.

This is as close to a plan as I can find for the Democratic platform for fighting the war on terror.

Much of the party can't even directly acknowledge that Iraq is a central battle in the war on terrorism. Moreover, many can't acknowledge that there is a war on terror. OBL has no problem acknowledging either situation, and he is not alone with regard to radical islamic groups.

Given the view that radical Islam takes towards percieved weakness, half of the politicians running for office in this country spell definite disaster for this country - and it's not the Republican half.

BTW, I didn't make up those positions listed in the resolutions I posted. They were written by Democrats in positions of authority. I didn't attribute to them something they didn't say. This really is the position of at least one Senator and presidential candidate and 106 representatives. All of whom are in positions of authority.

The ONLY way that over-the-horizon forces can participate in any military situation is via an air campaign. Essentially, the message is, "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone - otherwise we'll bomb you.". We've already seen how that works out in Lebanon. In fact, isn't one of the major criticisms of how things in iraq have gone so far lack of ground forces?

I'll stick with the dictionary definition of diplomacy, it involves more than just listening.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

That's true. If they sense we are weak, they will exploit the perceived weakness. If they sense we are too hard-headed to make necessary changes in course, they will exploit that hard-headedness. It's a tough situation. No doubt about it.

They KNOW we are weak. All this GC crap proves it. That and the fact that we don't dare to do the stuff they do. To get 1 soldier they are willing to wipe out a village. They know we don't dare do such a thing. If we even bruise someone, you bet we will catch all kinds of hell from it and quite a bit from out own people.

I saw a cartoon of a US fighter and a terrorist. Both in the ring with the US fighter wearing boxing gloves and told what he cannot do by the ref. The terrorist was with an PRG and what not and told that he can do whatever he wants. How true.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I agree with you with respect to HJR 73 and SJR 36, but a plan along the lines of SJR 33 might make some sense. Or it might be a disaster. I'm not qualified to say. My point, though, is that none of the plans include any appeasement of anybody. Make them up? Who said anything about making things up? I have no doubt that your post was accurate.You are getting into things that are way over my head, but at least you seem to have backed off your claim that the Democrats have proposed that if we leave the terrorists alone and they will leave us alone.That's true. Your earlier post said that diplomacy involved "talking your way out of trouble, or talking about things." My intent was to point out that you left out the most important part of diplomacy - listening.

They know that we have been weak in the past. Why does that mean that we will always be weak? This reminds me of the opposition to the UN weapons inspections in Iraq. They were ineffective because Saddam kept excluding them from places. By 2003, the inspections were starting to get to the truth because we quit letting Saddam push them around. Of course, just as they were about to get to the truth, W ended the whole thing by invading.What is "GC crap"?Your definition of weak differs from mine.

Here's an excerpt from the link I provided above. It's the speech given yesterday regarding the CIA program that held Khalid Sheik Mohammad and 13 others.
KSM is the person who planned the second bombing of the WTC which resulted in their destruction and the deaths of 3000 innocent, non-combatant, civilian men, woman and children. Yet we are worried about "outraging" this man's "personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading" him??

There are 13 others who are equally as evil as KSM. God help our interrogators if they may have done something so evil as putting panties on the heads of these "men".

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

The terrorists want Iraq. OBL has said so and directed great effort to achieve that aim. It is the central part of this war and the loser will wallow in defeat, to paraphrase the head terrorist.

John Murtha and many other democrats, 106 to be exact in the house, have claimed that if we pull out of Iraq then the terrorism will decrease. In other words, if we leave [them alone] things will calm down. Our presence excacerbates the enemy. Of course it does, that is why they are the enemy and we are fighting them - they don't like freedom. This is similar to claiming that US forces stationed in Britain during WWII annoyed the Germans and if we would only pull those forces out then the Germans would stop what they were doing.

Murtha and many Democrats maintain that if we concede Iraq it will be better for the US to achieve peace in the rest of the world and here at home.

Was it not the leader of the Democratic National Committee that said we cannot win in Iraq?

This is the textbook definition of appeasement which is defined so:

'The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.'

I guess technically it is not appeasement. The enemy is actual and not potential and there has not been peace there for decades. What Murtha and 106 democrats, one Senator and the head of the DNC (all of whom are in positions of authority) directly propose is surrender which is worse than appeasement.

The resolutions listed show a complete lack of knowledge as to what is going on in the world, the nature of our enemy and the ability and tactics required to fight them. If this kind of thinking is allowed to flourish we will easily spend considerably more time and treasure fighting the very people we are fighting now. They will be emboldened we will be demoralized further and we will have a much reduced, if any, chance of being victorious.

The current plan we are using is not perfect, there have been errors. Still, I am much more inclined to accept a plan that is working and has a chance of success rather than one of surrender that gaurantees failure.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone