How to defeat TWO of the Repug's top talking points...

[file83]

We've all heard these two talking points before:

1) We have to fight the terrorists over in Iraq so we don't have to fight them over here.

2) We must set up a democracy in Iraq to win the global war on terror.

THE QUESTION:
If the intention is to draw ALL of the world's terrorists to Iraq, then how do you expect to set up a fledgling democracy at the same time?

That's like trying to stack up a House of Cards in a Category 5 Hurricane. It's a futile endeavor.

They can't win the argument EVER, if they bring up either one of these talking points because you can now EXPLOIT the inherent PARADOX in these self conflicting goals.

The Republicans must stick to TP#1 that I mentioned. To do otherwise takes away one of the sole reasons they give for starting and continuing the war.

However, they must also stick to TP#2 as a way to justify to the Iraqi citizens the U.S.'s intentions of creating a terrorist honey pot. They dangle democracy as the carrot to fool the masses.

So, since they must stick to both Talking Points, then you can easily break them down, expose the LIE of the war, and maybe start winning some elections around here for the Democrats. Maybe even get this war wrapped up and bring the troops home from that messed up, oil soaked, blood stained quagmire.

[LaPera]

1. You bring up great talking points of your own...

Cheers!

[shockingelk]

2. Playing Devil's Advocate

"We didn't start this war - the Jihadists did. The war they started is global in scope and we can choose the battlefields we fight them on. We chose Iraq as an active battlefield for many reasons, an important reason being that it serves the dual purpose of setting up the conditions in Iraq for representative democracy."

[LynnTheDem]

4. But you cannot set up a "representative democracy" -or anything else-

in the midst of a battlefield full of jihadists.

[shockingelk]

5. "Agreed"

"But nor could democracy emerge with Saddam or his sons in power."

[shockingelk]

7. I've been through this argument dozens of times on Hannity's board

And have found that right-wingers and Bushbots are quite comfortable with the idea of a free democracy being held together with flypaper.

I think the best point one can make is that it was always and still is fanciful that an Arab nation would welcome any kind of government instigated by The Great Satan ... and no war supporters even expected an insurgency after the Ba'athists fell from, power.

[file83]

8. (Playing along...)

So you admit that while War could remove Saddam from power, it wouldn't be succesful in bringing democracy to Iraq.

Now what we have is a situation that is worse than having Saddam in power: Total anarchy and instability that will no doubt spread through out the middle east. The government that rises out these ashes most likely be sympathetic to ISLAMIC JIHADISTS, thereby completely jeopardizing U.S. international strategic interests.

That is happening no matter if we stay or go. Time to go.

[shockingelk]

14. "No, you're twisting my words"

"I said representative democracy was impossible with the Ba'athists still in power. The Iraqis are now our allies in the War on Terror and they have had two successful elections and are on the verge of adopting a Constitution. As to the conditions in Iraq, perhaps you can ask the Kurds and Shia if they want Saddam back, but I believe the answer is quite obviously 'no.'"

(This is me really talking now: If we do pull out before Iraqis can defend themselves, both Iran and Turkey would be more than happy to 'stabilize' the situation by sending in troops, which would lead to a regional war, and we'd be right back in it but worse.

(Maybe it's too late now, but the only solution with a happy ending for the US would be to get Muslim troops for allies like Pakistan and Egypt to do the visible policing, and we just provide air support and protect Iraq's borders.)

[file83]

18. The elections and the "Constitution" are just stage props....

(still playing along...)
Now you are just falling back on empty rhetorical arguments. You and I both know that Saddam coming back is out of the scope of reality. For you to imply I was suggesting such is rhetorical nonsense. There for I'm left with no other choice but to conclude you are withdrawing from a sincere debate.

(now this is me talking to you concerning your second part)
If you truly believe the U.S. has the right to play sociological lab experiments with the citizens of Iraq by haphazardly dismantling their total infrastructure, intentionally mixing in a terrorist "insurgency", and setting up puppet elections with the far, far-out half baked theory that World Peace is going to result, then there is nothing I can say to you that will make you see beyond the experiment.

I know these weren't your choices, but that is exactly what is going on here. The regional war you speak of is going to happen sooner or later. That is the fate this experiment has given the middle east. There is no avoiding it now. The only question is how many US Troops are we going to sacrifice before we realize the mission is futile? 58,000 perhaps?

Thanks for playing along and I value the stimulating discussion. We can agree to disagree concerning bringing the troops home. I'm just glad I don't have any loved ones over there in the experiment.

[shockingelk]

20. Tired of playing wing-nut, answer to the rest of the conversation

Of course I didn't want to invade Iraq in the first place, but as is obvious to all, we are in a war there.

I do not think a regional war is inevitable, although I don't see a long-term improvement happening before a regime change in the U.S.: we'll be the hated aggressor, however if we pulled back to the borders and put a peacekeeping force visibly led by a Muslim country, all sides of the conflict would experience less casualties. Such a situation could stretch until 2009 at which time our intentions could be recast as a mission to right the wrongs of the prior administration.

