Democrats and Iraq

[LA sports]

With the economy doing well, the stock market doing well, and unemployment at an all-time low and the liberals with nothing to offer, decided to base this entire election on the anti-Iraq war theme. Then yesterday the Iraqi president says that leaders of the democratic party have assured him not to worry that there will be no quick withdrawal from Iraq by american troops because that would be a catastrophic mistake. What a freaking surprise. This means the democrats campaign was based on a lie, another freaking surprise.

Also yesterday an al-qaeda leader in Iraq releases a statement saying he is pleased that the democrats have taken control of congress and that Rumsfeld has resigned. He was not pleased because now there can be peace because as we all know terrorist will not stop as long as things exist that they disagree with because they are fanatics, we know he is not pleased because now we can have peace because in the same statement he says that they plan on blowing up the White House and that they have thousands of warriors ready for battle. So terrorist are pleased that democrats are in control of congress, hmmmmm..... maybe that should tell us something.

[HibachiDG]

This means the democrats campaign was based on a lie, another freaking surprise.

Or, uh, you don't understand what the democrats campaign was based on. Seriously, I'm so sick of Republicans trotting out this garbage about how the democrats purely want to just take the troops out of Iraq. The democrats won this election because they are talking about A CHANGE OF DIRECTION IN IRAQ. Not simply a pull out of troops.

Are there democrats who think we should pull the troops out right now? Yes. However, that has never been a campaign base for the democrats. There are a lot of democrats who want to find out what changes can be made in Iraq to fight the war differently and potentially salvage the situation. The democrats won the election points on Iraq because they are offering various opinions on the matter while the Republicans continued to trot out the stay the course logic.

Don't say the democrats based their campaign on a lie when it is clear you have no clue what the democrats based their campaign on.

[LA sports]

Or, uh, you don't understand what the democrats campaign was based on. Seriously, I'm so sick of Republicans trotting out this garbage about how the democrats purely want to just take the troops out of Iraq. The democrats won this election because they are talking about A CHANGE OF DIRECTION IN IRAQ. Not simply a pull out of troops.

Are there democrats who think we should pull the troops out right now? Yes. However, that has never been a campaign base for the democrats. There are a lot of democrats who want to find out what changes can be made in Iraq to fight the war differently and potentially salvage the situation. The democrats won the election points on Iraq because they are offering various opinions on the matter while the Republicans continued to trot out the stay the course logic.

Don't say the democrats based their campaign on a lie when it is clear you have no clue what the democrats based their campaign on.

The whole democratic campaign was based on an EXIT plan for our troops in Iraq not a different way of fighting in Iraq and now they are saying they have no plan to exit Iraq, sorry Doug but that is called a lie. You might want to do a little research on what the democrats were saying in this election. Are you going to comment on any of the other things I stated or just like a liberal are you going to avoid those things?

[doublee]

No, the Democratic platform was based on a change of direction in Iraq not an 'if you elect me the troops will be home for Christmas' campaign. Democrats campaigned on the notion that a fresh perspective on Iraq is needed and that the Bush Administration has no clue on how to expidite a withdrawal from Iraq. They seized on the fact that the populous as a whole is increasingly dissatisfied with the way the GOP led government is handling the war.

The Democratic platform was also steeped heavily in reducing corruption in D. C. The GOP's family values ethos blew up in its face this past year with all of the corruption and ethics scandals party members have been involved in. If you want to talk about who has been selling the American voter a bunch of lies lets talk about what the Bush Administration and the Republican Party in general has tried to convince the American Public of over the past six years.

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Has there been a bigger lie told to the world since Bush came into office? Don't write such nonsense about Democrats lying to America when all politicians are adept at telling us what we want to hear to get elected. Neither party is any more truthful than the other. The Republicans have just been worse at covering theiry tracks in the past few years than the Dems have.

[HibachiDG]

An exit strategy and immediate troop withdrawal are completely different things. You realize that an exit strategy might take 2 years? Might take a year? Might take 4? Huge difference between the two of them. There are levels of discussion about how democrats want to handle the exit strategy, and determinations will have to be made on whether something can be salvaged in terms of leaving Iraq a better place than when we entered. Exit strategy does not mean leave right away, is the part you're mixing. Second from this, I do believe the Democrats ran based on change of direction. I think I've followed this election enough and believe democrats offered a lot of different voices on the matter. They talked a lot of being able to have oversight into how things are conducted in the war and that they won't reduce funding for troops. How is taking a new look at things the same as cutting and running? I think you heard the Republican responses to democratic election campaigns and not what democrats actually said.

The other things you said? You mean, this...

Also yesterday an al-qaeda leader in Iraq releases a statement saying he is pleased that the democrats have taken control of congress and that Rumsfeld has resigned. He was not pleased because now there can be peace because as we all know terrorist will not stop as long as things exist that they disagree with because they are fanatics, we know he is not pleased because now we can have peace because in the same statement he says that they plan on blowing up the White House and that they have thousands of warriors ready for battle. So terrorist are pleased that democrats are in control of congress, hmmmmm..... maybe that should tell us something.

I think terrorists, uh, talk just for the sake of talking and reading a lot into their talk is a bit silly. Of course they are going to take credit for Rumsfeld being outted and the democrats taking power. Of course they are going to try and rally momentum to their side via propaganda. At bare minimum it was a change, why would they NOT take credit for it? If you want to read more into it than what is actually there, and clearly you're doing so with that last line of "So terrorist are pleased that democrats are in control of congress, hmmmmm..... maybe that should tell us something." then that is your own mistake.

[LA sports]

No, the Democratic platform was based on a change of direction in Iraq not an 'if you elect me the troops will be home for Christmas' campaign. Democrats campaigned on the notion that a fresh perspective on Iraq is needed and that the Bush Administration has no clue on how to expidite a withdrawal from Iraq. They seized on the fact that the populous as a whole is increasingly dissatisfied with the way the GOP led government is handling the war.

The Democratic platform was also steeped heavily in reducing corruption in D. C. The GOP's family values ethos blew up in its face this past year with all of the corruption and ethics scandals party members have been involved in. If you want to talk about who has been selling the American voter a bunch of lies lets talk about what the Bush Administration and the Republican Party in general has tried to convince the American Public of over the past six years.

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Has there been a bigger lie told to the world since Bush came into office? Don't write such nonsense about Democrats lying to America when all politicians are adept at telling us what we want to hear to get elected. Neither party is any more truthful than the other. The Republicans have just been worse at covering theiry tracks in the past few years than the Dems have.

That so-called fresh perspective was supposed to include a plan for withdrawal according to the democrats. You say the Bush administration has no clue how to expidite a withdrawal fron Iraq, that is part of the point I am making, THE DEMOCRATS DON"T EITHER yet it was a major part of their campaign. You can't predict the future and come up with an empty withdrawal plan, that is why Bush says we have to stay the course because we don't know what will happen in the future. It does not matter if the withdrawal plan is set for 10 days or 10 years, until you can predict the future it is stupid to try and set any kind of date for this type of thing, once again that is why you have to stay the course and try and get the job done not make empty promises.

As far as your lies theory, I do believe that the Bush administration has said that they made a mistake and that they have not found weapons of mass destruction. That would be called a mistake not a lie. Now if they said they found these weapons but did not then that would be a lie. So saying that there has been no bigger lie than this is simply incorrect. On a side note don't you think it is still a good thing that Hussein is out of power. He supported terrorist and killed thousands if not millions of his own people. So I'm sorry that the precious weapons of mass destruction were not found but a murdering tyrant and his son's who supported terrorism are out of power and they are having free elections in Iraq now, that is good enough reason for me. Also at one time there might have been WMD there but like I said the Bush administration did not lie they said they have found none.

[LA sports]

Doug, it does not matter if the exit plan is set for days or years, you can't set a date on war. I did say a quick withdrawal but any date would be a quick one if your main concern is getting out not finishing the job. That is what the Iraqi leader is worried about IMO. Any date that the democrats set is an empty date. So I am not mixing up anything when I never said if the democrats plan (which apparantly does not exist) was set for any date. I never did say that the democrats promised a certain date I said that they were campaigning on exiting Irag (which is a main part of there new direction in Iraq) and that the republicans have no such plan when the democrats do not either. That is what I am calling a lie. And believe me I am not saying that republicans are always honest either, I was commenting on how the democrats based most of their campaign on a lie. I am sure there are some democrats who are more supportive of the war in Iraq but I think most democrats were campaigning on getting out of Iraq which was the main point of there new direction for the war so that is what I was addressing. I can't go over every single democrat in office I can just go over the majority.

Any group that has crashed plans into our buildings is not going to be taken silly by me. Even though a lot of liberals seem to think so I think that terrorist threats are very real and should not be taken as silly or have the mind set that it won't happen to us when it already has. I also never said that terrorist were taking credit for Rumsfeld resigning or for the democrats taking control of congress, all I said was that they were pleased by it. So try not to put words in my mouth to support your arguement

How is saying that the terrorist are pleased with these things reading to much into it? IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID! That's not reading into anything it is called quoting. Try and understand this before you say someone is mistaken, big difference between reading into something and an actual quote. You are trying to make something different out of what was actually said, there is your mistake.

[HibachiDG]

On your first point, I don't think you've really made a point on the democrats lying. If you believe them to be lying about the campaign goals, I simply find that to be silly. I just don't think you've paid attention to what democrats have said and instead rely on what Republicans say back about democrats.

Aside from that, you have to silly notion that an exit strategy is throwing your hands up and not giving a damn about winning the war.

Is it possible that the democrats might leave Iraq without winning the War? The chances are the same as they were with the Republicans in office. However, the difference is that with the democrats taking office, you give yourself some opportunity to salvage the war, whereas if you were to follow the course we have been going with in Iraq, you continue to stay stuck in the mud. Chances of victory certainly are not diminished by the democrats being in power or desiring an exit strategy.

This thing has gone to crap the past couple of years because the lack of planning on the Bush administration's behalf to win the war after storming Baghdad. Changes were needed to be made. Now, the country is going to start looking at ways that things can be done over there. First you have to define what you consider victory. I think the Bush administration rolled in with this lofty goal of giving Independance and opportunity to the people of Iraq and in the past few years, that has slipped away and you run the risk of leaving that country worse than when you entered it. Something had to be changed.

