Brilliant political move yesterday by Romney

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

myboynoah, don't let him draw you into the tall grass. Smoke him out.

Thank you for your concern. The image of the vultures picking at Mike's bones was most disturbing.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Other locations of terrorists:

Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Egypt
Sudan
Lebanon
Israel
Northern Ireland
United States
Canada
Mexico

Must we have a military presence in each of those places too so we don't "lose?" You are all rhetoric and no substance. Off you go to find an article from someone else who can give an argument you can't otherwise think of.

Heh, I see you abandoned your "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism" approach. Guess that line wasn't working out for ya, so you had to change topics.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I thought I did in general, but here goes the specifics.



Define win. I suppose one could say they did. After the 2004 train bombings in Madrid, Spain elected new leaders intent on withdrawing from Iraq, which they did. Sadly, Spain's withdrawal hasn't had the desired effect. Just two weeks ago Spainish officials arrested 12 suspects in a plot to carry out suicide attacks in Barcelona. The ties go back to Pakistan.

Are you suggesting that if Spain stayed in Iraq there wouldn't have been 12 suspects to carry out suicide attacks in Barcelona? Nice of you to mention Pakistan as the base of the terrorist support, though, rather than Iraq.

Hyperbolic question. Nonhyperbolic answer: no.

Not a hyperbolic question, and not a helpful answer. If you want to give a helpful answer, try going through the questions I asked.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...9&postcount=23

Actually I think I addressed this, noting our continued presence in Aghanistan and support for NATO forces there as well as working with Pakistani authorities to get Al Qaeda forces there. I also mocked Hillary's plan to send missles after Al Qaeda and Osama. She'd be kind of the Aluminum Foil Lady to Margerat Thatcher's Iron Lady.

So the answer is no.

"Our continued presence in Afghanistan" is a quick gloss-over of reality. Yes, we have people in Afghanistan. Sadly, we don't have enough and that country is falling into chaos. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7219156.stm

Iraq is an enormous reason as to why Afghanistan is falling into chaos. Afghanistan was, and remains, a base for terrorist operations and will continue to be for so long as we are distracted in Iraq.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, I see you abandoned your "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism" approach. Guess that line wasn't working out for ya, so you had to change topics.

Heh, I see you still haven't learned to read.

I didn't say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. I said "Still holding onto your theory that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (and then taking another large leap to assume that leaving Iraq has something to do with terrorists "winning")?"

Off you go. Peggy Noonan is probably writing an article you will want to post soon.

[SoonerCoug]

Mitt Romney loves America so much he couldn't bring himself to subject America to a Mitt Romney presidency.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Mitt Romney loves America so much he couldn't bring himself to subject America to a Mitt Romney presidency.

lol!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Heh, I see you still haven't learned to read.

I didn't say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. I said "Still holding onto your theory that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (and then taking another large leap to assume that leaving Iraq has something to do with terrorists "winning")?"

Off you go. Peggy Noonan is probably writing an article you will want to post soon.

Ah. In that case, I don't think Iraq had any direct connection to 9/11, and it's no "large leap" to assume that leaving there prematurely grants them a victory.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Mitt Romney loves America so much he couldn't bring himself to subject America to a Mitt Romney presidency.

Given a choice between being devisive in a race that mathmatically was impossible to win and bowing out is actually incredibly smart -but I suppose the one liners are more fun.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you suggesting that if Spain stayed in Iraq there wouldn't have been 12 suspects to carry out suicide attacks in Barcelona? Nice of you to mention Pakistan as the base of the terrorist support, though, rather than Iraq.

No, I'm saying the horrific 2004 Al Qaeda terrorist attack on Madrid served as a catalyst for Spain's withdrawal from Iraq, as if there had been some kind of cause and effect between Spain's involvement and the attack. Given recent developments in Barcelona, we all might not want to make the same mistaken calculus. Al Qaeda just doesn't seem to like something about Western Culture.

