"The war is not voter's highest priority"

[spindler]

So I went on vacation and stayed at my sister's house. Unfortunately her and her husband are Republicans. So first she said "Did you here what that guy's pastor said?". "If Barack Obama becomes president, only black people will be able to get ahead."

If you are a liberal you might be thinking my sister is uneducated, but no, she is very educated with a professional job and a degree society related and she has the knowledge to understand issues. But here is what this thread is about. She also admitted that she knows that the war, which her and her husband were for isn't going anywhere at all, but will still vote for McCain, because "The war is not voter's top priority."

I would really like to expound upon the sickness of the Republican mentality. At least 40% of Republicans don't think the war will be won or that there is any reason to expect progress, yet they will still vote for McCain, who will get another 20,000 American soldiers killed and injured for his fantasies because "the war is not the top priority". Saving 20,000 soldiers from being killed and maimed for no reason, which you agree is going to happen is not top priority.

For the really stupid and really slow, let me point out that this thread is not about Republicans who still think the war can be won so we don't have to bring that in. This is about voting for McCain when you AGREE he will needlessly get 20,000 soldiers killed and maimed.

These Republicans voted for Bush in '00 and were for the war. They voted for him again in '04 to continue the war. But it seems like getting that tax break is the real priority, rather than saving those soldiers you sent into war.

Let me point out there are still some moral reasons you could vote Republican if you thought the war was a losing effort. You could think that abortion kills so many that that takes priority over the soldiers. Maybe there are a couple of other moral reasons.

But, if saving 20,000 soldiers from disaster (equal to 6 9/11s) isn't "top priority", what priority is it exactly?. I'll tell you what priority it is to most Republicans. It is ZERO priority.

On Memorial day these people say they are deeply humble for the sacrifices that the soldiers have made to maintain freedom. They'll put bumper stickers on their car that say "If you love you're freedom, thank a soldier.". But yet it is a fact that millions of Republicans will vote for McCain for no other reason than that tax cut.

It's easy to forget but until the Republicans lost the November 2006 midterm elections, every day they would bully the Democrats. When Democrats asked for some measure of progress or some real reason to think this war was winnable, Republicans called them unpatriotic and said they were playing political games with the lives of the soldiers. These are the fascist thugs that Republican voters don't mind that much. So after years of being told that my opinion was treasonous, now for Republican voters saving those 20,000 lives "is just not top priority."

Republicans will say Obama is not "patriotic" because he won't wear a flag pin. Then after five years of hell in Iraq, Republicans will prioritize their tax break over saving the lives of soldiers. Wouldn't it be patriotic to vote for the soldiers coming home, if you think that is best for them, rather than getting your tax break?

So to any Republican who has a conscience I say this. If you love you're freedom, thank a soldier. Vote against John McCain.

[@_@ Artman]

There are people who still think this is a war?

oc·cu·pa·tion

Pronunciation: \ˌä-kyə-ˈpā-shən\
Function: noun

3 a: the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : seizure b: the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c: the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it

Staying there won't defeat terrorism, won't bring peace and stability in Iraq either. Only the Iraqi government can do that.

That's what it is. That's why we should leave, sooner the better.

[SDW2001]

So I went on vacation and stayed at my sister's house. Unfortunately her and her husband are Republicans. So first she said "Did you here what that guy's pastor said?". "If Barack Obama becomes president, only black people will be able to get ahead."

If you are a liberal you might be thinking my sister is uneducated, but no, she is very educated with a professional job and a degree society related and she has the knowledge to understand issues.

Apparently...not so much.



But here is what this thread is about. She also admitted that she knows that the war, which her and her husband were for isn't going anywhere at all, but will still vote for McCain, because "The war is not voter's top priority."

Wait...now you just informed us of how dumb your sister is...but let me give her the benefit of the doubt here: She said they were voting for McCain because "The war is not voter's [sic] top priority?" Or did she mean..."that's why he may win?"



I would really like to expound upon the sickness of the Republican mentality.

Because your sister, who is apparently dumb-as-dirt, represents all Republicans. Gotcha.

At least 40% of Republicans don't think the war will be won or that there is any reason to expect progress,

Whoah. Link? How was the question asked?

yet they will still vote for McCain, who will get another 20,000 American soldiers killed

How in the hell do you support THAT?

and injured for his fantasies because "the war is not the top priority". Saving 20,000 soldiers from being killed and maimed for no reason, which you agree is going to happen is not top priority.

So here we have a leap predicated on an unsupported speculation. Nice.



For the really stupid and really slow, let me point out that this thread is not about Republicans who still think the war can be won so we don't have to bring that in. This is about voting for McCain when you AGREE he will needlessly get 20,000 soldiers killed and maimed.

I love it. You pull a number out of your ass which is five times higher than today's 5 year death total. Then you present that number wrapped in a strawman. Wow.



These Republicans voted for Bush in '00 and were for the war.

So?

They voted for him again in '04 to continue the war.

Well, you just condemned over 60 million people then.

But it seems like getting that tax break is the real priority, rather than saving those soldiers you sent into war.

Hmm...how about the Democrats that voted to send them there? You know, the ones who are totally invested in defeat?



Let me point out there are still some moral reasons you could vote Republican if you thought the war was a losing effort. You could think that abortion kills so many that that takes priority over the soldiers. Maybe there are a couple of other moral reasons.

Well, since you've given us permission and analyzed everything in detail...let's do it.



But, if saving 20,000 soldiers from disaster (equal to 6 9/11s) isn't "top priority", what priority is it exactly?. I'll tell you what priority it is to most Republicans. It is ZERO priority.

Dude...how do you fit 20,000 soldiers in that strawman, anyway?



On Memorial day these people say they are deeply humble for the sacrifices that the soldiers have made to maintain freedom. They'll put bumper stickers on their car that say "If you love you're freedom, thank a soldier.". But yet it is a fact that millions of Republicans will vote for McCain for no other reason than that tax cut.

Uh...or maybe they simply think McCain is a much better option than Obama or Hillary. Maybe that's it?



It's easy to forget but until the Republicans lost the November 2006 midterm elections, every day they would bully the Democrats.

:lol::lol::lol:

When Democrats asked for some measure of progress or some real reason to think this war was winnable, Republicans called them unpatriotic and said they were playing political games with the lives of the soldiers.

Hmmm...maybe because they WERE. They didn't ask for measured of progress...they said "the war is lost....Bush is brain dead, he's a liar..." etc. Tell me, is it patriotic to say "the war is lost" as the President and Commander-in-Chief deploys 30,000 soldiers into harm's way?



These are the fascist thugs that Republican voters don't mind that much. So after years of being told that my opinion was treasonous, now for Republican voters saving those 20,000 lives "is just not top priority."

It's not treason to oppose the war. Wishing your country loses is.



Republicans will say Obama is not "patriotic" because he won't wear a flag pin.

Who says that?

Then after five years of hell in Iraq, Republicans will prioritize their tax break over saving the lives of soldiers.

Not unless they agree with your post.

Wouldn't it be patriotic to vote for the soldiers coming home, if you think that is best for them, rather than getting your tax break?

FALSE DILEMMA.



So to any Republican who has a conscience I say this. If you love you're freedom, thank a soldier. Vote against John McCain.

:lol:

Let me say again...false dilemma. The choice is not "bring the soldiers home" or "get a tax break." Jesus. I almost can't believe what an unmitigated disaster your post is. No wait. I can.

[@_@ Artman]

"War" ended...

http://patf.net/blogs/media/patf/mission_accomplished.jpg

...occupation started...:rolleyes:

[spindler]

Apparently...not so much.

Wait...now you just informed us of how dumb your sister is...but let me give her the benef\t of the doubt here: She said they were voting for McCain because "The war is not voter's [sic] top priority?" Or did she mean..."that's why he may win?"

Because your sister, who is apparently dumb-as-dirt, represents all Republicans. Gotcha.
Dude...how do you fit 20,000 soldiers in that strawman, anyway?


First of all, 20,000 soldiers would be 40 killed per month, plus another 300 permanently injured, plus another 100 with permanent mental illness multiplied by 48 months.

SDW2001, this is a typical thread where you play dumb and pretend to act smart. You purposely avoided the whole point of what I said. In my post, I did not say "All Republicans think the war is lost but will vote for McCain anyway for no other reason but to get there tax break." What I said was "There is a subset of Republicans who believe the war is lost and it will only get another 20,000 soldiers injured and killed. This subset is large, at least 40% of Republicans based on polls. Among those Republicans who believe John McCain will just get 20,000 more soldiers needlessly killed and injured , some of them have some moral reasons to still vote for him. For example, if they are opposed to abortion they would say that has to be stopped since it's even more lives lost. Or if Democrats take away gun rights that might get Americans killed.

But then, based on simple demographic analysis, there are millions of Republicans who
(a) believe John McCain will only get 20,000 more soldiers killed and injured AND
(b) have no overwhelming life or death reason to vote Republican SO
(c) must be voting Republican mainly to get the tax break or obvious pocketbook issues

Now, with a little bit of thinking, or rather if you had just not avoided the point, you could have put that together yourself. Instead you pretended that I meant that I knew EVERY Republicans motive. I was asking "What would it say about a person if they thought John McCain was only going to get more Americans killed, had no overwhelming moral reason they needed to vote Republican, and were voting Republican mainly for pocketbook issues, specifically the tax break?"

[QUOTE=SDW2001;1246261Uh...or maybe they simply think McCain is a much better option than Obama or Hillary. Maybe that's it? [/QUOTE]

Better option for who, exactly? If you are a "patriotic American" who chokes up in tears every time he thinks of his country being defended by our brave soldiers, and you AGREE McCain will only get more soldiers needlessly killed, then WHO would it be better to vote McCain for? You're pocketbook? Yes. Those soldiers? Obviously no.