I don't think the democrats campaigned on setting a date to exit Iraq. If they did, then I would agree with you that any date set by them is hollow. I don't think that is what they campaigned on, however.

Any group that has crashed plans into our buildings is not going to be taken silly by me. Even though a lot of liberals seem to think so I think that terrorist threats are very real and should not be taken as silly or have the mind set that it won't happen to us when it already has. I also never said that terrorist were taking credit for Rumsfeld resigning or for the democrats taking control of congress, all I said was that they were pleased by it. So try not to put words in my mouth to support your arguement

No one is saying to not take the terrorists seriously, so, uh, don't toss words into my mouth to try to support your argument. Seriously, painting this as a "oh liberals don't think this threat is real" is just silly and counterproductive.

LA sports is on a distinguished road

Default
Doug, it does not matter if the exit plan is set for days or years, you can't set a date on war. I did say a quick withdrawal but any date would be a quick one if your main concern is getting out not finishing the job. That is what the Iraqi leader is worried about IMO. Any date that the democrats set is an empty date. So I am not mixing up anything when I never said if the democrats plan (which apparantly does not exist) was set for any date. I never did say that the democrats promised a certain date I said that they were campaigning on exiting Irag (which is a main part of there new direction in Iraq) and that the republicans have no such plan when the democrats do not either. That is what I am calling a lie. And believe me I am not saying that republicans are always honest either, I was commenting on how the democrats based most of their campaign on a lie. I am sure there are some democrats who are more supportive of the war in Iraq but I think most democrats were campaigning on getting out of Iraq which was the main point of there new direction for the war so that is what I was addressing. I can't go over every single democrat in office I can just go over the majority.

Any group that has crashed plans into our buildings is not going to be taken silly by me. Even though a lot of liberals seem to think so I think that terrorist threats are very real and should not be taken as silly or have the mind set that it won't happen to us when it already has. I also never said that terrorist were taking credit for Rumsfeld resigning or for the democrats taking control of congress, all I said was that they were pleased by it. So try not to put words in my mouth to support your arguement

How is saying that the terrorist are pleased with these things reading to much into it? IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID! That's not reading into anything it is called quoting. Try and understand this before you say someone is mistaken, big difference between reading into something and an actual quote. You are trying to make something different out of what was actually said, there is your mistake.

You know, what, look, I understand the difference between reading into something and quoting. I understand that you were quoting, what I was getting at was the WHY part of the quoting. Look, you backed yourself into a corner and rather than argue your way out, you just want to say that I didn't understand something and I made a mistake, fine. I really don't care. The reality is that the terrorists are going to always TALK. And always try to distribute their propoganda upon others. By quoting it anywhere as you did is definitely reading too much into it.

Let me put it this way...do you think it MATTERS what the terrorists say post-election? Any of those things you quoted. Do you think any of them MATTER? If you do, then I stand by my statement that you are reading too much into those things. If you think they are irrelevant chatter, as I take them to be, than I don't know why you even bother to quote them.

[LA sports]

Doug, what are you talking about. I have backed myself into a corner? You are really not paying attention.

If the democrats said that a new direction is needed in Iraq and that they would be better for our country because the republicans don't have an exit plan when all along they did not either than that would be a lie. At least an indirect lie. Accusing someone of something like not having a plan when you yourself do not is not only a form of a lie it's deceitful. What do you not understanding about this?

Throwing your hands up and giving up is what I'm worried about, and being so obsessed with exit plans should be a little hint that getting out is of more importance then winning to the democrats. Yes there is a chance with either party of getting out of Iraq without winning, it is just a much more likely scenario with the democrats IMO. Every since this began Bush has been concerned with liberals and them thinking this war would be easy and if not then we should get out, that is why he has harped so much on staying the course.

My idea of victory would be for Iraq to be able to sustain order on it's own. There is no way that things will be perfect there but that goes for any country. Iraq now has free elections and many terrorist have been captured. We just need to get Iraq strong enough and trained to be able to battle terrorist on their own, which takes time and sacrifice, something that liberals really struggle with. If you disagree with this than why are the democrats the one's who are so obsessed with an exit plan. People die in wars. Progress has been made in Iraq just not as easily and quickly as liberals like.

You obviously have not listened to enough debates or campaigning by the democrats. Almost everyone one of the debates and talks by democrats have included the fact that republicans don't have an exit plan and that things will be different with democrats. Time to stop pulling the wool over your head Doug and pay attention to things if you are going to try and argue them.

You said reading to much into a terrorist statement is silly, you said that not me. They threatened to blow up the White House Doug and they leveled the WTC already. I assume that is what you were talking about when you said it was silly because the other point you made about them taking credit for the dems taking control of congress and Rumsfeld resigning was false. I never said that, you tried to put words in my mouth and I called you on it, that is backing myself into a corner? I wasn't putting words in your mouth I was responding to what you said.

The terrorist made a statement and I took it for what they said, you are the one reading something else into it. If republicans had kept congress I am sure terrorist would not be so pleased and if you say that you disagree with that then you are not being honest, if you truly believe that than you are not being honest with yourself. You might want to look over your shoulder Doug, I think you might actually see the corner of the room right behind you. Vague comments and inaccurate statements on your part put you there. You might also want to remember that these are for the most part just our opinions so little comments like being backed into a corner are actually the silly and counterproductive things. So try and remember that we are adults and not little kids fighting on a playground. So I will apologize now for returning the backed into the corner comment to you and for any other comments I have made that may have offended you or anybody else. I will try to do my part to remember that a lot of this is just opinions and I will try to respect yours and keep it civil.

[HibachiDG]

If the democrats said that a new direction is needed in Iraq and that they would be better for our country because the republicans don't have an exit plan when all along they did not either than that would be a lie. At least an indirect lie. Accusing someone of something like not having a plan when you yourself do not is not only a form of a lie it's deceitful. What do you not understanding about this?


I don't think the democrats ever said they had an exit plan, though. That is the point that you missed.

Throwing your hands up and giving up is what I'm worried about, and being so obsessed with exit plans should be a little hint that getting out is of more importance then winning to the democrats. Yes there is a chance with either party of getting out of Iraq without winning, it is just a much more likely scenario with the democrats IMO. Every since this began Bush has been concerned with liberals and them thinking this war would be easy and if not then we should get out, that is why he has harped so much on staying the course.

Getting out is certainly of importance to democrats if they feel that the war can't be salvaged, but I mean, that's not exactly a novel concept. There is a vast distance between reaching that point and throwing your hands up and giving up. You seem to want to equate the two, and that is not a rationale thing to do.


My idea of victory would be for Iraq to be able to sustain order on it's own. There is no way that things will be perfect there but that goes for any country. Iraq now has free elections and many terrorist have been captured. We just need to get Iraq strong enough and trained to be able to battle terrorist on their own, which takes time and sacrifice, something that liberals really struggle with. If you disagree with this than why are the democrats the one's who are so obsessed with an exit plan. People die in wars. Progress has been made in Iraq just not as easily and quickly as liberals like.


It's not that liberals are really struggling with the concept. I have the same idea of victory and democrats would want that as well. It's just that the sides have different ways of wanting to go about that. The United States military is not designed to be a country stabilizing force. We are a very good military, probably the best in the world, we just do not do certain things. We have a military trained for certain aspects trying to do something they were not trained to do. If we don't recognize this and don't change course from this, then victory may never be attainable. Like I said before, staying on the current direction, we were not headed towards stabilizing Iraq, so why have Americans die if we're not working towards that goal?

You obviously have not listened to enough debates or campaigning by the democrats. Almost everyone one of the debates and talks by democrats have included the fact that republicans don't have an exit plan and that things will be different with democrats. Time to stop pulling the wool over your head Doug and pay attention to things if you are going to try and argue them.

I simply disagree on this. Not sure what else to say. I believe I paid attention during the campaign. Just look at your statement, "Almost everyone one of the debates and talks by democrats have included the fact that republicans don't have an exit plan and that things will be different with democrats". This is not to say that the democrats will directly withdraw troops. Which was your original statement..."there will be no quick withdrawal from Iraq by american troops because that would be a catastrophic mistake. What a freaking surprise. This means the democrats campaign was based on a lie,"

Your original statement was that if there was no quick withdrawal, democrats based their campaigns on a lie. You have backed off of that since then.


You said reading to much into a terrorist statement is silly, you said that not me. They threatened to blow up the White House Doug and they leveled the WTC already. I assume that is what you were talking about when you said it was silly because the other point you made about them taking credit for the dems taking control of congress and Rumsfeld resigning was false.

It is silly to read too much into a terrorist statement. It is silly to take a terrorist statement, designed at propaganda and serving as a rallying cry, at face value. I have no idea why you did it, no idea why you would want to do it. It just makes no sense. It's like when Jim Tressel said the Buckeyes have the best damn band in the land. Do they? Maybe, but more importantly, does it even matter?

The terrorist made a statement and I took it for what they said

Therein lies your problem. Like I said, terrorists run their mouths. This is not exactly a new phenomenom.

If republicans had kept congress I am sure terrorist would not be so pleased and if you say that you disagree with that then you are not being honest, if you truly believe that than you are not being honest with yourself.

Uh, before the elections, terrorists were saying that they were winning the war and wanted to blow stuff up...so, uh, where exactly have things changed from the point of what they say publicly?

You might also want to remember that these are for the most part just our opinions so little comments like being backed into a corner are actually the silly and counterproductive things.

I know they are our opinions, I just wanted to make it clear that I don't think you're doing a good job defending what you originally said. Rather than defending what you originally said, you casually side step it while still trying to make yourself look right. Counterproductive of me to call you on it, sure, maybe.

for any other comments I have made that may have offended you

I don't think there is a chance in the world that you could offend me. I'm not trying to offend you either, I'm just trying to point out where I think your argument is flawed.

[LA sports]

The democrats harped on how the republicans do not have an exit plan, but not having one of their own is okay? Like I said to me this is deceitful which according to the dictionary is a form of a lie.

Like we have both now stated these are mainly opinions, I feel the democrats outlook is one of giving up.

Once again opinion, I feel that americans have died defending freedom as well as fighting terrorism so to me they have not died in vain and things will get better if we stick with it. We just differ in opinion I guess.

I have not backed off from anything, as matter of fact a couple post ago I said that I think setting any date at this point would be going to quick and would be jumping the gun. I think it screws up our priorities at this point. I am not sure how I have backed off saying that the democrats ran on a lie either, that has still been one of my main points so I'm not sure what your saying there about me backing off when that is what I having been talking about.

