Dem. Strategy that can be useful!?
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 10,375
From: Monterey
Car Info: Sline
Dem. Strategy that can be useful!?
This sounds fairly convincing and might be useful if the other Dem's catch on and start to play it up.
The article:
The article:
The 'Pull and Strike' Democrats
Iraq is President Bush's war, but the Democrats are quickly getting tagged with some blame for it. One of the reasons Congress is in such bad odor—less popular even than Bush in recent polls—is that Democrats look feckless on how to proceed in Iraq, and not just because they lack the votes to cut off funding.
In 1993 and 1994, President Clinton developed a policy called "lift and strike" in the Balkans—lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and strike Serbian positions to prevent ethnic cleansing.
Now, Democrats should embrace what I like to call "pull and strike"—pull forces from the streets of Baghdad, but strike hard at Qaeda positions in the Sunni areas and in Afghanistan, mostly from air bases outside Iraq. In other words, saying no to the folly of intervening in a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites isn't enough. Critics must also say yes—loudly—to calling in airstrikes on foreign fighters, who are increasingly being identified by friendly local sheiks determined to chase them out of their country.
Iraq is President Bush's war, but the Democrats are quickly getting tagged with some blame for it. One of the reasons Congress is in such bad odor—less popular even than Bush in recent polls—is that Democrats look feckless on how to proceed in Iraq, and not just because they lack the votes to cut off funding.
In 1993 and 1994, President Clinton developed a policy called "lift and strike" in the Balkans—lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and strike Serbian positions to prevent ethnic cleansing.
Now, Democrats should embrace what I like to call "pull and strike"—pull forces from the streets of Baghdad, but strike hard at Qaeda positions in the Sunni areas and in Afghanistan, mostly from air bases outside Iraq. In other words, saying no to the folly of intervening in a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites isn't enough. Critics must also say yes—loudly—to calling in airstrikes on foreign fighters, who are increasingly being identified by friendly local sheiks determined to chase them out of their country.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Articel
In 1993 and 1994, President Clinton developed a policy called "lift and strike" in the Balkans—lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and strike Serbian positions to prevent ethnic cleansing.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Ahhh yes... the Clinton "Operation Desert Fox - innocent body count need not apply with aerial bombardment" strategy. Funny how that one works. I guarantee body counts will go on the back burner if a Democrat gets elected in 2008 and adopts this tactic.
It's really quite brilliant how it works... If you simply take-out the Soldier-on-the-ground option and you can sharpie all the clever 9/11 terrorist vs. NYC pride phrases on a 500lb you want. You could even drop hugely devastating GBU-43/B MOAB on Al Qaeda occupied strongholds mixed with Iraqi civilians and people back in the states won't care either way because the American ground Soldier count remains at zero.
Truth is, innocent casualties never matter enough. It's all bull**** in the end and ammo for the anti-Bush, “every politician other than a Democrat is a war monger” agenda. I wonder if the innocent body count would matter if volunteering Airmen & Seamen had to personally ride the bomb in Kamikaze-style in order to remote detonate at impact, assuming technology for mechanical detonation did not exist?
I'm just saying...
On a personal note i'm really up for anything.
It's really quite brilliant how it works... If you simply take-out the Soldier-on-the-ground option and you can sharpie all the clever 9/11 terrorist vs. NYC pride phrases on a 500lb you want. You could even drop hugely devastating GBU-43/B MOAB on Al Qaeda occupied strongholds mixed with Iraqi civilians and people back in the states won't care either way because the American ground Soldier count remains at zero.
Truth is, innocent casualties never matter enough. It's all bull**** in the end and ammo for the anti-Bush, “every politician other than a Democrat is a war monger” agenda. I wonder if the innocent body count would matter if volunteering Airmen & Seamen had to personally ride the bomb in Kamikaze-style in order to remote detonate at impact, assuming technology for mechanical detonation did not exist?
I'm just saying...
On a personal note i'm really up for anything.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
And you gotta love how realtime ground intelligence would be replaced with the post 9/11 intel that helped get us there in the first place. Intelligence would go in the toilet if we replaced Soldiers - thousands of American men and women that have a hard enough time finding this information when working with Iraqis on Iraq soil - with just the Iraqis alone. WTF is that about?
This would most definitely add to the civilian count that would go unnoticed or unquestioned. Again, if you're a Dem you can pull this kind of **** off.
This would most definitely add to the civilian count that would go unnoticed or unquestioned. Again, if you're a Dem you can pull this kind of **** off.
Last edited by Salty; Jun 18, 2007 at 01:07 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Larydfje032343f3
Car Lounge
2
Mar 15, 2006 12:40 PM
Max Xevious
Teh Politics Forum
5
Jul 22, 2004 07:04 PM