[ronaldo]

Enough said.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

[SDW2001]

First of all, 20,000 soldiers would be 40 killed per month, plus another 300 permanently injured, plus another 100 with permanent mental illness multiplied by 48 months.

Question: How many people will die if we leave precipitously? How much harder will it be to go back in, as even Obama claims is possible? No one likes these questions, of course.



SDW2001, this is a typical thread where you play dumb and pretend to act smart.

I think my head might explode due to the enormity of that contradiction.

You purposely avoided the whole point of what I said. In my post, I did not say "All Republicans think the war is lost but will vote for McCain anyway for no other reason but to get there tax break." What I said was "There is a subset of Republicans who believe the war is lost and it will only get another 20,000 soldiers injured and killed. This subset is large, at least 40% of Republicans based on polls. Among those Republicans who believe John McCain will just get 20,000 more soldiers needlessly killed and injured , some of them have some moral reasons to still vote for him. For example, if they are opposed to abortion they would say that has to be stopped since it's even more lives lost. Or if Democrats take away gun rights that might get Americans killed.

But then, based on simple demographic analysis, there are millions of Republicans who
(a) believe John McCain will only get 20,000 more soldiers killed and injured AND
(b) have no overwhelming life or death reason to vote Republican SO
(c) must be voting Republican mainly to get the tax break or obvious pocketbook issues

Now, with a little bit of thinking, or rather if you had just not avoided the point, you could have put that together yourself. Instead you pretended that I meant that I knew EVERY Republicans motive. I was asking "What would it say about a person if they thought John McCain was only going to get more Americans killed, had no overwhelming moral reason they needed to vote Republican, and were voting Republican mainly for pocketbook issues, specifically the tax break?"

Let me get this straight: Your point is that 40% of Republicans would rather have a tax break than keep 20,000 soldiers alive? I think that's what you're saying, which is of course utterly absurd. It's the king of all unsupported arguments used to pose a false dilemma that size of the solar system.



Better option for who, exactly?

The nation.

If you are a "patriotic American" who chokes up in tears every time he thinks of his country being defended by our brave soldiers, and you AGREE McCain will only get more soldiers needlessly killed, then WHO would it be better to vote McCain for? You're pocketbook? Yes. Those soldiers? Obviously no.

I don't agree. McCain will not "needlessly get soldiers killed." There will be casualties, which are part of war. And look at the alternative. Tell me how many people Barack will get killed.

[trumptman]

So I went on vacation and stayed at my sister's house. Unfortunately her and her husband are Republicans. So first she said "Did you here what that guy's pastor said?". "If Barack Obama becomes president, only black people will be able to get ahead."

That sounds like a caricatured statement. Are you sure it wasn't just what you heard through your "they're a Republican" headphones. I've seen you do this with written statements on here so I have no doubt you would do it even worse with spoken statements.

If you are a liberal you might be thinking my sister is uneducated, but no, she is very educated with a professional job and a degree society related and she has the knowledge to understand issues. But here is what this thread is about. She also admitted that she knows that the war, which her and her husband were for isn't going anywhere at all, but will still vote for McCain, because "The war is not voter's top priority."

If the war were the top priority Hillary wouldn't be splitting the vote with Obama. It is clearly a secondary priority for most people.

I would really like to expound upon the sickness of the Republican mentality. At least 40% of Republicans don't think the war will be won or that there is any reason to expect progress, yet they will still vote for McCain, who will get another 20,000 American soldiers killed and injured for his fantasies because "the war is not the top priority". Saving 20,000 soldiers from being killed and maimed for no reason, which you agree is going to happen is not top priority.

Perhaps you should check your own mental health because plucking a number out of the air and declaring those who do not agree with you about the course of action to be sick is a bit delusional.

20-24k people will be KILLED, not even maimed but killed in California alone in the same timeframe. Considering there is no war going on in California, all you have shown is that when you large enough numbers through a large enough timeframe, you get a large number. No one is going to be outraged unless you give that number a context that shows it grossly disproportionate to what it otherwise would or should be.

For the really stupid and really slow, let me point out that this thread is not about Republicans who still think the war can be won so we don't have to bring that in. This is about voting for McCain when you AGREE he will needlessly get 20,000 soldiers killed and maimed.

Stupid, slow, needlessly... don't hold back, let us know how you really feel.

These Republicans voted for Bush in '00 and were for the war. They voted for him again in '04 to continue the war. But it seems like getting that tax break is the real priority, rather than saving those soldiers you sent into war.

Since no party is 50+1% of the population, the support must have been broader than your blinders allow you to comprehend.

Let me point out there are still some moral reasons you could vote Republican if you thought the war was a losing effort. You could think that abortion kills so many that that takes priority over the soldiers. Maybe there are a couple of other moral reasons.

We could also believe that not being entitled to the fruit of your own labors is the definition of slavery. We could believe that being made to live our lives for the benefit of others while being told to deny ourselves is a form of self-hatred and control. There are many more of course.

But, if saving 20,000 soldiers from disaster (equal to 6 9/11s) isn't "top priority", what priority is it exactly?. I'll tell you what priority it is to most Republicans. It is ZERO priority.

Have you gotten Grand Theft Auto IV banned yet? It allows you to drive drunk and there are 42,000+ fatalities a YEAR in the United States related to alcohol use. If you don't do as I demand and adopt the actions I declare you should take then I can tell it those people and the lives lost aren't your "top priority", that you tacitly endorse driving drunk through your inaction, that you give it "zero priority." You have a "sickness mentality" and will allow people to die just because you are "really stupid and slow" if you don't agree with what I have declared to be a crisis.

Or... maybe.... people just don't like your form of control, think for themselves and make their own decisions and their votes and priorities reflect that. You sound very outraged over the fact that you cannot control people by declaring something an emergency or crisis. This happens often on the left.

On Memorial day these people say they are deeply humble for the sacrifices that the soldiers have made to maintain freedom. They'll put bumper stickers on their car that say "If you love you're freedom, thank a soldier.". But yet it is a fact that millions of Republicans will vote for McCain for no other reason than that tax cut.

You are welcome to put the "If you hate freedom, thank a soldier working for our fascist government" sticker on your own car. EVERY Republican could vote for McCain and every Democrat could vote for Obama. There has to be broader support than that to win.

It's easy to forget but until the Republicans lost the November 2006 midterm elections, every day they would bully the Democrats. When Democrats asked for some measure of progress or some real reason to think this war was winnable, Republicans called them unpatriotic and said they were playing political games with the lives of the soldiers. These are the fascist thugs that Republican voters don't mind that much. So after years of being told that my opinion was treasonous, now for Republican voters saving those 20,000 lives "is just not top priority."

You are welcome to show how the funding of the war or the troop levels has changed in the two years we have had a Democratic Congress. Clearly it is not their top priority either.

Republicans will say Obama is not "patriotic" because he won't wear a flag pin. Then after five years of hell in Iraq, Republicans will prioritize their tax break over saving the lives of soldiers. Wouldn't it be patriotic to vote for the soldiers coming home, if you think that is best for them, rather than getting your tax break?


False dilemmas are a logical fallacy. I suggest you look it up and study it.

So to any Republican who has a conscience I say this. If you love you're freedom, thank a soldier. Vote against John McCain.

I have no conscience. I eat babies for breakfast. I kill bunnies and puppies with my SUV and large gun collection. I walk around and make women take off their shoes and go into the kitchen after insuring myself or some other nearby Republican male has properly impregnated them.

I could type something other than that, but that is just how you will read it anyway, so I saved you the trouble.

[sammi jo]

How anyone can divorce the war from the economy is living in cloud cuckoo land, but that is what the media, pundits and many senior politicians are doing. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

If this adventure had been started by a democratic administration... take a few deep breaths and ponder how the liberal media :lol: would be treating it....

It is amazing how anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could still be supporting endless war/occupation. Maybe excepting those who can still sleep at night, knowing that they are getting rich on the backs of dead soldiers who were ordered to war based on lies?

With the following quote in mind "The definition of insanity is the repetition of the same action expecting a different result."( John Laroquette), a couple of questions for SDW and Trumpt, and anyone else who is still supporting this policy:

*How much longer can we pursue this, knowing that the last 5 years has been a failure, both here in the US and in the Middle East?
*Do you still support the war/occupation, and why?
*How can this ever end?
*What is the maximum acceptable budget for this escapade?

[jimmac]

Question: How many people will die if we leave precipitously? How much harder will it be to go back in, as even Obama claims is possible? No one likes these questions, of course.



I think my head might explode due to the enormity of that contradiction.



Let me get this straight: Your point is that 40% of Republicans would rather have a tax break than keep 20,000 soldiers alive? I think that's what you're saying, which is of course utterly absurd. It's the king of all unsupported arguments used to pose a false dilemma that size of the solar system.



The nation.



I don't agree. McCain will not "needlessly get soldiers killed." There will be casualties, which are part of war. And look at the alternative. Tell me how many people Barack will get killed.


Oh SDW! Get a grip! McCain says we should stay a hundred years if necessary! There is simply no excuse for this! Jesus H. Christ!

That attitude is the epidome of what I would label " Needless "!

A hundred years after what it has already cost us in funds and lives?:no::wow::rolleyes:

The irony is that Iraq is closely tied to our economic problems in that the money we've spent there could have gone to help things here! Alot more I might add then those rebate checks! Our presence in Iraq is tied to everything including I believe the high price of gas ( One reason is OPEC's several mideastern members who don't want us there )! Which in turn weighs on the economy ( which in turn weighs on the value of the U.S. dollar ).

Now SDW why did we go there in ther first place? And why pray tell are we still there?