Certainly Pakistan is a base for terrorism. You're not saying it is the only base, are you? And you certainly wouldn't discount terrorist attacks in Iraq as not worthy of our concern, would you? I don't you understand the motivation for you comment.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not a hyperbolic question, and not a helpful answer.

C'mon Cali, go back and look at it. It was a silly, emotion-packed question meant to send a mocking message versus furthering discussion. I find my answer sufficient.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you want to give a helpful answer, try going through the questions I asked.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...9&postcount=23

I've addressed these issues in several other threads here and am tempted to say go find them because I have little motivation and time to go throught them, but I like you so here goes.

1. What does it mean to "finish this thing?"

For me, it means to withdraw combat troops when the Iraqis are able to provide for their own internal security. We're obviously not there yet.

2. Is it actually possible to "finish this thing?"

Yes, of course.

3. How long would it take to "finish this thing?"

How can one know? Why are Dems so in love with timetables? I hope within three to four years.

4. How much would it cost in lives and dollars to "finish this thing?"

I don't know. I anticipate as we get closer to the goal the cost will decrease significantly.

5. Is there a point at which we should ever give up (i.e., a point where the cost outweighs the benefit)?

Sure.

6. When is that point?

Given all the variables, how can one answer? I see three issues that would give me grave concern and/or act as evidence that it is time to go.
- our friends in the region come to us and express their serious opposition to our presence in Iraq.
- Iraq's elected government requests that we leave.
- the terrorists in Iraq become an overwhelming force.

7. What are the consequences of "cutting and running?"

- Terrorists win.
- Lost prestige.
- Lost national resolve (you didn't live through the aftermath of Viet Nam; it wasn't pleasent).
- Leave Iraq to probable civil war and eventual separation; more killing, more pain, more hell for the Iraqis, all placed at the feet of the U.S.
- Significant backlash for Middle Eastern and Islamic nations for not cleaning up our mess.
- Show of weakness in a region that has not respect for weakness.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm going to stop here.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Our continued presence in Afghanistan" is a quick gloss-over of reality. Yes, we have people in Afghanistan. Sadly, we don't have enough and that country is falling into chaos. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7219156.stm

Iraq is an enormous reason as to why Afghanistan is falling into chaos. Afghanistan was, and remains, a base for terrorist operations and will continue to be for so long as we are distracted in Iraq.

Your article says there is need to for a diplomatic solution, not a military one. I know Dems love to use the "we are distracted" argument, but that is just a red herring. We are fully engaged in developments there, cooperating with NATO and the current Afghan government. True, the Afghan-Pakistan border region is still a haven for Al Qaeda, but this is probably more an intelligence and diplomatic problem than a military one. The havens in Pakistan make it even more difficult. I simply don't buy the "we are distracted" argument, and just because Dems say it over and over, it doesn't make it true.

There, I'm done. I'll ask the question next time.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Upon reflection, yesterday's move by Romney really was quite clever.

1. Since he still had a (long) shot at the nomination, he gave the impression of leaving of his own choice, rather than being forced out.
2. He did it at CPAC, where he would have his most ardent supporters and the friendliest crowd.
3. It came unexpectedly, leaving even lukewarm supporters "wanting more."
4. Casting it as "for the good of the party, and the country" left him with some enormous good will among party faithful. Taking one for the team, as it were.
5. Gave the best political speech of his career.

Tex, for once I agree with you. That was exactly how I saw it.

Romney bows out now, avoids the humiliation of a drawn-out defeat, saves face, and to top it off manages to frame it as taking one for the team. What greater sacrifice than to lay down one's campaign for the sake of God and Country?

Even better, he leaves his arch-nemesis Huck looking like a petty self-centered narcissist for staying in the race and jeopardizing the very future of our country!

I don't know that I'd go so far as to classify it as brilliant, but the best possible move, yes.


Incidentally, turns out my mom was a Romney supporter. She was very very disappointed. Not a McCain fan, I guess.