I don't consider a terrorist saying that they want to blow up the White House as propaganda, like I said before they leveled the WTC. As far as them being pleased that the democrats have taken control of congress that is not propaganda that is simply fact. Republicans generally believe in small government and a large and strong military while democrats have generally believed in large government had have made cut-backs to the military and more republicans then democrats have supported the war so of course they are pleased. This is just common sense IMO.

As far as terrorist saying that they are winning the war and wanting to blow stuff up, well that will always be the case. I just feel that republicans generally want to fight these people and there way of thinking more than democrats.

Like I said before I have not side stepped or backed off of anything. It seems you say things like that out of nowhere to try and help your arguement. You seem to make things up and then say you called me on it. To me this is very counterproductive.

Well, I guess we agree that we think the others arguement is flawed. I am glad to know that I have not offended you and I am not offended either. I think we are trying to convince each other that we are wrong so that could be impossible since I think we both feel strongly about our view, but thanks for debating with me.

[Anthony]

The unemployment rate being low doesn't mean anything because the real issue is the quality of jobs available, not the quantity of them; otherwise, why did the Republicans get slaughtered in Pennsylvania and Ohio, where in just those two states they lost two Senate seats and five House seats?

As for all the "cut and run" rhetoric, it's only "cut and run" if we leave without reaching a lasting political solution. Fortunately, however, such a solution is readily attainable: Iraq needs to be partitioned into a Kurdistan in the north, with a "Sunnistan" being carved out of the central third and a "Shiastan" in the south.

There people have been hating each other and killing each other for 1,300 years; to expect them to stop now just because a few idealistic dreamers think it would be a good idea is just plain naive and just plain dumb.

And since the neocons have declared partitioning Iraq a non-starter, the Democrats have to get behind it.

[catman]

Whoa here. Create 3 States out of Iraq? That would be interesting, and an invitation for continued bloodshed in the area. That is not a solution, unless you want to station US troops there permanently.
By the way, I love the new DNC buzz-word -- Neocon. I guess the memo says to use it as often as possible.

[Richard the Lionheart]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-11-12T170830Z_01_N20203713_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-1.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

If Bush doesn't stand firm now, his presidency will be remembered by all as an utter disgrace, and the world will pay for it.

[Marc]

With the economy doing well, the stock market doing well, and unemployment at an all-time low and the liberals with nothing to offer, decided to base this entire election on the anti-Iraq war theme.
The economy is doing well for the wealthiest Americans, but the middle class is being squeezed and the low-level workers can't survive on minimum wage. I'll give you the employment point, but the democrats do have a lot to offer, namely a Congress that won't give Bush free power and will truly bring back checks and balances.

It's dangerous when one party has so much control. The Republicans screwed up in every way possible through their scandals, one after another. It is time for a change, and even many Republicans admit this. Bottom line: voting Democrat, as so many did, was a statement by America saying they aren't happy about Iraq and want changes. This election was about Iraq and the scandal-plagued administration, no doubt.

This is a new generation of democrats, a more moderate one. Karl Rove led the Bush administration so far left that it backfired. Now his only support comes from ... I hate to say it ... the south. Man, I need to relocate to a blue state after undergrad. :D

Here's my stance on Iraq. I am in favor of gradual withdrawl of troops. We are there and not winning and there isn't any light at the end of the tunnel. What's happened is we have driven out everyone except the extremists who are fighting a civil war. The innocent citizens and non-violent have either been killed or fled. This fantasy about giving Iraq back to them is misguided. All we're doing is standing in the middle of two groups fighting each other. And you don't honor those who have given their lives in Iraq by letting more brave soldiers die. Our presence is creating more hatred for our country. It's really a lose-lose situation by staying.

[LA sports]

The economy is doing well for the wealthiest Americans, but the middle class is being squeezed and the low-level workers can't survive on minimum wage. I'll give you the employment point, but the democrats do have a lot to offer, namely a Congress that won't give Bush free power and will truly bring back checks and balances.

It's dangerous when one party has so much control. The Republicans screwed up in every way possible through their scandals, one after another. It is time for a change, and even many Republicans admit this. Bottom line: voting Democrat, as so many did, was a statement by America saying they aren't happy about Iraq and want changes. This election was about Iraq and the scandal-plagued administration, no doubt.

This is a new generation of democrats, a more moderate one. Karl Rove led the Bush administration so far left that it backfired. Now his only support comes from ... I hate to say it ... the south. Man, I need to relocate to a blue state after undergrad. :D

Here's my stance on Iraq. I am in favor of gradual withdrawl of troops. We are there and not winning and there isn't any light at the end of the tunnel. What's happened is we have driven out everyone except the extremists who are fighting a civil war. The innocent citizens and non-violent have either been killed or fled. This fantasy about giving Iraq back to them is misguided. All we're doing is standing in the middle of two groups fighting each other. And you don't honor those who have given their lives in Iraq by letting more brave soldiers die. Our presence is creating more hatred for our country. It's really a lose-lose situation by staying.

When the day comes that the economy is good for everybody in the U.S. then we will have a true miracle. We can't expect things to be perfect. Would you rather have a higher unemployment rate so that lower paying jobs could pay more?

One of my main points about the democrats is that what they supposedly have to offer does not exist. Yeah americans voted these changes but that is another one of my points, the democrats lied to do it. They campaigned on the Iraq war and that the republicans don't have a plan when in fact the democrats are the one's without a plan. Bush is saying we need to stay the course and not make promises about the future that can't possibly be predicted.

I think we would all like to see a withdrawal from Iraq so that probably goes without saying, I just want to give it every possible chance to be a successful withdrawal with the Iraqi leadership in control. I also think that progress has been made in Iraq and the picture you paint of it is not nearly as bad as you say. But on both of our parts these are just opinions, I feel it is going better than people think it will just take more time. You also don't honor those soldiers who have died by not doing all we can to make this successful. Your statement about this is part of the problem IMO, when soldiers die too many americans say it is now not worth it. I don't mean to sound corny but I am glad our past societies have not had this attitude or who knows what flag would be flying above us. If we just let tyrants and terrorist do what they want around the world without putting up the best fight possible than it will find it's way back to us like it already has. I am also not worried if other countries hate us or not, so I'm not worried about this war being a popularity contest. It is funny how other countries hate us until they need us.

Like I have said before I know that republicans are not always honest either. But to base the main part of your campaign on something that is not true is pulling the wool over america's head and deceiving it. Right after the elections to come out and show that you don't have what you accused the other party of not having is a slap in the face to all of us IMO.

[LA sports]

The unemployment rate being low doesn't mean anything because the real issue is the quality of jobs available, not the quantity of them; otherwise, why did the Republicans get slaughtered in Pennsylvania and Ohio, where in just those two states they lost two Senate seats and five House seats?

As for all the "cut and run" rhetoric, it's only "cut and run" if we leave without reaching a lasting political solution. Fortunately, however, such a solution is readily attainable: Iraq needs to be partitioned into a Kurdistan in the north, with a "Sunnistan" being carved out of the central third and a "Shiastan" in the south.

There people have been hating each other and killing each other for 1,300 years; to expect them to stop now just because a few idealistic dreamers think it would be a good idea is just plain naive and just plain dumb.

And since the neocons have declared partitioning Iraq a non-starter, the Democrats have to get behind it.

I think the republicans lost these seats mainly because of the war in Iraq that the democrats are supposedly going to fix when they have no plan to do so.

I don't know why but I just had to ask. Are you saying that by giving official boundaries and recognizing these groups as official countries or factions that this will solve things? and then in your next statement you say that these people have been killing each other for 1,300 years so expecting them to stop now (by the way this comment of yours shoots down your theory stated in your previous sentence) just because a few idealistic dreamers think it would be a good idea is just naive and dumb.

It will be difficult for sure, possibly impossible but we have to try. It seems to me that you either contradict yourself from sentence to sentence which makes your statements not make sense or you just have a defeatist attitude. I could be reading your post wrong but this is what I got out of it.

[IntheNet]

The whole democratic campaign was based on an EXIT plan for our troops in Iraq...

Let's look at the issue purely political... Democrats now have their eye on 2008... if the Iraq issue disappears, i.e., troops from Iraq come home, they have no campaign issue in 2008.

Expect the Dems to jointly codemn the war for the next two years but maintain the troop presence in Iraq. In fact, leading Dem candidates, Clinton, Obama, et al., will insist troops stay in Iraq.

If the 2008 campaign is on the economy or anti-terrorism, the Republicans will win. If it is on Iraq, the Democrats win. Expect Murtha's "bring the troops home now" rhetoric to be squashed.

[Anthony]

I think the republicans lost these seats mainly because of the war in Iraq that the democrats are supposedly going to fix when they have no plan to do so.


Personally I have a problem with these polls that state that 60 per cent of Americans disapprove of the administration's handling of the war. Of that 60 per cent, how many disapprove of it because we're not doing enough in Iraq and believe we should send more troops there, as John McCain does? These respondents should hardly be lumped in with the cut-and-run crowd - yet the warped polling data being cited invariably does exactly that.



I don't know why but I just had to ask. Are you saying that by giving official boundaries and recognizing these groups as official countries or factions that this will solve things? and then in your next statement you say that these people have been killing each other for 1,300 years so expecting them to stop now (by the way this comment of yours shoots down your theory stated in your previous sentence) just because a few idealistic dreamers think it would be a good idea is just naive and dumb.

It will be difficult for sure, possibly impossible but we have to try. It seems to me that you either contradict yourself from sentence to sentence which makes your statements not make sense or you just have a defeatist attitude. I could be reading your post wrong but this is what I got out of it.


It didn't work in Yugoslavia - and there was "only" about 600 years' worth of constant hatred among the parties to live down there - so why should it work in Iraq with the feuds in that country being more than twice as long?

As I see it, there is a "tipping point," beyond which inter-ethnic, inter-religious etc. antagonisms become permanent on both sides. Clearly that "tipping point" is longer than 75 years (the period of more or less continuous hostility between France and Germany, from the Franco-Prussian War through World War II), but would appear to be shorter than 600 years, given Yugoslavia's experience (a sobering thought along these lines, and one that strikes close to home: In just 13 years we will observe the 400th anniversary of slavery in America; so if we are going to put the issue of race to rest in this society, time is clearly of the essence).