SDW this will be focused on in the coming months before the election. It's already not painting a pretty picture.

[jimmac]

First of all, 20,000 soldiers would be 40 killed per month, plus another 300 permanently injured, plus another 100 with permanent mental illness multiplied by 48 months.

SDW2001, this is a typical thread where you play dumb and pretend to act smart. You purposely avoided the whole point of what I said. In my post, I did not say "All Republicans think the war is lost but will vote for McCain anyway for no other reason but to get there tax break." What I said was "There is a subset of Republicans who believe the war is lost and it will only get another 20,000 soldiers injured and killed. This subset is large, at least 40% of Republicans based on polls. Among those Republicans who believe John McCain will just get 20,000 more soldiers needlessly killed and injured , some of them have some moral reasons to still vote for him. For example, if they are opposed to abortion they would say that has to be stopped since it's even more lives lost. Or if Democrats take away gun rights that might get Americans killed.

But then, based on simple demographic analysis, there are millions of Republicans who
(a) believe John McCain will only get 20,000 more soldiers killed and injured AND
(b) have no overwhelming life or death reason to vote Republican SO
(c) must be voting Republican mainly to get the tax break or obvious pocketbook issues

Now, with a little bit of thinking, or rather if you had just not avoided the point, you could have put that together yourself. Instead you pretended that I meant that I knew EVERY Republicans motive. I was asking "What would it say about a person if they thought John McCain was only going to get more Americans killed, had no overwhelming moral reason they needed to vote Republican, and were voting Republican mainly for pocketbook issues, specifically the tax break?"



Better option for who, exactly? If you are a "patriotic American" who chokes up in tears every time he thinks of his country being defended by our brave soldiers, and you AGREE McCain will only get more soldiers needlessly killed, then WHO would it be better to vote McCain for? You're pocketbook? Yes. Those soldiers? Obviously no.

" SDW2001, this is a typical thread where you play dumb and pretend to act smart. "

I run into that one alot myself with him!:rolleyes:

[trumptman]

How anyone can divorce the war from the economy is living in cloud cuckoo land, but that is what the media, pundits and many senior politicians are doing. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Well it could be me Sammi, but when everyone else is a "divorced" from reality because they don't subscribe to what you say, I'd say perhaps you ought to investigate your own mindset instead of believing the world delusional.

If this adventure had been started by a democratic administration... take a few deep breaths and ponder how the liberal media would be treating it....

We know exactly how they would be treating it because this adventure has been ongoing for decades. McCain can make the 100 year remark, construed or misconstrued, because he is right that we have been setting up bases and leaving troops around the world for a lot more than the five years blinders you have on. Why will we ask about when troops will come home from Iraq, but not from Germany, Korea, etc.

It is amazing how anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could still be supporting endless war/occupation. Maybe excepting those who can still sleep at night, knowing that they are getting rich on the backs of dead soldiers who were ordered to war based on lies?

I often wrestle with this question myself but then shrug it off and go back to clubbing baby seals and tearing the heads off kittens.

The reality is that the United States has vacillated between isolationism and engagement. Folks like myself prefer isolationism, the paleocon wing of the Republican party that is. However it is the Democrats along with the Neo-cons who rule the day. I'll need to put back my sig where it notes that the same people who want us out of Iraq want us IN Darfur. The choice appears to be all or nothing and since nothing doesn't appear to win, it becomes all. This is why under Clinton we still had Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, etc. It isn't like we stopping being the cop of the world on his watch and you can bet any sum of money you want that it won't stop under Hillary or Obama as well.

With the following quote in mind "The definition of insanity is the repetition of the same action expecting a different result."( John Laroquette), a couple of questions for SDW and Trumpt, and anyone else who is still supporting this policy:

Go look at who started which wars and who had the most people die under them. I assure the numbers associated with Democratic governments are huge. Their position is no different than with minority communities, you use divisive ideas and good intentions to distract, then you keep on doing what you do. There is not a candidate running left or right that will end Pax Americana. There is no one running who will stop sticking the government into our families, stop telling people they aren't responsible for their own welfare, or stop spending us and taxing us into oblivion. We have a choice of left, more left and most left. All they are arguing about is who in the village is going to going to get screwed the most.

When you decide you REALLY want to get past labels and stop the insanity, ask yourself when was the last time anyone advocating bringing the troops home, enforcing our own borders, ending race and gender baiting so that we could all unite around a means of using government to benefit ALL of us by doing those duties that it does best as described in the Constitution? When will the government work for the common good instead of generating envy so fingers can be pointed about who has more and who ought to be punished more by taxes as a result.

That is what the insanity is about. Why is it so hard to find someone who can convince us to just stand up, without having to label and make us hate someone who they swear were keeping us down. I've had plenty of adversity tossed at me in my life and still do on occasion. I never had to hate someone or blame someone to simply want to improve myself. I may have been born poor. I may have a whole family of alcoholics and drug abusers in my background. I never had to have someone say, "and ___________ race, company, sex, or person made them that way and that is why you cannot improve your lot in life." I just set about improving my lot and no hate has been necessary.

*How much longer can we pursue this, knowing that the last 5 years has been a failure, both here in the US and in the Middle East?

It hasn't been a failure by any stretch of the imagination. It is also too early to know how it will resolve. The various factions of the Middle East have been warring for thousands of years. It is no different in that regard than Asia or Europe. In Europe we spent half the century trying to ignore the problem and still watching them have skirmishes and go to war every couple decades, a pattern they had been repeating for hundreds of years, and decided to try to put an end to it. We essentially occupied Germany, and although we call it NATO, we all know who does the enforcement and swings the big club as it were. Asia was no different and it is clear we have established Japan as a sort of hedge for the region. It has not brought a perfect peace but it has ended what was an almost endless array of wars in the region.

Can we do this with the Middle East? Have we truly accomplished this in Euroe and Asia? Would things have been better if we hadn't or in what way would they have been different?

Those are all great questions and no one knows for sure. We do know that Europe even now will not handle anything in their own backyard until the death camps have been set up. We know China is a growing power and historically thinks it must control several territories it does not now control, and soon after that begins advancing on its neighbors (as the neighbors have done to them as well)

Do you honestly think that with no U.S. presence in the Middle East that someone would not again invade Kuwait, that an Iran and Iraq or a substitute for the two will not again go to war? Do we not already worry about Turkey invading northern Iraq, Iran invading Iraq, and Saudi Arabia funding activities in Iraq all as proxies for what they want to DO TO EACH OTHER IN OUR ABSENCE?

I love the good intentions of getting out. I want out and everyone out just as much as everyone else. I would love nothing more than to tell these guys to go enjoy killing each other for a thousand sunsets so our soldiers can be home safe and sound. That is absolutely my default position. The problem is that they don't leave us alone. They don't leave each other alone. There is no way to be alone or so it would appear for now. Since we HAVE to be involved it might as well be to our benefit and that appears to be the working policy for every president since Truman proclaimed it. They may harden or soften that stance a bit, but it is the same stance.

[@_@ Artman]

Air raid hits Baghdad hospital, US says 14 fighters dead (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080503/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestussadrcity_080503112533;_ylt=Au401g9vXWx 3WiJpdQfbhLtX6GMA)

A US air strike damaged a hospital in the Iraqi capital's violent Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Saturday, injuring 20 people, as American forces claimed to have killed 14 militiamen.
ADVERTISEMENT

The US military said it carried out the strike in Sadr City, a bastion of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, where US troops in separate confrontations killed at least 14 militiamen since Friday.

"I can confirm that we conducted a strike in Sadr City this morning," a US military spokesman told AFP. "The targets were known criminal elements. Battle damage assessment is currently ongoing."

However, witnesses and an AFP reporter at the scene said the main Al-Sadr hospital had been badly damaged and a fleet of ambulances were destroyed.

I didn't fear terrorism after 9-11.

But now I do. I don't live my life less because of it, but I fear that America will be attacked by a generation of people using our war in Iraq as an rally cry. I fear our civil liberties will be (have been) stripped, and I fear we will always lash out against other nations. Unless we bring about change.

The neo-cons wanted a never ending war? You got it.

Thank you Bush/Axis of Evil supporting retards. Reap what you sowed. I completely remove myself from anyone who supports this ongoing stupidity, hate and ignorance.

You are all losers.

[jimmac]

Well it could be me Sammi, but when everyone else is a "divorced" from reality because they don't subscribe to what you say, I'd say perhaps you ought to investigate your own mindset instead of believing the world delusional.



We know exactly how they would be treating it because this adventure has been ongoing for decades. McCain can make the 100 year remark, construed or misconstrued, because he is right that we have been setting up bases and leaving troops around the world for a lot more than the five years blinders you have on. Why will we ask about when troops will come home from Iraq, but not from Germany, Korea, etc.



I often wrestle with this question myself but then shrug it off and go back to clubbing baby seals and tearing the heads off kittens.

The reality is that the United States has vacillated between isolationism and engagement. Folks like myself prefer isolationism, the paleocon wing of the Republican party that is. However it is the Democrats along with the Neo-cons who rule the day. I'll need to put back my sig where it notes that the same people who want us out of Iraq want us IN Darfur. The choice appears to be all or nothing and since nothing doesn't appear to win, it becomes all. This is why under Clinton we still had Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, etc. It isn't like we stopping being the cop of the world on his watch and you can bet any sum of money you want that it won't stop under Hillary or Obama as well.



Go look at who started which wars and who had the most people die under them. I assure the numbers associated with Democratic governments are huge. Their position is no different than with minority communities, you use divisive ideas and good intentions to distract, then you keep on doing what you do. There is not a candidate running left or right that will end Pax Americana. There is no one running who will stop sticking the government into our families, stop telling people they aren't responsible for their own welfare, or stop spending us and taxing us into oblivion. We have a choice of left, more left and most left. All they are arguing about is who in the village is going to going to get screwed the most.