[LynnTheDem]

12. But under Saddam, there were no terrorists/jihadists in Iraq

And the people of Iraq were better of then than they are now.

[file83]

6. Ok, I'll play along....

(This is addressed to your quote, not YOU. :-) )

You just said that an "important reason" for choosing Iraq as a battle field for drawing all the world's terrorists there is to set Iraq up with a representative democracy.

Setting up democracies isn't as easy as flicking a switch. In fact, setting up a democracy requires regional stability. Economic stability. Drawing all the world's terrorists into Iraq creates the OPPOSITE conditions required for setting up said democracy.

It's like trying to stack up a House of Cards in a Category 5 hurricane. You're stupid to attempt such a task, and even dumber to continue with the task after you fail time and time again. It's a completely unacheivable situation. Bring the troops home now.

[shockingelk]

10. "Clarification ..."

"The important reason I referred to was only to create the conditions for representative Democracy. The unexpected insurgency is being supported - at least tacitly - by Syria and Iran. This should show you that the War on Terror is global in scope - The President has made it clear again and again that the War on Terror will last years."

[file83]

13. You cannot claim that the insurgency was "unexpected"...

...because YOU have already stated that part of the plan of going to war was "To fight the war over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Your intentions, self admittedly, were to create conditions for an "insurgency", to draw terrorists from around the world to Iraq, so you cannot claim that it was unexpected.

[shockingelk]

16. "This war is GLOBAL in scope"

"If we weren't fighting them in Iraq, we'd be fighting them somewhere else. Do you understabnd the meaning of 'global?'

<insert copy/pasted dictionary definition>"

[file83]

19. So you admit that your intentions were to draw the "Global" terrorists

into Iraq. Into one country. ALL of them. And you somehow think now you'll be able to set up a democracy in the midst of all this chaos?

Tell me then, assuming a miracle comes down from the heavens and one day in 2007 Iraq was suddenly a thriving democracy with a booming economy.....

.....according to you, the terrorists are "global", so you still will not have solved the problem of defeating the terrorists. What would prevent them from attacking us or our allies?

Oh, wait, that already happened in the London bombings....so you were saying something about a democracy in ONE country helping us here in the U.S. how?

[LynnTheDem]

15. The insurgency is not "unexpected" (dozens of links avail incl US military

and a slew of rightwing think tanks) As you're WANTING terrorists to come to Iraq and fight, you cannot claim any insurgency is "unexpected".

As for Syria and Iran, first off, the US military says 95% of the insurgents are Iraqis (dozens of links avail) not "foreign fighters".

Second, there was NO insurgency from anyone BEFORE bush invaded Iraq, stirring up everyone's hatred for America and creating terrorists.

Third, bush's invasion has INCREASED terrorism and the threat of terrorism (dozens of links avail).

Fourth, the "US-BACKED" Iraqi "constitution" installs Sharia law in Iraq, making Iraq an IRANIAN-style ISLAMIC STATE. The cleric al Sistani, the most powerful man in Iraq now, is IRANIAN. The "government" in Iraq is largely members of the Da'Wa Party -an IRANIAN group) and the SCIRI -an IRANIAN group.

So thanks to bush's invasion, Iraq is now BEST BUDS with IRAN when they were not under Saddam.

Fifth, as it will last forever, because every time we kill someone's baby it angers people and they turn to terrorism to get back at us (just as we would do) and as the US military is running drastically low on American citizens to go die for bush's lies, it's time you & your family enlist (give link to enlistment site.)

Sixth; So you admit PEARL HARBOR was LEGAL and RIGHT for the Japanese to do? After all, they used the bush Doctrine. (I love tossing that one in.)

Seventh; how about all the terrorists ALREADY HERE? How about the terrorists NOT AS STUPID as you & bushCabal? The terrorists who say hmmm, the entire US military is IRAQMIRED and NO ONE'S HOME in the USA...let's go attack AMERICA.

2 well-known in advance hurricanes did huge damage; imagine what a handful of terrorists could do...and there's no one home to stop em.

[shockingelk]

17. Such observations are subtleties to Bushbots

They can't imagine a man who defends the lives of fetuses and is nice to his own mother as being anything but a straight shooter with broad, grand and great ideas.

[Fridays Child]

3. Great point! How about if you email it to Keith Olbermann?

I'd love to see him bring it up on his show.

[tulsakatz]

9. #1 is BS anyway and everyone knows it...........

.........otherwise how do they explain the London bombings? That happened while fighting was still going on Iraq.

So if the freepers genuinely do believe this, the argument already has serious flaws since we know they obviously can attack us here at the same time! Plus England also has a democracy so it seems to me that neither argument works. Of course, I'm sure some freeper will come up with some insane reason why it does.

[file83]

11. Of course we know that, but for the freepers that don't, we use Kung-Fu

that is the subject of the parent post.