And was it "defeatist" to recognize the independence of the five non-Serbian republics of the former Yugoslavia? No, it wasn't "defeatist" - it was highly realistic.

[IntheNet]

With the economy doing well, the stock market doing well, and unemployment at an all-time low and the liberals with nothing to offer, decided to base this entire election on the anti-Iraq war theme...


Precisely... look to Hillarybeast to be one of the voices of do nothing in Iraq until the 2008 elections... Democrats, on the whole, are the big losers here - the weakest link - in the process of governance. They have no plan for Iraq but are upset about it and condemn the present plan simply to get their voices on the condemnation bandwagon... Some of the far left, Murtha et al., have fielded absurd notions of change (redeploy to Okinawa :lol:) which serves nobody and no mission that I can tell. Even when the command soldiers come to Washington to tell the Democrats that they don't need more troops and they want the mission to continue, as General Abizaid did yesterday, Democrats ignore the troops and offer more condemnation. Righteous indignation...

What I don't see getting much airplay is the fact that despite the fighting in Iraq and the contunual strife, and the ongoing mission in Afghanistan, something is working successfully to prevent further terrorism here at home. And wasn't that the whole point of this War anyway? So it seems the White House should be in receipt of kudos, but we all know that's not going to happen...

[bama4256]

Seriously, if Al-Queida is happy the Democrats won then we are in trrouble. Which I'm sure they are happy. Not good for America at all.:(

[RavenPoe]

I'm so glad to see there are political threads here. We were worrying that we might lose that leaving CBS. We've had some really good discussions over there and I look forward to continuing them here. You really seem like a great group of people.

[BigBuddhaPup]

Hiya old friends from CBS...and hiya to all...

GW made nice for about a week... he actually even had meetings with people that didn't agree with him... now it is back to stay the course... GW is looking to increase troop levels 30K more...

Deja vu, all over again,
BBP

...Steelers..

[CKFresh]

Yes, very glad to see political threads over here!

bama, the terrorists don't care who is in office over here. They hate Democrats, Republicans, whoever is American. If anything, republicans are the best thing for terrorists. What more could you ask for in terms of recruiting terrorists. Young Arab and Muslim children see what the terrorists have always warned them about: white Americans killing their families. The war in Iraq is the ultimate recruitment tool for terrorists.

[IntheNet]

With the economy doing well, the stock market doing well, and unemployment at an all-time low and the liberals with nothing to offer, decided to base this entire election on the anti-Iraq war theme.

Precisely... Democrats had nothing to offer or run on so they pulled the big scare... frightening Americans... Democrats didn't run on a single domestic issue... the great economy we have, our security at home, the falling deficit, and Bush's improvements to education had Democrats running scared...so they ran on Iraq issue all the way... now that they won the leadership they want to leave Iraq issue as is....

Then yesterday the Iraqi president says that leaders of the democratic party have assured him not to worry that there will be no quick withdrawal from Iraq by american troops...

Of course. Democrats lied. You are surprised?

Also yesterday an al-qaeda leader in Iraq releases a statement saying he is pleased that the democrats have taken control of congress...

Osama bin Laden was a big contributor to Democrat Party... Dean invited Osama and all the Al Qaeda folks to a big party in January after Dems take control...

So terrorist are pleased that democrats are in control of congress, hmmmmm..... maybe that should tell us something.

It tells me three things: (1) Ask for a flak jacket and armored helmet for Christmas, (2) avoid crowds and big sports stadiums in 2007, and (3) consider Canada as a new home.

I am so scared for the nation now... I wish Bush could win again in 2008 and fix the problems the Democrats have brought down upon our nation...

[CKFresh]

BUSH, FIX problems? Are you out of your mind. Please stop talking about politics because it is clear that you will hate anything the Democrats do and love anything the republicans do. IRAQ QAS A TERRIBLE IDEA AND WE ARE STILL THERE. Open yours eyes blind man.

[IntheNet]

BUSH, FIX problems? Are you out of your mind...

In my prior post I neglected to give Vice President Cheney credit for his role and his potential role in the future... he brings key expertise to our successful administration...

[CKFresh]

IntheNet,
Now I can tell you are either joking arund or just out of your mind. Thanks for the laugh.

[Ellis]

InTheNet, you are being paranoid. Invading Afghanistan was just because it weakened Al Qaida. But the Iraq war? There was no connection between Al Qaida and Iraq and Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. You try and defend Bush and the war, but in reality we are the ones spreading terror by bombing cities and creating complete chaos and instability in Iraq.When it comes to bombing and killing people our government has no problem, but it takes us forever when it comes to helping people in our own country after a natural disaster. I just question the governments priorities when they spend more money on killing people than things helping to provide basic needs for people in Africa.

The Democrats aren't that much better right now, but at least they will try and fix up the things that Bush messed up and fight against Bush.

[Ellis]

IntheNet,
Now I can tell you are either joking arund or just out of your mind. Thanks for the laugh.

I get the feeling that his posts are his honest views, although they are a bit sarcastic at times just to stir up the Bush haters. He is like this all of the time though and eventually you get used to it :D

[CKFresh]

Exactly Ellis.

We need some accountablility, and with an ALL-REPUBLICAN government things just got out of hand. The patriot act for instance. The passing of such laws brings us that much closer to Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

[Ellis]

Exactly Ellis.

We need some accountablility, and with an ALL-REPUBLICAN government things just got out of hand. The patriot act for instance. The passing of such laws brings us that much closer to Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

Yep. People are paranoid. Just because we could be attacked again, we passed a law that basically gives the government the right to spy on us.

Really there is no such thing as privacy anymore. Employers have easy access to your financial information (including bank statements) and all public statements about you. The government can pretty much access anything from every website you visited to watching your everymove.

We need to be protected by the government and employers should be able to view recent criminal history, but there comes a time when our rights are just being violated and things have gone too far.

[CKFresh]

Yeah, and I hate the argument "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about." That's not the point. It's about privacy and the right as US citizen to be protected from government intrusion. But I don't expect many people in this country to understand that, afterall Bush got elect, TWICE! What is wrong with this country?

[RavenPoe]

A good political discussion would be useless if they weren't a few right-wing fanatics. :) If we all agree, there's nothing to discuss.

The political threads on the CBS board proved invaluable to opening great discussion on a lot of subjects. They quickly became my favorites. It's always great to see how so many people have such differing views. We live in a two-party system but we have very few two-party people.

[CKFresh]

Of course poe.

That's why the system is so flawed (well at least in part). We are stuck with the lesser of two evils when we go to the booth, and trust me the are both evil to a certain degree. But at least the general philosophy of each party is something nearly everyone can buy into.

[BigBuddhaPup]

CKFresh,

The sky is falling, the sky is fallling, gimme your civil rights, now, or you will die! I'm your boogie man, that's what I am *singing*....

GW is a fascist...and like I have said many times before is a ******* idiot...

Tax cuts for the rich...
Tried to privatize Social Security..
Clean Air Act/Healthy Forest Initiative..nice doublespeak
WMD's
Iraq War
US Patriot Act
Freezing for 7 minutes while we were being bombed
Hiring Donald Rumsfeld
Vetoing Stem Cell Act
Guest worker program
Nominating John Bolton...(had to do it in the middle of the night *L*)
Lying about taking anything from the Iraq Study Group seriously
Cheney
Lack of energy reforms, being in energy lobby's pocket


I could go on and on... GW is the worst president since ... that is pretty bad when you can't think of someone in last 100 years as bad as him... Nixon did an ill advised B/E... LBJ picked the wrong issue... Coolidge was a do nothing... hmmmm..

Congrats, GW, you actually won something this time, fair and square...

Namaste,
BBP

...Steelers..

[Ellis]

Yeah, we have a lot of interesting political and philisophical threads. Right now there aren't too many because elections are over and nothing big has really happened since the elections. But, we have a lot of guys who talk politics here and everyone has good stuff to say.

[IntheNet]

InTheNet, you are being paranoid. Invading Afghanistan was just because it weakened Al Qaida. But the Iraq war? There was no connection between Al Qaida and Iraq and Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. You try and defend Bush and the war, but in reality we are the ones spreading terror by bombing cities and creating complete chaos and instability in Iraq.When it comes to bombing and killing people our government has no problem, but it takes us forever when it comes to helping people in our own country after a natural disaster. I just question the governments priorities when they spend more money on killing people than things helping to provide basic needs for people in Africa

Ellis surfaced what seem to be honest inquiries so I'll respond... No I wasn't kidding... I can't think of a single reason today to fault the Bush Administration. This war we are in, this War on Terror, is very hard to win and very hard to gauge progress since no president has ever fought this particular type of war. Therefore the only real way of measuring success is ask whether we have been successfully attacked since 09.11.01 by terrorists, since that is the main reason we went to war. On that basis George Bush has been a complete success in his War on Terror. Now you can skowl at that fact, criticize it, condemn it, cry about it, castigate it, even reject it, but you can't deny it... Therefore, as I have previously stated on other threads, Bush's domestic achievements have been significant (economy, tax cuts, nomination of two solid conservative judges to Supreme Court, et al.). Bush's main failing in everyone's mind seems to be Iraq and I submitted that he has protected us, thus far, from terrorism since going to war...therefore Bush's prosecution of the war (along with VP Cheney) has been a demostrated success. In a very real sense, I can't think of a single issue to fail Bush on, if you accept the idea that the War on Terror is a new type war where success is hard to gauge... Perhaps I would have closed the north/south continental borders but that is a whole other subject...

The Democrats aren't that much better right now, but at least they will try and fix up the things that Bush messed up and fight against Bush.

Now here's the rub... Democrats have no idea how to fight terror... they will come into office in January with no ideas. Troops in Iraq? Yup... they're staying there because all that stuff they said about withdrawal was just election jabberwhocky... Oh sure... they'll blame each death in Iraq on Bush and huff and puff about Bush got is in war (even though they approved war right along with Republicans in initial vote)... but as far as new ideas on War on Terror I submit that there isn't a single new idea from anyone in Democrat Party on how to fight war... other than... bring the troops home...which the Democrats will not do...

[CKFresh]

InTheNet
Please read the democratic platform. It specifically lays out a plan on how to fight the war in Iraq. It basically say to do exactly what the Military leaders have been suggesting, and that is to stop policing, and fight counter terrorism only, and protect the US troops and interests, and stop protecting the Iraqis. May sound cruel, but that's the only way we can win over there.