When you decide you REALLY want to get past labels and stop the insanity, ask yourself when was the last time anyone advocating bringing the troops home, enforcing our own borders, ending race and gender baiting so that we could all unite around a means of using government to benefit ALL of us by doing those duties that it does best as described in the Constitution? When will the government work for the common good instead of generating envy so fingers can be pointed about who has more and who ought to be punished more by taxes as a result.

That is what the insanity is about. Why is it so hard to find someone who can convince us to just stand up, without having to label and make us hate someone who they swear were keeping us down. I've had plenty of adversity tossed at me in my life and still do on occasion. I never had to hate someone or blame someone to simply want to improve myself. I may have been born poor. I may have a whole family of alcoholics and drug abusers in my background. I never had to have someone say, "and ___________ race, company, sex, or person made them that way and that is why you cannot improve your lot in life." I just set about improving my lot and no hate has been necessary.



It hasn't been a failure by any stretch of the imagination. It is also too early to know how it will resolve. The various factions of the Middle East have been warring for thousands of years. It is no different in that regard than Asia or Europe. In Europe we spent half the century trying to ignore the problem and still watching them have skirmishes and go to war every couple decades, a pattern they had been repeating for hundreds of years, and decided to try to put an end to it. We essentially occupied Germany, and although we call it NATO, we all know who does the enforcement and swings the big club as it were. Asia was no different and it is clear we have established Japan as a sort of hedge for the region. It has not brought a perfect peace but it has ended what was an almost endless array of wars in the region.

Can we do this with the Middle East? Have we truly accomplished this in Euroe and Asia? Would things have been better if we hadn't or in what way would they have been different?

Those are all great questions and no one knows for sure. We do know that Europe even now will not handle anything in their own backyard until the death camps have been set up. We know China is a growing power and historically thinks it must control several territories it does not now control, and soon after that begins advancing on its neighbors (as the neighbors have done to them as well)

Do you honestly think that with no U.S. presence in the Middle East that someone would not again invade Kuwait, that an Iran and Iraq or a substitute for the two will not again go to war? Do we not already worry about Turkey invading northern Iraq, Iran invading Iraq, and Saudi Arabia funding activities in Iraq all as proxies for what they want to DO TO EACH OTHER IN OUR ABSENCE?

I love the good intentions of getting out. I want out and everyone out just as much as everyone else. I would love nothing more than to tell these guys to go enjoy killing each other for a thousand sunsets so our soldiers can be home safe and sound. That is absolutely my default position. The problem is that they don't leave us alone. They don't leave each other alone. There is no way to be alone or so it would appear for now. Since we HAVE to be involved it might as well be to our benefit and that appears to be the working policy for every president since Truman proclaimed it. They may harden or soften that stance a bit, but it is the same stance.

" We know exactly how they would be treating it because this adventure has been ongoing for decades. McCain can make the 100 year remark, construed or misconstrued, because he is right that we have been setting up bases and leaving troops around the world for a lot more than the five years blinders you have on. Why will we ask about when troops will come home from Iraq, but not from Germany, Korea, etc. "

I think we can be fairly clear on what he meant!:rolleyes:

At least Geramy involved a real war.

" It hasn't been a failure by any stretch of the imagination. "

Oh! Please! Besides how silly that remark is why the hell did we go /are we still there?

Come on! Why?:rolleyes:

" Do you honestly think that with no U.S. presence in the Middle East that someone would not again invade Kuwait, that an Iran and Iraq or a substitute for the two will not again go to war? Do we not already worry about Turkey invading northern Iraq, Iran invading Iraq, and Saudi Arabia funding activities in Iraq all as proxies for what they want to DO TO EACH OTHER IN OUR ABSENCE? "

Yes and " if we don't stop the communists in Vietnam they'll take over southeast asia and then the world! "

Same stupid logic! The domino theory rises again!

[screener]

trumptman sure does like the sound oh his own voice.
Let me ask you, does all that come out spur of the moment?, or do you spend time composing this stuff and file it away for future use?

[trumptman]

I think we can be fairly clear on what he meant!:rolleyes:

Can you be clear? Perhaps you ought to watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk) where he is very clear about presence versus war.

At least Geramy involved a real war.

I know a few Korean war vets who might want to discuss this with you in a dark alley.

Oh! Please! Besides how silly that remark is why the hell did we go /are we still there?

Come on! Why?

If you want to make a point, please do so. If you think that doing the mental equivalent to sighing and asking rhetorical questions is going to make your point for you, then you are wrong.

Yes and " if we don't stop the communists in Vietnam they'll take over southeast asia and then the world! "

Same stupid logic! The domino theory rises again!

Well except for the Soviet Union being contained and eventually failing, I suppose you might have a point. Of course myself and no one else will every understand what that point is, but really..... who cares about a point when we can sigh, throw up our hands in mock astonishment and note successes as failures like you have done.

trumptman sure does like the sound oh his own voice.
Let me ask you, does all that come out spur of the moment?, or do you spend time composing this stuff and file it away for future use?

You need to make a point to address the thread. It has a topic and the topic is not me.

[screener]

You need to make a point to address the thread. It has a topic and the topic is not me.
The point being, man do you ramble on.

[@_@ Artman]

Can you be clear? Perhaps you ought to watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk) where he is very clear about presence versus war.

Here's a few of John McCain's more reality-challenged statements on Iraq...



“I don’t believe it’s going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” 9.15.02

“We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground.” 9.20.04

“This conflict is going to be relatively short.” 3.23.02

“I’ve always said this is long and hard and tough.” 4.6.08

“There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators.” 3.24.03

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” 4.9.03

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” 4.23.03

“Democrats are trying to do some kind of attack against this magnificent victory.” 7.23.03

“I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical.” 9.10.03

“Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war.” 8.04

“We’ve seen a number of signs of progress, including that of the capabilities of the Iraqi military, agreement with the Sunnis as framing the constitution, a decrease in suicide bombers from Iraqis and more and more coming in from the outside. … there is a legitimacy to the Iraqi government that, frankly, the government of South Vietnam never had.” 6.28.05

“We will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year.” 12.4.05

“We are making progress. The formation of a government is helpful. We are training the Iraqi troops. There are parts of Iraq that are well under control and very peaceful.” 5.24.06

“Things are better and there are encouraging signs. I have been here many years—many times over the years. Never have I been able to drive from the airport, never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today.” 4.1.07, wearing body armor, accompanied by 100 U.S. soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships

“The next six months are going to be critical.” 9.12.07

“Iraq is now the central front in the war against al-Qaeda.” 9.16.07

“Anybody who believes the surge has not succeeded, militarily, politically, and in most other ways, frankly, does not know the facts on the ground.” 2.08

“We’ve go to get American’s off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years.” 1.6.08

“If we do set a date for withdrawal, Al Qaida will then win. … We’re all over the world. One of the obligations, unfortunately, of being a great superpower is that we have to take care of the world’s security.” 2.3.08

Utterly clueless, and I myself have sat agape as the audience did in that clip.

More...

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Well he meant the Gulf War...no...yeah, wait...no...:err:

I know a few Korean war vets who might want to discuss this with you in a dark alley.

I wonder whether their anger would come from their patriotism or the belief that they actually didn't win that war.

Well except for the Soviet Union being contained and eventually failing, I suppose you might have a point. Of course myself and no one else will every understand what that point is, but really..... who cares about a point when we can sigh, throw up our hands in mock astonishment and note successes as failures like you have done.

Problem is, the Middle East isn't the Soviet Union. We will never "contain" Afghanistan or Iraq...or Iran...or Syria. They are not going to roll over. Just as we couldn't succeed in Vietnam against the North's determination. Hell, Korea is a 50 odd year stalemate in itself too. The Soviet Union tried to "contain" Afghanistan and that was one of the major factors that collapsed the Soviet Union. We haven't won any wars since WW II and we won't win this "war" either.

You need to make a point to address the thread. It has a topic and the topic is not me.

Do you believe that "The war is not voter's highest priority" yourself?

[trumptman]

The point being, man do you ramble on.

It's easy to do when you have something to say as opposed to someone to attack.

I'll try to limit the big words as to not put a crimp on your understanding or strain your brain.

Here's a few of John McCain's more reality-challenged statements on Iraq...

We can all have our fun that way. Hindsight always has 20/20 vision.

How "reality-challenged" do these statements look in hindsight?

Statement by the President (BIll Clinton)
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of
1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that
the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition
that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality
of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime
in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a
freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that
of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom
at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable
due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis
deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.


Or how about this one....

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said. (Sounds a little unilateral to me)

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

Wow...sounds like that Bill Clinton just couldn't deal with reality. He believed in the possibility of a Democratic Iraq free of sectarian violence and also thought this was being prevented by repressive leader who possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Or maybe we should realize that culling these statements really doesn't amount to much.

Utterly clueless, and I myself have sat agape as the audience did in that clip.

More...

The context he gave is clearly valid. I've stated that we should absolutely ask why our troops and bases have not been cleared out of Germany as an example before ever wondering such a thing about Iraq. Instead people just ignore Pax Americana and score political points. How can we get them out of Iraq when we can't get them out of Germany?

I wonder whether their anger would come from their patriotism or the belief that they actually didn't win that war.

I think it would have to do with not calling it a war at all which is how Jimmac described it.

Problem is, the Middle East isn't the Soviet Union. We will never "contain" Afghanistan or Iraq...or Iran...or Syria. They are not going to roll over. Just as we couldn't succeed in Vietnam against the North's determination. Hell, Korea is a 50 odd year stalemate in itself too. The Soviet Union tried to "contain" Afghanistan and that was one of the major factors that collapsed the Soviet Union. We haven't won any wars since WW II and we won't win this "war" either.

Your points are valid. I've simply pointed out that we have been following the Truman doctrine and no one currently running has claimed they will change that fact. They may attempt to score a few political points here or there, but nothing fundamental will change. If it were going to change then Obama and Democrats could talk about a peace dividend and troop rotations involving getting our men and women out of Germany, Korea, Haiti and a dozen other places around the world where they still reside from previous police actions. They could simply declare we will no longer be the police of the world and that the world will have to shoulder their own responsibility to insure peace.

Many will argue the likelihood of that is just as unlikely as containing the countries mentioned above. Regardless it has not been pursued by anyone Democratic or Republican.

Do you believe that "The war is not voter's highest priority" yourself?

No, I am pretty sure domestic issues are higher than war concerns right now.

[@_@ Artman]

We can all have our fun that way. Hindsight always has 20/20 vision.
How "reality-challenged" do these statements look in hindsight?

B, b, b...

Or how about this one....

B, b, b...

Wow...sounds like that Bill Clinton just couldn't deal with reality. He believed in the possibility of a Democratic Iraq free of sectarian violence and also thought this was being prevented by repressive leader who possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Or maybe we should realize that culling these statements really doesn't amount to much.

B, b, b...Bill Clinton? Certainly don't think he is running for office, his wife is, so his statements don't amount much now either. Neither are your claims that Iraq had possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They didn't.

McCain's statements do amount to a lot since he is running for president. Hillary's too for that matter. Two I'm not supporting.

The context he gave is clearly valid. I've stated that we should absolutely ask why our troops and bases have not been cleared out of Germany as an example before ever wondering such a thing about Iraq. Instead people just ignore Pax Americana and score political points. How can we get them out of Iraq when we can't get them out of Germany?

I think it would have to do with not calling it a war at all which is how Jimmac described it.

Your points are valid. I've simply pointed out that we have been following the Truman doctrine and no one currently running has claimed they will change that fact. They may attempt to score a few political points here or there, but nothing fundamental will change. If it were going to change then Obama and Democrats could talk about a peace dividend and troop rotations involving getting our men and women out of Germany, Korea, Haiti and a dozen other places around the world where they still reside from previous police actions. They could simply declare we will no longer be the police of the world and that the world will have to shoulder their own responsibility to insure peace.

Many will argue the likelihood of that is just as unlikely as containing the countries mentioned above. Regardless it has not been pursued by anyone Democratic or Republican.

No, I am pretty sure domestic issues are higher than war concerns right now.

Full circle. These domestic issues have much to do about the occupations right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we get a leader in office who can assess the situation and more or less do what you stated ("a peace dividend and troop rotations involving getting our men and women out of Germany, Korea, Haiti and a dozen other places around the world where they still reside from previous police actions. They could simply declare we will no longer be the police of the world and that the world will have to shoulder their own responsibility to insure peace.") , all well and good. So I guess this word has been overused, but it still hold ground in these times.

Let's hope.

[trumptman]

B, b, b...Bill Clinton? Certainly don't think he is running for office, his wife is, so his statements don't amount much now either. Neither are your claims that Iraq had possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They didn't.


The point of your statements was to show how when we examine the past in light of the present, we often get it wrong. This isn't true just because one is a warmongering Bush-loving neocon which is what I am sure you believe McCain to be and desire to continue. It is true no matter what the background of the person you look at.

It isn't hard at all, as you noted to find plenty of statements from Clinton (Hilllary) that state many of the same things Bill did. She voted for the war and we both know it. Obama is a little harder to pin down in that matter, but HIllary herself has hit at the many ways he has hid and hedged his bets. Perhaps you recall there was a vote not to long ago that many described as saber rattling towards Iran and a preemptive move toward possible conflict there. Clinton voted for it. Obama simply ducked it and was not present for the vote. (A trend he has displayed often.) Both of them have said they will take the troops out but when given the ability at a debate to pledge to have them out before the end of their first term, both declined.

Full circle. These domestic issues have much to do about the occupations right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we get a leader in office who can assess the situation and more or less do what you stated ("a peace dividend and troop rotations involving getting our men and women out of Germany, Korea, Haiti and a dozen other places around the world where they still reside from previous police actions. They could simply declare we will no longer be the police of the world and that the world will have to shoulder their own responsibility to insure peace.") , all well and good. So I guess this word has been overused, but it still hold ground in these times.

Let's hope.

The problem is that no one is doing this. The Democratic Party is a true majority party except for the fact that they really don't deliver and really don't care to deliver. They mouth the right sentiments at time but their hang-ups with -isms and authoritarianism prevent any progress. Who will take them seriously about getting out of Iraq when they want to stick us into every other skirmish around the world. We might believe that electing a Democrat won't get us an Iraq, but it still will get terrorism attacks, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, "Regime Change", etc.

In fact one of the most serious problems with Democrats is the fact that they keep wanting to put us under U.N. control, claim to desire to stick us under the jurisdiction of world treaties (like Kyoto which they vote against, but then use for political points.) and basically want to keep sticking their nose into the global village instead of taking care of home.

You go to blue states right now and they aren't running budget surpluses, have fine infrastructure and universal health care due to well run progressive taxation systems that delivers a measure of fairness for everyone. They are running constant deficits.

The money has always been stolen and seems to disappear while the infrastructure falls into disrepair. You get bond measure after bond measure all attempting to deal with the same issue and then the money always disappears. You vote for the bond, tolerate the increase in gas tax, pay higher DMV fees and still end up shelling out for a toll road just so you can get to work while being criticized for killing the planet to drive there.

I say this from California where we have Democratic majorities in both houses, have every office except for governor in the executive branch filled with a Democrat and we are dead broke while everything is falling to pieces out here. Jerry Brown was the Democratic governor who stated, if you don't build it, they won't come, and that has been the policy every since with our government. They hope that if life gets miserable enough due to lack of infrastructure, you will move away since they consider overpopulation an environmental problem. They take the money, but do not build the roads. We have billions in bond debt and billions more in a budget deficit even when the state constitution requires a balanced budget. We still go true blue every time and probably will until there isn't anyone left to point a finger at anymore or steal from.

[jimmac]

Can you be clear? Perhaps you ought to watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk) where he is very clear about presence versus war.



I know a few Korean war vets who might want to discuss this with you in a dark alley.



If you want to make a point, please do so. If you think that doing the mental equivalent to sighing and asking rhetorical questions is going to make your point for you, then you are wrong.



Well except for the Soviet Union being contained and eventually failing, I suppose you might have a point. Of course myself and no one else will every understand what that point is, but really..... who cares about a point when we can sigh, throw up our hands in mock astonishment and note successes as failures like you have done.



You need to make a point to address the thread. It has a topic and the topic is not me.

Ok trumptman if you just look at the questions raised in this thread and then look at just your answers you can see how rhetorical you are.

Korean vets in a dark alley! Geez!

I have no problem supporting the troops in any military action they're ordered to do. It's the motivations of the leaders who order them into action that I question. Those trumptman are 2 different things ( much as you'd like to portray them as the same ). I have nothing but the upmost respect for those who lay their lives on the line for this country. However I do question if every conflict in U. S. history was valid and worth asking them to lay down those lives.

WWII was very real in every respect. We had been directly attacked and had no choice but to go to war. These other conflicts Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq have really different motivating factors. The domino theory being one which we all know by now was bull! The communists in Vietnam or Korea didn't take over the world ( being led by mother Russia or China ).

As a matter of fact there's a lesson to be learned there in that Russia over spent on their military at the expense of other things. They fell because of their own mismanagement. Not because of us.

Hmmm? Kinda sounds familure? Now here we are spending trillions in a time of economic strife on what? An occupation in a small country that had a horrible dictator ( that treated his people horribly just like dictators do ) not unlike like many other dictators in other countries. And yet we decided to pick this one. Because he was mistreating his people? Well there's alot of them out there. Don't get me wrong but Saddam wasn't a nice guy but of all the lousy dictators in the world how did we pick this one? Stick a pin in a map? Well he had WMD which well... not really! He was a direct threat to us? Well not really. He thumbed his nose at us and the UN! Not that anyone's done that before! Well now that we're there we have to finish ( never mind why we went in the first place )? But all the evidence points to we're not really getting anywhere fast!

You see this just isn't adding up very well.

If Iraq had been a major power and had attacked our shores ( or showed that they were capable and were going to ) I'd be right behind you on that reasoning. If they had been the home of Al-Qaeda I'd be behind it. However they weren't and now because of our destabilizing the region Al-Qaeda does have a presence where they didn't before.

In short it's obvious there's another agenda for us to be there. It really doesn't matter what because it's not as advertised. As a free country we are owed a real explanation. It's clear one isn't forthcoming.

That's why I call these conflicts not valid.

The nonvalid conflict arguments are part of why the voters are fed up. The reason that it's not their biggest priority is because of the economy in the toilet. Which now is really starting to hit home. However the irony is that alot of the blame for this can go to the war. As I've pointed out previously.

[SDW2001]

How anyone can divorce the war from the economy is living in cloud cuckoo land, but that is what the media, pundits and many senior politicians are doing. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Then please explain how they are directly related.



If this adventure had been started by a democratic administration... take a few deep breaths and ponder how the liberal media :lol: would be treating it.... Speculative, but moving on....



It is amazing how anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could still be supporting endless war/occupation. Maybe excepting those who can still sleep at night, knowing that they are getting rich on the backs of dead soldiers who were ordered to war based on lies?

Maybe because 1. There is no evidence of actual lying on the admin's part and 2. The alternative is to just bail out, which is not a good option.