As far as the war in Iraq being part of the war on terror, well, I would say the war in Iraq is a war OF terror. Not only that, it has brought more terrorist to Iraq than Saddam could have ever dreamed of. In addition, the war in Iraq serves as the ultimate recruiting tool for terrorist organizations "look they are killing muslims again." If you can't see that you are blind.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by InTheNet
Bush's main failing in everyone's mind seems to be Iraq and I submitted that he has protected us, thus far, from terrorism since going to war

As far as I am aware, we didn't need to be protected from Iraq.

You are mixing the War on Terror with the War in Iraq, and they are two different wars that are only connected to one another because of our involvement in both.

I am a liberal who is all for the War on Terror, but opposed to the War in Iraq.

[IntheNet]

I am a liberal who is all for the War on Terror, but opposed to the War in Iraq.

You'd be opposed to the War in Afghanistan if George Soros and Howard Dean and the Democrats picked that theater of war (instead of the Iraq theater) in order to attack the president. Both theaters of war, in the larger War on Terror, are critical...

In WWII we were engaged in several theaters of war; did you oppose the Japanese Theater of Operations but support the Europe Theater of Operations? (Don't forget that the Axis powers included Germany, Italy, and Japan). I'll venture you didn't. You supported the entire World War II and all its theaters... back in WWII we would not allow such partisanship and political division and media backstabbing as is occuring now...

You oppose the Iraq theater of operations because the liberals tell you to....

The same issues that we face in Iraq could happen in Afghanistan...

Going to be opposed to the Afghanistan theater of operations then or wait for the Democrat Party to tell you?

[CKFresh]

IntheNet
Please respond to my posts

As far as the war in Iraq being part of the war on terror, well, I would say the war in Iraq is a war OF terror. Not only that, it has brought more terrorist to Iraq than Saddam could have ever dreamed of. In addition, the war in Iraq serves as the ultimate recruiting tool for terrorist organizations "look they are killing muslims again." If you can't see that you are blind.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by InTheNet
You'd be opposed to the War in Afghanistan if George Soros and Howard Dean and the Democrats picked that theater of war (instead of the Iraq theater) in order to attack the president.

Unfortunately I don't follow as a sheep blindly, no matter how close in political ideology I may be to someone (which, in your two examples, is not very close at all).

The War in Afghanistan was a reactionary war fought against those who were actually inolved in the deadliest terrorist attack to occur on American soil.

I was initially impressed with President Bush and his administration's reaction to the September 11th terrorist attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan, as it was a necessary war against a regime who harbored those terrorists responsible for the over 3,000 deaths on that day.

But, somewhere along the way, we lost sight of the fact that Afghanistan was the central front in the War on Terror, and instead began focusing our country's money and resources to a War in Iraq which has never been (and never will be) justified to the American people.

[Ellis]

It is a basic problem with politicians. It is easy to start a war when you don't have to fight in it. Thousands of American children have lost parents to the war. Wives have lost husbands. Siblings have lost siblings. And the question is, for what? What did the soldiers who died in Iraq die for? Making America safer? Saddam was never a threat to me and I don't consider myself any safer that he is gone. A lot of politicians (like Bush) just don't value the lives of all of the people who are dieing. So many Iraqis and Americans have died and it is for unjust and unnecessary war.

[BigBuddhaPup]

CKFresh,

Dig posting again with ya again...

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror... there was absolutely no connection with Iraq and Al Queda, no connection with 9/11 and Iraq... no connection with Saddam and Osama...

It was WMD's, then it was taking out Saddam, then it was bringing democracy, then it was rebuilding an Iraq Army, now it is not a Civil War, and GW is in denial... we sent our military to an unnecessary war, on cherry picked information, and all that has been accomplished is Iraq, Syria and Iran are starting a civil war... maybe we will be good enough to at least protect the Kurds this time around....

By spreading our military so thin, we are losing traction in Afghanistan as well... Warlords have taken control of their section of the country, the opium trade is in full force, even Kabul isn't safe to drive through anymore... Al Queda is regrouping.... yay,another war that could have been avoided with good planning...

This administration has manipulated information at every turn...WMDs, Goals, and Military stats(deaths, injured, attacks, etc)...

Look up the definition of fascist, and you will see GW...

[RavenPoe]

I think fascist is a little too strong. More to the point I think it gives him too much credit. I'm not convinced that he has any solid ideology or steadfast convictions. I think for six years he's been pulled to the right by those around him. The recent elections have now pulled him back to the left.

The original questions when he first announced that he was running were "is this guy smart enough?" and "does he have the intestinal fortitude?" to hold the oval office. I think the answers are a resounding NO. Firing Donald Rumsfeld, immediately after announcing that his job was safe is the proof. He doesn't know exactly what to do now.

[CKFresh]

:thumbup: Yes indeed BBP,
But as I have said before, some people just will never admit to being wrong. People thought that this war would some how magically put an end to terrorism, when in reality, it made a country that was a fairly small threat into one of the biggest threats in the world. At least Saddam had the country under control. Now the country is a breeding ground for anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity. And the perception of America hasn't been improved any. And in this war, perception is everything. If the rest of the world percieves the US as evil and as a nation that hates muslims, then we will continue to be attacked.

The optimism of this administration is astonishing. It is really impressive how abitious Bush was to think that we could go to war in country with no plan for the aftermath of the fall of the government, and think we could be successfull. It is impressive how optimistic he was, but very sad that so many people had to die because of his boy-like optimism and lack of understanding of other cultures.

Keep it up BBP, before we are done, we will change the world!:thumbup:

[BigBuddhaPup]

Raveneapoe,

Fascist - "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views" - source Dictionary.com

Makes him even scarier that he is fascist without a clue...

[BigBuddhaPup]

CKFresh,

It would have been nice if they would have chosen the right place to fight the terrorists... say, Afghanistan... I know it is a just crazy notion to fight the right country/area to weaken Al Queda... I guess GW wanted Osama not dead but very alive... it is horrible to take a tragedy like 9/11 and distort it for your own means(ie.. attacking Iraq, strengthening executive powers)... It is past treason against this country and its people, it demeans the 3000 people that died that day... Impeaching is too good for this criminal... his deliberate misleading of Americans has lead to thousands of unneeded deaths...

He is a war criminal... *in my best Rumfeldian speech* Is he a war criminal? You betcha by golly gosh wilketers...

I am going to stop before I really get on a rant about what a piece of scat this administration is...

[chiefsfan27]

The War in Iraq does have something to do with the war on terror. Suddam did have weapons of mass destruction (either that, or it just so happened that he moved on the day the U.N. came to check for them, and his move, in which he stayed, invoved dozens of armed vehicles leaving caravan style and leaving behind traces of the WMDs). Just because we were attacked by someone else does'nt mean Suddam should be allowed to reign free killing 300,000 people. We went to stop those deaths, we have not yet fully succeded, but are making prgress.

This coversation will be much different in 2 or 3 years when the Democrats take over. GW will seem great then.

[chiefsfan27]

We are still fighting in Afghanistan.

[CKFresh]

Yeah you are right chiefsfan27, as soon as the Dems take over Al Qaeda will move in on the country and take over. The world will collapse and we will be paying HIGHER TAXES, oh no! NOT HIGHER TAXES! GOd Forbid we tax the multi-millionaire CEOs, besides, no one else deserves any money. Hahaha.

Oh yeah, and those icky homosexuals might actually get some rights, Osama Bin Laden is gonna be real happy about that...

(By the way that thread was entirely sarcastic if you couldn't tell.)

[CKFresh]

We are still fighting in Afghanistan.

If course we are still in Afgahnistan, but nearly all of the resources were diverted to Iraq. They dropped the ball and let Osama get away. :redhot: Good anti-terrorism plan, let the REAL bad guy get away while hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocent civilians are killed. The war in Iraq is indefensible and you need to stop being so stubborn and just say "WE WERE WRONG!" Most of the republicans have, so step up an be a man Chiefsfan:thumbdown:

[Jaguar Rick]

The War in Iraq does have something to do with the war on terror. Suddam did have weapons of mass destruction (either that, or it just so happened that he moved on the day the U.N. came to check for them, and his move, in which he stayed, invoved dozens of armed vehicles leaving caravan style and leaving behind traces of the WMDs). Just because we were attacked by someone else does'nt mean Suddam should be allowed to reign free killing 300,000 people. We went to stop those deaths, we have not yet fully succeded, but are making prgress.

This coversation will be much different in 2 or 3 years when the Democrats take over. GW will seem great then.

Yeah, right chiefsfan: Just like the oil sales in Iraq is going to pay for the war, and the Iraqis will love us, you're kidding right? Get rid of Saddam so he can't kill the Iraqis. We'll do it for him. Remember when they captured Saddam? Things were going to change for the Iraqi people. They have-it's much worse.

[RavenPoe]

Rick,

Good to see you got in. Look in the lounge for threads about our migration.

[BigBuddhaPup]

Chiefsfan,

UN inspectors were in Iraq for many years, Iraq was disarmed... they even went back prior to the pre-emptive US strike, and they didn't find anything... there weren't any WMD's... so yes it is very easy to hide non-existent WMD's... now for my next magic trick, I will hide a non-existent GW Iraq Plan... *poof*... where did it go?

Weapons of Mysterious Destination...

[bearsr4real]

whoa, the pup is here! anyone get ahold of uncommonsense? he's needed badly around here.

[chiefsfan27]

CK,

Yeah and when Barrack Obama or whoever the democrats dedcide on becomes president, all of our problems will ceaseto exist.
And of course George W. is singularly responsible for everything that happens in Iraq. Congress is just a myth. I'm pretty sure George is over there right now personally holding the heart of a dying child in his hand.

(By the way that thread was entirely sarcastic if you couldn't tell.)

Even if you disagree with war in Iraq, it can't all fall on George W.

[Richard the Lionheart]

George W. Bush is a fascist???

:lol:

Welcome to earth, my name is Rick. I'm not a spokesperson for my people, but I would be happy to provide you with some examples of what us Earthlings consider real tyranny and fascism:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#The_Holocaust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Campaign_against_the_Left_and_Right_Opposition

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


So Bush is a fascist, and Saddam is someone who "stabalized" his country, and was mistakenly removed???...this is the kind of complete lack of any bearings in this struggle that poisons any debate on this issue. To call Bush a fascist is absurd, and weakens the term when applied to real tyrants.