With the following quote in mind "The definition of insanity is the repetition of the same action expecting a different result."( John Laroquette), a couple of questions for SDW and Trumpt, and anyone else who is still supporting this policy:

*How much longer can we pursue this, knowing that the last 5 years has been a failure, both here in the US and in the Middle East? There hasbeen progress in the last five years. A better question would be "should we leave immediately and sacrifice 4,000+ lives and 500 billion dollars in vein?


*Do you still support the war/occupation, and why? We have a responsibility to help rebuild Iraq in all ways. How that gets accomplished is open to debate.


*How can this ever end?You nailed it there without realizing it. HOW will it end. It WILL end, it's just a question of how. We can leave in defeat, surrendering Iraq to terrorists possibly forever...or we can leave a relatively secure nation capable of securing itself and participating in the international community.


*What is the maximum acceptable budget for this escapade?That's an absurd question. Did we ask "how much are we allowed to spend on fighting the Germans?" It's fine to complain about the cost, but setting a budget?

Oh SDW! Get a grip! McCain says we should stay a hundred years if necessary! There is simply no excuse for this! Jesus H. Christ!

That attitude is the epidome of what I would label " Needless "!

I think you mean epitome. Jesus H. Christ. Another typo, I suppose.



A hundred years after what it has already cost us in funds and lives?:no::wow::rolleyes:That quote was out of context and was explained later, yet you pretend otherwise. Nice.



The irony is that Iraq is closely tied to our economic problemsReally...how?

in that the money we've spent there could have gone to help things here! Alot more I might add then those rebate checks! False dilemma. The money would not have been spent here, at least not in a productive way. This is Congress we are talking about.



Our presence in Iraq is tied to everything including I believe the high price of gas ( One reason is OPEC's several mideastern members who don't want us there )! Which in turn weighs on the economy ( which in turn weighs on the value of the U.S. dollar ). Partially agree there....maybe. However, our presence has little to do with the dollar.



Now SDW why did we go there in ther first place? And why pray tell are we still there?1. We went there because Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions and broke the 1991 ceasefire multiple times. We went there because we, like most of the world, believed he had an active WMD program.

2. Because the alternative is to leave immediately and watch Iraq collapse, giving a home base to islamic extremists and abdicating our moral responsibility to the people of Iraq.



SDW this will be focused on in the coming months before the election. It's already not painting a pretty picture.I don't know what that means exactly. Focused on by whom? The voters? Not as much, according the polls. That said, the candidates will address it. The problem for your party is that it's not as simple as it looks. McCain's plan, while easy to criticize, is clear as a bell: Stay and win. Obama's plan is less clear: Let's leave and call it a defeat and a mistake...but let's not really leave...so we can go back if we need to, which we're not sure if we will...but we might. And I will go back in if we need to, which I have to admit I don't know what that will look like....I just want to leave.

I suggest you read Dick Morris on the subject. He may have a point.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/05/02/oreilly-clinton-interview-shows-dem-flaw/#more-331

On the surface, it would appear to be a disaster for the Republicans. With American deaths now over the 4,000 mark and the seriously wounded at around 15,000, we are sick and tired of this war. It has destroyed George W. Bush and could well do the same to John McCain.

But maybe not. McCain’s position is simple: win in Iraq. The experience and the success of the past year indicate that it may be quite possible to do so. But, whatever you may think of it, his is a simple solution.


What do the Democrats propose? Obama and Hillary both want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. OK. But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory? And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher? And what if … The list goes on.

[jimmac]

Then please explain how they are directly related.

Speculative, but moving on....



Maybe because 1. There is no evidence of actual lying on the admin's part and 2. The alternative is to just bail out, which is not a good option.

There hasbeen progress in the last five years. A better question would be "should we leave immediately and sacrifice 4,000+ lives and 500 billion dollars in vein?

We have a responsibility to help rebuild Iraq in all ways. How that gets accomplished is open to debate.

You nailed it there without realizing it. HOW will it end. It WILL end, it's just a question of how. We can leave in defeat, surrendering Iraq to terrorists possibly forever...or we can leave a relatively secure nation capable of securing itself and participating in the international community.

That's an absurd question. Did we ask "how much are we allowed to spend on fighting the Germans?" It's fine to complain about the cost, but setting a budget?



I think you mean epitome. Jesus H. Christ. Another typo, I suppose.

That quote was out of context and was explained later, yet you pretend otherwise. Nice.

Really...how?

False dilemma. The money would not have been spent here, at least not in a productive way. This is Congress we are talking about.

Partially agree there....maybe. However, our presence has little to do with the dollar.

1. We went there because Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions and broke the 1991 ceasefire multiple times. We went there because we, like most of the world, believed he had an active WMD program.

2. Because the alternative is to leave immediately and watch Iraq collapse, giving a home base to islamic extremists and abdicating our moral responsibility to the people of Iraq.

I don't know what that means exactly. Focused on by whom? The voters? Not as much, according the polls. That said, the candidates will address it. The problem for your party is that it's not as simple as it looks. McCain's plan, while easy to criticize, is clear as a bell: Stay and win. Obama's plan is less clear: Let's leave and call it a defeat and a mistake...but let's not really leave...so we can go back if we need to, which we're not sure if we will...but we might. And I will go back in if we need to, which I have to admit I don't know what that will look like....I just want to leave.

I suggest you read Dick Morris on the subject. He may have a point.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/05/02/oreilly-clinton-interview-shows-dem-flaw/#more-331


You pick at little tiny things and fill it with a good dose of rhetoric!

" There hasbeen progress in the last five years. "

has been!:p

" 1. We went there because Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions and broke the 1991 ceasefire multiple times. We went there because we, like most of the world, believed he had an active WMD program. "

A good many didn't and protested the fact. And later we found the evidence was a combo of bad intel and wishful thinking! Uh yeah!:no:

" I don't know what that means exactly. "

If you saty this one more time........

" False dilemma. The money would not have been spent here, at least not in a productive way. This is Congress we are talking about. "

You have no way of knowing that!

One of your worst posts!:rolleyes::no:

God! What rhetorical crap! Come on SDW you can do better than trying to pick apart my spelling and typing slkills!:rolleyes::no:

[trumptman]

Ok trumptman if you just look at the questions raised in this thread and then look at just your answers you can see how rhetorical you are.

You'll have to explain this because I don't feel I've been dealing with this abstractly at all, quite the opposite.

Korean vets in a dark alley! Geez!

Go tell them that what they participated in wasn't real and see their response. I know my father-in-law would probably knock you cold.

I have no problem supporting the troops in any military action they're ordered to do. It's the motivations of the leaders who order them into action that I question. Those trumptman are 2 different things ( much as you'd like to portray them as the same ). I have nothing but the upmost respect for those who lay their lives on the line for this country. However I do question if every conflict in U. S. history was valid and worth asking them to lay down those lives.

WWII was very real in every respect. We had been directly attacked and had no choice but to go to war. These other conflicts Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq have really different motivating factors. The domino theory being one which we all know by now was bull! The communists in Vietnam or Korea didn't take over the world ( being led by mother Russia or China ).

As I noted, every war since WWII has been fought by the executive branch following the Truman Doctrine and this is true of both Republicans and Democrats. Anyone with Bush Blinders™ on needs a history lesson.

Also do some research into the background behind the attack on Pearl Harbor. I'm sure you will find that the antagonisms that made the Japanese believe they had to attack went clear back into the late 20's/early 30's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor) As I noted we were isolationist and you had an aggressor nation causing continual trouble in some part of the world (Japan and Manchuria) in order to improve their access to resources.

Gee that doesn't sound at all like Iraq taking over Kuwait does it. You roll it 10-15 years down the line and you have Pearl Harbor.

As a matter of fact there's a lesson to be learned there in that Russia over spent on their military at the expense of other things. They fell because of their own mismanagement. Not because of us.

They fell because communism stinks.

Hmmm? Kinda sounds familure? Now here we are spending trillions in a time of economic strife on what? An occupation in a small country that had a horrible dictator ( that treated his people horribly just like dictators do ) not unlike like many other dictators in other countries. And yet we decided to pick this one. Because he was mistreating his people? Well there's alot of them out there. Don't get me wrong but Saddam wasn't a nice guy but of all the lousy dictators in the world how did we pick this one? Stick a pin in a map? Well he had WMD which well... not really! He was a direct threat to us? Well not really. He thumbed his nose at us and the UN! Not that anyone's done that before! Well now that we're there we have to finish ( never mind why we went in the first place )? But all the evidence points to we're not really getting anywhere fast!

It adds up very well and I have already explained it using past historical precedent. It is pretty clear that they want a regional power that will stabilize the region like Japan and Germany.

You see this just isn't adding up very well.

It adds up perfectly. Europe and Asia have been much more stable than they were before we did this.

If Iraq had been a major power and had attacked our shores ( or showed that they were capable and were going to ) I'd be right behind you on that reasoning. If they had been the home of Al-Qaeda I'd be behind it. However they weren't and now because of our destabilizing the region Al-Qaeda does have a presence where they didn't before.

Al-Qaeda does not have a national home. They are group and travel where they want and when they want. In fact most of the troubles with the Middle East have to do with colonial Europe carving some lines in the sand that pay no attention to the tribes that were actually underneath. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#Ottoman_Iraq_and_Mamluk_rule)

Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".

You can't destabilize that which was never stable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East#Modern_confli cts) All we have done is failed to stabilize that which was already unstable.

In short it's obvious there's another agenda for us to be there. It really doesn't matter what because it's not as advertised. As a free country we are owed a real explanation. It's clear one isn't forthcoming.

That's why I call these conflicts not valid.

The nonvalid conflict arguments are part of why the voters are fed up. The reason that it's not their biggest priority is because of the economy in the toilet. Which now is really starting to hit home. However the irony is that alot of the blame for this can go to the war. As I've pointed out previously.

I say this as someone who has been honest about the economic downturn and who predicted it a year in advance of it coming in a thread in AppleOutsider. The economic downturn has nothing to do with the war. It has everything to do with trade, and currency manipulation. The war could end tomorrow or never have occurred in the first place and we would still be exactly where we are right now economically.

[@_@ Artman]

You can't destabilize that which was never stable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East#Modern_confli cts) All we have done is failed to stabilize that which was already unstable.

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_8nU3FW11_UI/RniJyg_k5AI/AAAAAAAAAFM/wisCiR2reRo/s320/Confused-Dog-Posters.jpg

Mission Accomplished? :lol:

[@_@ Artman]

Then please explain how they are directly related.

Seven Questions: Joe Stiglitz on How the Iraq War Is Wrecking the Economy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4246)

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz talks to FP about Wall Street bailouts, America’s mountain of debt, and what U.S. taxpayers will end up paying for Iraq.

Foreign Policy: What does $3 trillion mean for the average U.S. taxpayer?

Joseph Stiglitz: If you divide it by the [number of] U.S. households, it comes out to around $25,000 [per household]. It’s a lot of money. But we actually talk about a range of total costs, between $3 trillion and $5 trillion.

It’s basic arithmetic, but you break the costs down into the various categories. Once you start doing that, it’s very hard to come up with a number under $3 trillion. We view our estimate as very conservative. Some of it is pretty straightforward and totally noncontroversial: the amount that the U.S. government admits is going into Iraq. But almost everything beyond that requires some forecasting, like troop deployment. And there are also numbers that we have not included that are hard to get out of the government. For instance, the government provides insurance for contractors [working in Iraq]. Nobody will insure them, so the government winds up paying the premium. And then the insurance policies have an exclusion for hostile action. Most of the contractors who die, die in hostile action, so the government winds up paying not just the premiums, but also the benefits. That’s an example where the government’s accounting makes it very hard to tease out.

Two big costs are having to pay more for recruiting, and replacing our materiel that is wearing out. The big items going forward on the budgetary side are the costs of replenishing the armed forces—that’s called reset—and disability for returning veterans. We know that the number of disabled soldiers coming home is much larger, and we know that cases of [post-traumatic stress disorder] increase with longer and repeat deployments.

FP: You mentioned reset and veterans care. Are there any other large costs that are frequently overlooked or not included when we talk about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan?

JS: Part of the overlooked budgetary costs is interest, because we are going to have to pay interest on what we’ve borrowed [to pay for the war]. And there is also Social Security disability pay. That’s something that normally would be left out. One of the things that we don’t include but should be included is Medicaid. Because many of the disabled soldiers returning home have low incomes, they are eligible for Medicaid. We also argue that the war has had an adverse effect on the economy. If there is a negative effect on the economy, then that is going to decrease tax revenues.

On the nonbudgetary side are the costs that are borne by families. One in 5 families has someone who is seriously disabled, and someone has to take care of them. There is also the fact that the National Guard has been pulled out of their homes and away from jobs. They face an enormous disruption and are not being fully compensated.

FP: How does war spending exacerbate the economic downturn in the United States?

JS: To the extent that the war caused the price of oil to go up, and the fact that the war expenditures don’t stimulate the economy as much as domestic expenditures would have, the economy is weaker. The Fed has let forth more liquidity, which allows consumption to go up and savings to go closer to zero or negative. So, we have more of a mountain of debt in order to offset the negative effects of war spending, and that mountain of debt is now the problem we’re dealing with. There is a clear connection between the two. We’re spending money abroad that we could have spent at home.

Next?...

[screener]

]
Maybe because 1. There is no evidence of actual lying on the admin's part and 2. The alternative is to just bail out, which is not a good option.
So it's come to, no actual lying.
Remember "Who knew?" in regard to an insurgency.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831,00.html
Now, three years later, I was learning for the first time that my assumption was not completely accurate. In fact, CENTCOM had originally called for twelve to eighteen months of Phase IV activity with active troop deployments. But then CENTCOM had completely walked away by simply stating that the war was over and Phase IV was not their job.
That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq. There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it.
I posted this in your Surge thread SDW, you must have missed it.
There hasbeen progress in the last five years. A better question would be "should we leave immediately and sacrifice 4,000+ lives and 500 billion dollars in vein?
Still fighting after 5 years, yup, progress.
We went there because Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions and broke the 1991 ceasefire multiple times. We went there because we, like most of the world, believed he had an active WMD program.
According to your candidate,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/974014.aspx
"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.
Hmmm.

Just for interests sake, from the same link,
This comment was initially prompted by a compliment from a military veteran, who stated he hoped a group called, "Swift Boats for McCain come out and help" the GOP nominee

[SDW2001]

You pick at little tiny things and fill it with a good dose of rhetoric!

" There hasbeen progress in the last five years. "

has been!:p

Let me guess...missing a space between words is the same as not knowing how to use "your" vs. "you're?" Or perhaps we should ask "bin Lauden." He's the "epidome" of terrorists.



" 1. We went there because Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions and broke the 1991 ceasefire multiple times. We went there because we, like most of the world, believed he had an active WMD program. "

A good many didn't and protested the fact. And later we found the evidence was a combo of bad intel and wishful thinking! Uh yeah!:no:

No. A good many didn't believe so. The world intelligence community believed he had WMD.



" I don't know what that means exactly. "

Out of context. Here is the full quote:

I don't know what that means exactly. Focused on by whom? The voters? Not as much, according the polls. That said, the candidates will address it. The problem for your party is that it's not as simple as it looks. McCain's plan, while easy to criticize, is clear as a bell: Stay and win. Obama's plan is less clear: Let's leave and call it a defeat and a mistake...but let's not really leave...so we can go back if we need to, which we're not sure if we will...but we might. And I will go back in if we need to, which I have to admit I don't know what that will look like....I just want to leave.


Nice how you just left out 90% of what I posted.



If you saty this one more time........

Say. ;)



" False dilemma. The money would not have been spent here, at least not in a productive way. This is Congress we are talking about. "

You have no way of knowing that!

Ahh...it's cheap debate tactic day for jimmac! Shifting the burden of proof will not help you. You made a claim that the money would have been spent better at home. Now, support it or back off of it. You see jimmac, it is you who have know way of knowing what would have been done with the money.



One of your worst posts!:rolleyes::no:

As if anyone cares what you think of my posts.



God! What rhetorical crap!

Define rhetorical. Really...you can even use Webster.com.

Come on SDW you can do better than trying to pick apart my spelling and typing slkills!:rolleyes::no:

First, I've done much more than that. Secondly, are you suffering from some form of psychological projection? I have not merely picked apart your spelling and typing skills. I've gone much further. You see, I've claimed that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. Therefore, you naturally are unable to spell and type.

Simple, really.

[SDW2001]

]
So it's come to, no actual lying.

Don't draw a distinction where none exists. You focused on that word, not me.


Remember "Who knew?" in regard to an insurgency.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736831,00.html

I posted this in your Surge thread SDW, you must have missed it.



So we're back to Rumsfeld. Excellent. Rumsfeld made mistakes. Everyone knows it. What..you're saying he knew there would be an insurgency and did nothing about it?


Still fighting after 5 years, yup, progress.

So if we're still fighting, there has been no progress. Gotcha.



According to your candidate,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/974014.aspx

Hmmm.

Just for interests sake, from the same link,

That is perhaps one of the most pointless links I've seen here. The quote in question is:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.

Of course, the MSNBC version of that is that McCain said Iraq was about oil! But McCain is just stating the obvious: The overall Middle East is important because of oil. We are interested in the Middle East because of oil and the existence of Israel. Those two reasons are why we are interested in a stable Middle East. Duh.

[vinea]

Our presence in Iraq is tied to everything including I believe the high price of gas ( One reason is OPEC's several mideastern members who don't want us there )!

No...the high price is due to zero spare capacity and a slight decline in Saudi production despite record pricing. That and other information, probably means we saw peak oil not long ago and US presence in Iraq may not be nice and may cost a lot but might end up being a national requirement.

As in it may buy us a couple of very needed years to avoid total collapse. Imperialism be damned. Now we're talking about the future and safety of my kids.

[SDW2001]

No...the high price is due to zero spare capacity and a slight decline in Saudi production despite record pricing. That and other information, probably means we saw peak oil not long ago and US presence in Iraq may not be nice and may cost a lot but might end up being a national requirement.

As in it may buy us a couple of very needed years to avoid total collapse. Imperialism be damned. Now we're talking about the future and safety of my kids.

I don't think we're anywhere near peak oil. OPEC loves the price, and knows much of it has nothing to do with supply and demand...which is why they don't want to increase production. It's all about speculation. In fact, we may see an oil crash...not a supply crash...but a price crash. Supply and demand dictates oil should cost about $50-75 a barrel right now. $120 cannot last forever and OPEC knows it. I think what they are trying to do is mitigate the decline, so oil goes down gradually to the $75 a barrel mark. If they ramp production and the speculative frenzy ends, it could crash...going to $20-30 a barrel.

I know that's not an opinion many here will agree with. That said, I do think it would be funny to watch the oil companies come before Congress not to justify prices, but to ask for a bailout. Verry Niiice!

[MarcUK]

No...the high price is due to zero spare capacity and a slight decline in Saudi production despite record pricing. That and other information, probably means we saw peak oil not long ago and US presence in Iraq may not be nice and may cost a lot but might end up being a national requirement.

As in it may buy us a couple of very needed years to avoid total collapse. Imperialism be damned. Now we're talking about the future and safety of my kids.