I don't really want to go over the Iraq war debate again with a new batch of interneters. I won't gain anything new from it--I've heard all your arguments already. But to call Bush a fascist is disrespectful to any person who has every lived under real tyranny. To apply the term to a democratically elected head of a free nation is shameful.

[boston_aloha]

To apply the term to a democratically elected head of a free nation is shameful.
Well said Ricky

[RavenPoe]

Well........at the risk of being a stickler, Bush wasn't democratically elected. Remember, he lost democratically. He won the electoral college.

On the other hand, Hitler WAS elected democratically. I'm pretty sure fascism can be achieved democratically. Germany WAS a free nation as well.

As far as "real tyranny", I'm pretty sure I'd rather not wait until we start experiencing patriot act borne pseudo-tyranny before taking counter-action.

IMHO

[Richard the Lionheart]

Yes, but the electoral college is the system used in our democratic process to elect the president. He was elected by that process in free election. Just because it wasn't a strict popular-vote majority-wins election doesn't really change anything. If you have a problem with the electoral college, that's a different matter altogether.

Hitler was elected. But he was not the head of a free nation for long. Bush is the head of a free nation. If you want to complain about the Patriot Act, and even argue that its unconstitutional--you will have my sympathy and attention. But you will immediately loose those things when you try to compare them to acts of real fascism and tyranny. Listening in to international calls from suspected terrorists, and mass-murdering millions of your people are apples and oranges...to say the least. And before you make some argument implying how Bush has "murdered" people...again, I would remind you that your comparing two distinct things, and trying to say they are equal in order to gain cheap political and debating points. And all the while the truth is lost...there is no more tyranny anymore, because everyone who disagrees with you on any insignificant issue becomes a tyrant, and all sensible defnition of the word is lost.

[RavenPoe]

Juan Peron of Argentina was a fascist and simultaneously a pretty good ruler who didn't murder millions. The word fascist isn't automatically equated to Adolph Hitler. As BBP pointed out, the actual definition contains "someone with strong right wing views" or something like that.

The Patriot Act is something that could become the precursor to a fascist-like state. It's not just wire tapping. It gives the president the power to install military control in the event of a terrorist attack. Federal military rule over civilians is the definition of Fascism.

[Richard the Lionheart]

It isn't someone with "strong right-wing views", any more than someone with "strong left-wing views" is a communist. Remember how ridiculous the right-wingers sounded when they called Bill Clinton a communist? That is essentially what you are doing right now from the opposite spectrum. Fascism is *extreme* right-wing views. But does it matter a great deal to the people under a despotic leader whether he is a "fascist" or a "revolutionary"?? No. People die the same way.

Bush doesn't have extreme right-wing views, and is not dictatorial in any way. He falls under the definition of "fascist" in no real way...why can't you just say: "I disagree with the President's policy"??? Then you keep your credibility, and show you are reasonable and open-minded.

With your comment about military control...I'm not precicely sure I understand what you're talking about. If it gives Bush the power to respond to a terrorist threat militarily, that's hardly unconstitutional or contrary to free principles. But interestingly now the definition of fascism is "Federal military rule over civilians" when before it was "strong right-wing views. You were closer the second time, but this just shows how the word is already lost beyond meaning! If fascism or tyranny have defnitions to you, they must be "someone who disagrees with me" and "policy that is contrary to my personal beliefs".

[Montrovant]

From Merriam-Webster online

Fascism : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Dictionary.com had a nearly identical definition.

So, is Bush a fascist? No, that's just a word that's become almost a slang term for a bad leader, or at least one that the person using the word considers even the slightest bit oppressive or intrusive.

As far as the main thrust of the arguments in this thread are concerned, I'm often amazed at how vehemently average people will argue about the supposedly large differences between the two parties. Would the US be better/safer if Bush had not been president? Maybe. It's just as possible a democrat would have done a worse job. Whatever supposed ideals and philosophies they may spout, when it comes to the day-to-day running of government, it seems to me that politicians are politicians, whichever party. I have no problem with praising or criticizing an administration for what it's done, but to say the life of your average American will change drastically based on which party is in power has no factual basis I've seen.

Personally, I've been against the war in Iraq from the beginning. On the other hand, I have no idea what the best plan is, because we did go to war, and it's become a mess. There may not be a solution; there's a lot of history of strife in the region, I don't imagine we can keep a sizeable presence there indefinitely, and in the end it's up to the Iraqis to run their own country. Hopefully this war will, in the end, leave the Iraqi people with better lives. I don't see how it's helping win the 'war on terror' though. Actually, I don't even know what winning would mean; it's impossible to completely prevent terrorism, and while there's nothing wrong with trying to be as safe as we can, what's the ultimate goal?

The curse of politics: those who want to be in charge are rarely those you would want there :)

[Richard the Lionheart]

Very interesting post. Welcome to the forum.

As far as the long-term goals of the struggle, and what winning means, in my opinion it would be to speed up the modernization of the region by undermining autocratic rulers whenever possible, and supporting the free and moderate elements in the country. Bush and many others believed that the region as it was posed a great threat to the world. Oppression and poverty mixed with strong religious beliefs breed terrorism--so the goal was to put pressure on these tyrannical regimes, and help the people of the Middle East create new--free-- ones.

[Jaguar Rick]

I swear, if I see or hear one more person use the expression "war on terror" and Iraq in the same sentence again, I'm going to take a hostage. Do you people who continue to use this term not read, watch the news, or listen to the radio? The Iraq War and the "war on terrorism", have about as much to do with one another as Cheney and heartsmart. After many months of telling lies, even the administration admitted, "Iraq had no WMDs, and Sadaam did not support terrorists". In fact, Sadaam and Bin Laden were enemies. Get a new catch phrase please. Fighting terrorism in Iraq is bogus. Inciting terrorism in Iraq is more like it.
Since this war began we have been told by the Bush administration: 1st Phase
1. Sept. 12, 2002-In an address to the UN, Bush said Iraq has WMD, must stop supporting terrorism, and stop oppression. (with strong reservations from Colin Powell and others)
2. Mar. 19, 2003 U.S. launched invasion of Iraq.
3. April 7, 2003 US troops enter Baghdad.
4. May 1, 2003 Bush declared war over.
No evidence of stockpiled chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons found.
2nd Phase-Reasons change from WMDs to Sadaam as oppressor, killer.
Sadaam found and captured Dec. 13, 2003. Bush announces that the Iraq people will see a difference in their lives now that Sadaam was captured.
All this time insurgents are gaining more and more confidence. The US has disbanded the police and military, so they have almost free rein.
April 2004-Abu Ghraib prison scandal, incenses even more Iraqis to join insurgency. Terrorist acts increase.
Jan 30, 2005 Elections are held, but the people who make up the majority of the terrorists, (Sunnis) are basically left out.
April 2005 Talabani, a Kurd "elected' president.
August 2005 A new constitution, opposed by the Sunnis, adopted.
August 2005 A greater number of terrorist attacks begin.
Sept. 2005 An estimated 26,000 Iraqis have lost their lives due to the war and occupation.
Oct. 2005 Now, this is a war on terrorism. It has changed from WMD, Sadaam, to a War on Terrorism. Close to 3,000 Americans killed, billions of dollars of damage done to infrastructure of Iraq. No legit Iraqi police or military, a trip to the airport in the capital is very dangerous, terrorist attacks increasing, little income from oil exports, Iraqi people say it is worse now than when Sadaam ruled, and at least then they had a more dependable water and electric system. What has this war accomplished? Thousands of dead and wounded Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, a country incapable of defending or policing itself, hatred of the US, and the recruitment of more terrorists. And we have to listen to pinheads tell us that this is a noble cause. We have spent too much in lives and money for this war to ever be considered anything but a monumental lie. How can anyone in their right mind say it is anything but a mistake?

[RavenPoe]

I can't believe I've ended up debating this but here's a couple of definitions I've found on the web for fascism.

"A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts the nation above the individual"

"An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state."

"a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

The name comes from the Latin fasces – a bundle of rods with a projecting axe, which was the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was applied by Mussolini to his movement after his rise to power in 1922. The Fascists were viciously anti-Communist and anti- liberal and, once in power, relied on an authoritarian state apparatus. They also used emotive slogans and old prejudices (for example, against the Jews) to bolster the leader's strongman appeal. ..."

As you can clearly see, there is NO real definition of Fascism. It has come to symbolize right-wing extremists and military controlled government.

As I said originally, I don't think Bush is all that right-wing. I think he gets pulled in whatever direction by circumstances and people around him. I think he's weak minded and lacks the confidence to have ANY real convictions one way or the other. If you peeled down the surface of GW Bush, I'm pretty sure you'd find philosophies very similar to GHW Bush.

The Patriot Act IS fascist legislation. We have ample federal, state and local authorities to handle any situation. There is no need for military force deployment within the continental US short of invasion by another sovereign nation. An act of terrorism in the US is NOT reason for military deployment within our borders.

[Jaguar Rick]

Bush doesn't have extreme right-wing views, and is not dictatorial in any way. He falls under the definition of "fascist" in no real way...why can't you just say: "I disagree with the President's policy"??? Then you keep your credibility, and show you are reasonable and open-minded.

OK Ricky, I disagree with the President's policy. :thumbdown: I don't know if he is a fascist or not.:confused: I do, however, believe him to be an idiot.:thumbup:

[CKFresh]

CK,

Yeah and when Barrack Obama or whoever the democrats dedcide on becomes president, all of our problems will ceaseto exist.
And of course George W. is singularly responsible for everything that happens in Iraq. Congress is just a myth. I'm pretty sure George is over there right now personally holding the heart of a dying child in his hand.

(By the way that thread was entirely sarcastic if you couldn't tell.)

Even if you disagree with war in Iraq, it can't all fall on George W.

Im not sure if you knew this or not Chiefsfan, but the president is THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF! He has to be the fall guy. He makes all final decisions and he makes the choice of his cabinet members. THe people (Donald Rumfield) he surrounded himself with make all the decisions and Bush must be held responsible. Even if congress "voted for the war" (if you read the bill it wasn't only about Iraq, it was about national defense in general) Bush is still the one responsible for planning and the final decision to go to war. That's why we have a hierarchy of power, the blame can only be placed on Bush and the people he surrounds himself with.