Lets be totally honest now, that IS the reason we are there. Western civilizations last stand in the face of extinction.

But staving off total collapse? ha, no chance mate, no fucking chance!

And its all OK as long as my kids are safe and have a future. Completely oblivious to the fact that a hundred million parents of all the kids we exploited to give us cheap Nike's and all the other cheap things, - they only ever wanted the same for their children too. And we fucked them all over.

When they come marching and beat your kids to a pulp and have them working 20 hours a day for a bowl of rice, dont feel too bad about it. Its a dog eat dog world out there.

Nealy forgot, all this has been planned btw. The war was planned, the occupation, the collapse in the housing market, the rise of oil and food, the fall of the dollar, the stopping of reporting the money supply (so you couldn't see that inflation was currently running at 15%), the erosion of civil liberty and rights - and remember those detention centres for millions they've been secretly building - yup there not for the tewwowists - they're for YOU, to keep you captive when YOU realise whats been going on. :lol:

[jimmac]

No...the high price is due to zero spare capacity and a slight decline in Saudi production despite record pricing. That and other information, probably means we saw peak oil not long ago and US presence in Iraq may not be nice and may cost a lot but might end up being a national requirement.

As in it may buy us a couple of very needed years to avoid total collapse. Imperialism be damned. Now we're talking about the future and safety of my kids.


Well that's one opinion. The price spiked pretty quickly. Also a few years ago they were saying 150 years until we run out. I believe we will run out and it's a real concern. I just don't buy that's what we're seeing right now.

[jimmac]

Let me guess...missing a space between words is the same as not knowing how to use "your" vs. "you're?" Or perhaps we should ask "bin Lauden." He's the "epidome" of terrorists.



No. A good many didn't believe so. The world intelligence community believed he had WMD.




Out of context. Here is the full quote:



Nice how you just left out 90% of what I posted.



Say. ;)



Ahh...it's cheap debate tactic day for jimmac! Shifting the burden of proof will not help you. You made a claim that the money would have been spent better at home. Now, support it or back off of it. You see jimmac, it is you who have know way of knowing what would have been done with the money.



As if anyone cares what you think of my posts.



Define rhetorical. Really...you can even use Webster.com.



First, I've done much more than that. Secondly, are you suffering from some form of psychological projection? I have not merely picked apart your spelling and typing skills. I've gone much further. You see, I've claimed that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. Therefore, you naturally are unable to spell and type.

Simple, really.

" Let me guess...missing a space between words is the same as not knowing how to use "your" vs. "you're?" Or perhaps we should ask "bin Lauden." He's the "epidome" of terrorists. "

Say SDW isn't making comments about punctuation and spelling attacking the person and not the subject matter. Just a little food for thought as it's really off topic and we all make mistakes. I think one reason is we all have real lives and our posting time is limited ( I know mine is these days ).

Allow me quote one of the guidelines :

" Ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated, but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people. Be open-minded and try to help foster meaningful discussion. Yes, meaningful discussion is possible if everyone respects each other. "


" No. A good many didn't believe so. The world intelligence community believed he had WMD "


I seem to remember many questioning it including good old senator Byrd. Who wrote a long statement on why we shouldn't go and there wasn't enough evidence. However Bush supporters poo pooed it because of his old Klan background. Also the UN said they didn't believe miltary action was necessary.

Here's a quick group of links :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/102702_pictures_of_anti.htm

The last one has pretty pictures.

Here's Byrd's speech :

" Byrd
Here is a speech given by Senator Robert Byrd to Congress, February 12th, 2003:

Senate Remarks: Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. "



" Ahh...it's cheap debate tactic day for jimmac! Shifting the burden of proof will not help you. You made a claim that the money would have been spent better at home. Now, support it or back off of it. You see jimmac, it is you who have know way of knowing what would have been done with the money. "

SDW! Please! With that much money it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that much of it could have been and would have been used here.

[screener]

Don't draw a distinction where none exists. You focused on that word, not me.
You used the word.
It used to be no proof of lying, no qualifier.
You added "actual", like, they didn't actually lie, they just didn't tell us everything.
Which goes to Sanchez's account, see below.
So we're back to Rumsfeld. Excellent. Rumsfeld made mistakes. Everyone knows it. What..you're saying he knew there would be an insurgency and did nothing about it?
If you had read his account, there was a post war plan to contain an insurgency which they decided to not implement.
Why not? Al Qaida was supposedly in Iraq, right?
What did they think would happen post war.
From the article,
It was standard procedure to present such a plan, which included such things as: timing for predeployment, deployment, staging for major combat operations, and postdeployment. The concept was briefed up to the highest levels of the U.S. government, including the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, and the President of the United States.

I assumed they had done zero Phase IV planning. Now, three years later, I was learning for the first time that my assumption was not completely accurate. In fact, CENTCOM had originally called for twelve to eighteen months of Phase IV activity with active troop deployments. But then CENTCOM had completely walked away by simply stating that the war was over and Phase IV was not their job.

That decision set up the United States for a failed first year in Iraq. There is no question about it. And I was supposed to believe that neither the Secretary of Defense nor anybody above him knew anything about it? Impossible! Rumsfeld knew about it. Everybody on the NSC knew about it, including Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Colin Powell. Vice President Cheney knew about it. And President Bush knew about it.
Incomprehensible incompetence or?
Rumsfeld tried to deny he knew of Franks" plan to drawdown and went so far as to shelve an investigation he asked for because he didn't like the result.
"Yes, sir. Our report validated everything you told us — that Franks issued the orders to discard the original twelve-to-eighteen-month occupation deployment, that the forces were drawing down, that we were walking away from the mission, and that everybody knew about it. And let me tell you, the Secretary did not like that one bit. After we went in to brief him, he just shut us down. 'This is not going anywhere,' he said. 'Oh, and by the way, leave all the copies right here and don't talk to anybody about it.'"
"You mean he embargoed all the copies of the report?" I asked.
"Yes, sir, he did."
From that, my belief was that Rumsfeld's intent appeared to be to minimize and control further exposure within the Pentagon and to specifically keep this information from the American public.
Yeah, they didn't actually lie, I mean, who knew?
So if we're still fighting, there has been no progress. Gotcha.
Still fighting and dying after five years can't be seen as progress.
That is perhaps one of the most pointless links I've seen here. The quote in question is:

What?
Of course, the MSNBC version of that is that McCain said Iraq was about oil! But McCain is just stating the obvious: The overall Middle East is important because of oil. We are interested in the Middle East because of oil and the existence of Israel. Those two reasons are why we are interested in a stable Middle East. Duh.
MSNBC version?
Now you admit it's all about oil because your guy says so.
Amazing. No, not really.

[vinea]

Also a few years ago they were saying 150 years until we run out. I believe we will run out and it's a real concern. I just don't buy that's what we're seeing right now.

The experts have been predicting Hubbert's peak since...oh Hubbert in 1956 for US peak production. And sure enough in 1970 we reached it. He predicted peak oil in 1995 back in 1974 but oil usage actually dropped in the late 70s and early 80s...giving us extra years.

The optimistic view is we reach peak in 2020-2030 and it's not when we run out. It's when production is on the decline rather than on the rise. That we "run out" in 150 years is almost irrelevant. Combine rising oil demand with declining (steeply declining too) production and you get to witness a completely new way of life. How would your standard of living be if the cost of everything increased 10 fold?

Hoping you live in interesting times is not exactly wishing someone well.

I opposed drilling in ANWR while middle east countries are still willing to export a depleting resource. While not much oil it may be desperately needed to get us over a hump. Likewise, it no longer bothers me that US troops are sitting in Iraq despite the cost in blood and treasure.

[@_@ Artman]

Obama seems to have brought peace to the Niger delta. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL0444578520080504) :D

LAGOS (Reuters) - Rebels who have stepped up attacks on Nigeria's oil industry in the last month said on Sunday they were considering a ceasefire appeal by U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has launched five attacks on oil facilities in the Niger Delta since it resumed a campaign of violence in April, forcing Royal Dutch Shell to shut more than 164,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd).

"The MEND command is seriously considering a temporary ceasefire appeal by Senator Barack Obama. Obama is someone we respect and hold in high esteem," the militant group said in an e-mailed statement.

MEND did not say when or where Obama, the leading candidate for the Democratic ticket for November's U.S. presidential election, made the appeal. It said it hoped the government would use any ceasefire to improve conditions for its detained leader, Henry Okah.

That's hard to comprehend... An American president (hopeful) that other people in the world would respect?

[jimmac]

The experts have been predicting Hubbert's peak since...oh Hubbert in 1956 for US peak production. And sure enough in 1970 we reached it. He predicted peak oil in 1995 back in 1974 but oil usage actually dropped in the late 70s and early 80s...giving us extra years.

The optimistic view is we reach peak in 2020-2030 and it's not when we run out. It's when production is on the decline rather than on the rise. That we "run out" in 150 years is almost irrelevant. Combine rising oil demand with declining (steeply declining too) production and you get to witness a completely new way of life. How would your standard of living be if the cost of everything increased 10 fold?

Hoping you live in interesting times is not exactly wishing someone well.

I opposed drilling in ANWR while middle east countries are still willing to export a depleting resource. While not much oil it may be desperately needed to get us over a hump. Likewise, it no longer bothers me that US troops are sitting in Iraq despite the cost in blood and treasure.

So this rapid rise in the last oh let's generous say 5 years is because of that theory which it's just that a theory. I believe this sort of thing will happen but that's not what we are seeing right now. The rise in price was too rapid for that. Plus the mysterious lowering of price before the 2006 election also says " Manipulation ".

It's an opinion. http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html

[screener]

Likewise, it no longer bothers me that US troops are sitti