[BigBuddhaPup]

Ricky,

Obviously you think the term fascist denotes much more than the definition. You made it a subjective term. Objectively speaking, as I was in my previous post, GW attitudes and policies are very fascist. GW is dictatorial in his policies, unbending, even if the facts are in his face. It is obvious is he has a very extreme right wing view. Hence, fascist. Is he in the same league as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot? No. It doesn't change the fact that he runs the executive in a fascist manner.

Yes, Saddam strong armed his country into a dysfunctional organization... now with a power vacuum we caused via horrendous policy, it is a dysfunctional dis-organization...

It isn't disrespectful at all, to call GW a fascist to anyone that has lived under tyranny.. each situation was different.. to lump them together in hyperbole isn't logical...

[catman]

Good to see some legitimate discussion of the issues here.
I'll throw my 2 cents in. Saddam Hussein, wheter he had WMDs in the '90s or not, was a well-documented sponsor of international terrorists. He was a despot that executed any and all people that opposed his rule. He got very, very rich while his country suffered in poverty.
When we invaded Iraq, the prevailing wisdom said that there were WMDs there. Saddam had been non-compliant with the UN Resolutions proving that his weapons program had been scrapped. The UN failed to back their resolutions with action and looked like a "paper-tiger". The US, Britain and some other countries went in to bail them out so they would not look quite so bad.
This war has always been about international terrorism, in my mind, but had Saddam been in compliance with the UNs resolutions, it would not have been necessary.

[catman]

By the way, in a poll I heard on CNN last night, 19% of the American people feel George Bush is doing a good job of managing the Iraq situation. I do not disagree with that assessment. In the same poll, however, only 14% of the American people think the Democrats will do a better job of managing the situation.
Sounds like a bad situation to me.

[Ellis]

I was surprised that Saddam went down so easily. People were speculating that he would burn the big oil fields when the troops came into Iraq, which would have caused huge problems. He didn't do that. Then, when troops caught him, he just gave up. I would have expected him to go down shooting or running, but he didn't.

[Jaguar Rick]

Good to see some legitimate discussion of the issues here.
I'll throw my 2 cents in. Saddam Hussein, wheter he had WMDs in the '90s or not, was a well-documented sponsor of international terrorists. He was a despot that executed any and all people that opposed his rule. He got very, very rich while his country suffered in poverty.
When we invaded Iraq, the prevailing wisdom said that there were WMDs there. Saddam had been non-compliant with the UN Resolutions proving that his weapons program had been scrapped. The UN failed to back their resolutions with action and looked like a "paper-tiger". The US, Britain and some other countries went in to bail them out so they would not look quite so bad.
This war has always been about international terrorism, in my mind, but had Saddam been in compliance with the UNs resolutions, it would not have been necessary.
catman, I think the "prevailing wisdom" was manipulated by the WH. When Bush made his speech to the UN about Sadaam being a terror supporter, and a holder of WMDs, many in his own cabinet cautioned him on the validity of the intelligence. One of note was Colin Powell. Another, whose name I can't recall was Bush's terrorism expert, who later outed the admin. for using the faulty info. Not only that, they outed a CIA agent whose husband opposed their stand. B/s all around. As for saying Sadaam didn't heed the UNs resolutions, you must remember too, the US invaded Iraq in opposition to the UN. You can't have it both ways!

[catman]

I am not worried about having it both ways, Rick. I'm worried about the UN saying to Saddam that he must comply and then doing nothing when he did not do so. If the UN is going to pass resolutions and not follow up when those resolutions are not heeded, what is the use of even having it? Sounds like a paper tiger to me.
As to the prevailing wisdom at the time of the invasion, most of the prominent Democrats were concerned about Saddam's weapons program as well, so do not say that GW Bush lied about anything, OK?

[catman]

I was surprised that Saddam went down so easily. People were speculating that he would burn the big oil fields when the troops came into Iraq, which would have caused huge problems. He didn't do that. Then, when troops caught him, he just gave up. I would have expected him to go down shooting or running, but he didn't.
I was surprised by this also. He was found hiding in a hole in the ground near his home town. It was a pretty sad end to his reign.

[Cure]

One thing Bush did lie about was reducing carbon-dioxide emissions (2000 campaign)... I'm sure I'll get some flak from both sides, but to my mind global warming is a greater threat to the peace and prosperity of humanity than terrorism... it just happens outside of the 4 year election framework that drives american policy so no one cares that much. The fact is that carbon-dioxide levels are higher than they've been in 3/4 of a million years and are increasing at an exponential rate, and the link between CO2 levels and temperature is not in any doubt... if you think Katrina and Iraq are awful , contemplate relocating 100+ million people worldwide in the next century and dealing with a lack of freshwater resources for a third of the worlds population....
Now that is scary.

[CKFresh]

Cure, good point. But you still have the crazies who refuse to believe what the scientist are telling us. Every major scientific organization recognizes global warming and the threat it poses. Yet, many conservatives, with no scientific background will claim that it's voodoo science and not real. They would rather continue to drive their HUGE SUVs and trucks because, "i'm an American and I do what I want!" Trust me, if we can't get people to believe that evolution is true, there's no way we can convince them of global warming, no matter how dangerous it really is. But you're right, global warming is a much larger problem than terrorism in the long run but people will never admit it.

[Cure]

CK, what I've also noticed are some conservatives switching from the "voodoo science" position straight to the "well, we can't do anything about it" position... or to the old standby, "it'll wreck the economy" position. First off, it won't...there is so much money to be made in the renewable energy sector that it's not even funny, and the rest of the world is taking that ball and running with it, leaving us far behind the field...imo, this would be a way to regain the lost science and technology edge the US held in the world for so long. And as far as wrecking the ecomomy...take a look at the market shares of domestic automakers versus foreign. Toyota, Honda, even Hyundai are making products that get much better gas mileage and are reaping the rewards here in this country, while Detroit sits with thumb firmly inserted in rectum (and I know gas-mileage is not the only reason for the lag in US auto sales, but it is a big one). Japan and Germany are embracing wind and solar technology, providing subsidies and tax incentives for them, while we keep throwing money at Exxon-Mobil and Co. so they can maintain their 10billion quarterly profits. The change is going to come, we as a country need to decide if we are going to lead that change or be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

[Jaguar Rick]

I am not worried about having it both ways, Rick. I'm worried about the UN saying to Saddam that he must comply and then doing nothing when he did not do so. If the UN is going to pass resolutions and not follow up when those resolutions are not heeded, what is the use of even having it? Sounds like a paper tiger to me.
As to the prevailing wisdom at the time of the invasion, most of the prominent Democrats were concerned about Saddam's weapons program as well, so do not say that GW Bush lied about anything, OK?

catman, I am not the only person claiming Bush lied. Many in his administration have said it also. If you happen to believe him, great. I surely won't tell you not to say what YOU believe, so don't tell me not to say Bush lied. He lied, and he has lied all of his life. My meaning in speaking of the UN was that you can't on one hand justify attacking Iraq because they DIDN'T obey the UN , and then disobey the UN and attack them. It just doesn't make sense. Like it or not, it's the very reason we have little support from the rest of the World, and waning support at home. I think support of Bush's handling of the war is now about 20% in the US. I think my beliefs have more support than yours. Unlike you however, I support your right to say whatever you want, whether you agree with me or not.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Someone posted a great definition of fascism. Its not subjective. Bush is not a fascist. You can't say because he is strong in his views in the face of opposition he is a fascist. That's just his personal management style.

On the Iraq war stuff, I'm not going to debate it again. No one ever says anythign that original anyway. It is what it is.

But on this UN stuff, I have to say something. Its not having it both ways at all. Saddam not only violated UN sanctions, he violated the terms he agreed to in the Gulf War treaty. There is nothing similar about enforcing a treaty, and sacrificing your sovereignty to the United Nations. The United States does not need UN approval to do anything. We are a sovereign nation with the right and power to manage our own defense and internal affairs. Some people look at the UN as some kind of supreme power in the world, but that's not the case and is completely unconstitutional. The power of the United States to wage war lies in the Federal government, not with the UN.

[Jaguar Rick]

Someone posted a great definition of fascism. Its not subjective. Bush is not a fascist. You can't say because he is strong in his views in the face of opposition he is a fascist. That's just his personal management style.

On the Iraq war stuff, I'm not going to debate it again. No one ever says anythign that original anyway. It is what it is.

But on this UN stuff, I have to say something. Its not having it both ways at all. Saddam not only violated UN sanctions, he violated the terms he agreed to in the Gulf War treaty. There is nothing similar about enforcing a treaty, and sacrificing your sovereignty to the United Nations. The United States does not need UN approval to do anything. We are a sovereign nation with the right and power to manage our own defense and internal affairs. Some people look at the UN as some kind of supreme power in the world, but that's not the case and is completely unconstitutional. The power of the United States to wage war lies in the Federal government, not with the UN.

rickythekid, With all due respect, your post is the biggest bunch of contradictions I've read on this thread. If the US doesn't need approval, why would anyone? If the US is a member of, and houses the hqs. of the UN, why shouldn't it abide by it's rules? If we had been attacked by any nation, I would agree with you. We were not. As far as defense and internal affairs, how does that apply? What I'm saying is, why does most of the US, and most of the World disagree with what we're doing? Tell me one verifiable thing Iraq did to justify our attacking them outside the auspices of the UN? You make it sound like we were attacked by Iraq, and are just defending ourselves. There are many other countries represented in terror attacks on the US. Why did we choose the one who didn't? Maybe it was a vendetta Bush had against Sadaam, huh? Our miltary members are just pawns in this vendetta, along with us taxpayers.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Sovereign nations don't need UN approval to use their militaries. Part of what makes a nation sovereign is the control and power it has over its own military forces, and the ability to use them in a way they deem best to provide for the security of their people. You would argue that the Iraq war is not the best way to use the military--that's fine. I disagree--that's fine. Neither of our opinions on that subject change the point I'm making with my previous post, which is that a sovereign nation does not need U.N. approval to use its military--and to do so is not the same as violating a treaty or sanction.

[Jaguar Rick]

Sovereign nations don't need UN approval to use their militaries. Part of what makes a nation sovereign is the control and power it has over its own military forces, and the ability to use them in a way they deem best to provide for the security of their people. You would argue that the Iraq war is not the best way to use the military--that's fine. I disagree--that's fine. Neither of our opinions on that subject change the point I'm making with my previous post, which is that a sovereign nation does not need U.N. approval to use its military--and to do so is not the same as violating a treaty or sanction.

Ricky the Kid, I agree, you are making a point. I don't know what you mean by continuously saying "sovereign nation". Aren't all nations sovereign?:confused: What if another nation, (sovereign, of course) attacked another nation for reasons that the rest of the World didn't agree with. Wouldn't it be imcumbent on the other sovereign nations to object? I'm not arguing that the US isn't sovereign, doesn't have the right to defend itself, or should be a member of the UN. You are missing the point. My question is, why Iraq? We know Iran supports terror, and is seeking nuclear capability. We know there are many terrorists in Pakistan, and they have nuclear weapons. Syria and Saudi Arabia have terrorists, so does Yemen, Libiya, and Egypt. My question again is why Iraq? Don't tell me about our sovereign status, or our use of the military, tell me why Iraq?

[catman]

catman, I am not the only person claiming Bush lied. Many in his administration have said it also. If you happen to believe him, great. I surely won't tell you not to say what YOU believe, so don't tell me not to say Bush lied. He lied, and he has lied all of his life. My meaning in speaking of the UN was that you can't on one hand justify attacking Iraq because they DIDN'T obey the UN , and then disobey the UN and attack them. It just doesn't make sense. Like it or not, it's the very reason we have little support from the rest of the World, and waning support at home. I think support of Bush's handling of the war is now about 20% in the US. I think my beliefs have more support than yours. Unlike you however, I support your right to say whatever you want, whether you agree with me or not.
I don't see your point here, Rick. Sure people felt that Bush lied, but he was following the best intelligence that was available at the time.
As to the UN, my point remains. What good is the UN if they pass resolutions and do nothing when those resolutions are not followed? Sorry, but they would be worthless to me.
Nice to see you trying to put words in my mouth, Rick. I certainly appreciate someone that doesn't know anything about me passing judgement on my level of tolerance. Your beliefs may have a lot of support, but current polls show that only 14% of the people in this country think the Democrats will do any better than Bush is at solving the Iraq problem. Sounds like a pretty solid majority of people are behind them completely, doesn't it?
Rick, I am one of the most tolerant people you will ever come across. I support everyone's right to look as foolish or brilliant as they wish and everyone will do so to the best of their ability.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[Jaguar Rick]

I don't see your point here, Rick. Sure people felt that Bush lied, but he was following the best intelligence that was available at the time.
As to the UN, my point remains. What good is the UN if they pass resolutions and do nothing when those resolutions are not followed? Sorry, but they would be worthless to me.
Nice to see you trying to put words in my mouth, Rick. I certainly appreciate someone that doesn't know anything about me passing judgement on my level of tolerance. Your beliefs may have a lot of support, but current polls show that only 14% of the people in this country think the Democrats will do any better than Bush is at solving the Iraq problem. Sounds like a pretty solid majority of people are behind them completely, doesn't it?
Rick, I am one of the most tolerant people you will ever come across. I support everyone's right to look as foolish or brilliant as they wish and everyone will do so to the best of their ability.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.

catman, I've made no judgements on your level of tolerance. I agree with you, I don't think the Democrats have all the answers. I am neither a Dem or a Repub. I do believe, had the Dems been in power, we perhaps would have looked at ALL the evidence, not just the parts that we needed to justify war.
I think your "judge not, lest ye be judged", is good for scripture, but in a Democracy citizens have a right and a responsibility to speak-out.
As far as the UN, one of the main reasons it doesn't work perfectly is because of the way the US and members of the Security Council have set it it up. Pemanent members (5) of the Council have veto power, and because of this, it's difficult to get anything done. The US has always been one of the permanent members. They are as much to blame as the others. I think most would agree, we had time. War with Iraq wasn't a must-do now situation. What good is Democracy if you can't disagree with your leaders? It seems to me there are people so wrapped-up in support for the president, that they fail to see the wrongs he has committed. Had a Democrat handled the situation the same way as Bush has, they would be howling like coyotes.

[BigBuddhaPup]

I had a long post ready for reply to all the GW apologists, then I decided to make it concise and clear.

GW had ideas before looking at the facts, he cherry picked information to serve his agenda. He didn't use the 'best information'... GW is called resolute. He is. Very constitent, never wavering. Stay the course. It is unfortunate that his idealism is wrong and his execution is equally bad.

[BigBuddhaPup]

CKFresh,

You say Global Warming, I say opportunity.

New Ocean front property... a larger tropical zone...more poverty, more money for us... Sunscreen and gas mask stocks will soar... many more irradiated mutations, just think about all permutations!...

The free market and evolution will fix it all!

Praise Jesus and Darwin! Can I get a halleujah?

[Jaguar Rick]

CKFresh,

You say Global Warming, I say opportunity.

New Ocean front property... a larger tropical zone...more poverty, more money for us... Sunscreen and gas mask stocks will soar... many more irradiated mutations, just think about all permutations!...

The free market and evolution will fix it all!

Praise Jesus and Darwin! Can I get a halleujah?

BBP, Hallelujah, amen. I don't want any alternative energy sources unless Exxon is in control of it.
rick in nc

[kirby]

My question is, why Iraq? We know Iran supports terror, and is seeking nuclear capability. We know there are many terrorists in Pakistan, and they have nuclear weapons. Syria and Saudi Arabia have terrorists, so does Yemen, Libiya, and Egypt. My question again is why Iraq?

Iraq illegally attempted to take over Kuwaiit, a friend of the United States. Remember that? Yeah. The U.S. (and a coalition of friends) went to war with Iraq to defend Kuwaiit. When Iraq was getting the snot kicked out of it it chose to sign a cease fire agreement to end the beating. When you sign a cease fire agreement you have full knowledge that if you violate it the war you fled from picks right back up where it left off.

The U.S. showed TREMENDOUS restraint in not going back after Iraq long before it did, in light of the fact that Iraq was in blatant violation if it's cease fire agreement LONG before the U.S. (and friends) picked up where they left off in the Gulf War.

None of those other countries you listed, Jag Rick, were in violation of a cease fire agreement like Iraq was.

Why this basic concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend is beyond me.

[IntheNet]

Sad as it is to say and contemplate, it would actually be a good thing if Al Qaeda struck again... it seems the Democrats and Liberals are beside themselves to blame the Republicans (not the terrorists) for our lot in life and blame Bush (not Osama bon Laden) for terrorism.

Bush has done such a good job in securing this nation that Democrats have grown complacent in our security and safety... perhaps they need more blood to wake them up to realities they are blind to...

As my buddy says, "In a shooting match with Democrats and Al Qaeda all around, picking a target becomes a chore!" Indeed.

War is the domain of presidents; paying for war is the domain of Congress. Reporting on war is the domain of the media. Why have all the roles been usurped?

[Jaguar Rick]

Iraq illegally attempted to take over Kuwaiit, a friend of the United States. Remember that? Yeah. The U.S. (and a coalition of friends) went to war with Iraq to defend Kuwaiit. When Iraq was getting the snot kicked out of it it chose to sign a cease fire agreement to end the beating. When you sign a cease fire agreement you have full knowledge that if you violate it the war you fled from picks right back up where it left off.

The U.S. showed TREMENDOUS restraint in not going back after Iraq long before it did, in light of the fact that Iraq was in blatant violation if it's cease fire agreement LONG before the U.S. (and friends) picked up where they left off in the Gulf War.

None of those other countries you listed, Jag Rick, were in violation of a cease fire agreement like Iraq was.

Why this basic concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend is beyond me.

Kirby, The fight over Iraq's attack on Quwait happened in Jan.1991. That's 15 years ago! America attacked Iraq in 1991 with a UN mandate. As soon as Kuwait was returned to the Kuwaitis, the war ended. As far as a cease fire agreement, when did they fire on us? This is the first time I've heard anything about this. They are in a different hemisphere.
I like the way you say it's beyond you why it is so hard for people to comprehend this. It's hard for people to comprehend because you are talking pure nonsense. Please give me the details on this violation of a cease fire agreement, and Iraq's firing on us. Or is it something you just thought up? If there was a violation of a cease fire agreement, the country that was a victim of it should have taken measures to address it. As far as kicking the snot out of a country, I hope you feel proud. Wow, we kicked the snot out of a country the size of California. It was so nice, we went there again, and are bogged-down in the midst of a civil war with no hope of a military solution. I guess it is a step-up from Grenada, Panama, and Somalia. It's great to be macho!

[Jaguar Rick]

Sad as it is to say and contemplate, it would actually be a good thing if Al Qaeda struck again... it seems the Democrats and Liberals are beside themselves to blame the Republicans (not the terrorists) for our lot in life and blame Bush (not Osama bon Laden) for terrorism.

Bush has done such a good job in securing this nation that Democrats have grown complacent in our security and safety... perhaps they need more blood to wake them up to realities they are blind to...

As my buddy says, "In a shooting match with Democrats and Al Qaeda all around, picking a target becomes a chore!" Indeed.

War is the domain of presidents; paying for war is the domain of Congress. Reporting on war is the domain of the media. Why have all the roles been usurped?
IntheNet, Wake-up. Osama Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. He is in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Bush admitted recently that Iraq had nothing to do with terror acts on the US. Are you living in a vacuum? I blame Bin Laden for the terror acts against the US too. I DON"T blame Bush for terror. I blame him for picking-up and leaving Afghanistan and attacking Iraq. A country he admitted had no responsibility in attacking us. Bush tells you we are safer. Many have left his administration and said just the opposite. You can blame it on the Democrats or the liberals if you like, and give all postitve praise to the Repubs, but who has had the majority of Congress, and the presidency for the last 5+ years? Not the Dems or the liberals. If those sneaky liberals did cause some of our problems, why has Bush not vetoed one single piece of legislation? As far as shooting those with an opposing view, that goes perfect with you gullible sheep. Timothy McVeigh would love your buddie's little saying about shooting. I will never understand people like you. We are constantly told we are fighting for our freedoms, but when a person exercises their freedoms, people want them shot.

[catman]

Rick, in the cease fire that Iraq, under Saddam's control, signed it was stipulated that the Government come clean with their weapons plans. The UN passed several resolutions demanding that inspectors be given free, unfettered access to anything and any place in Iraq that they saw fit to inspect. Saddam not only did not comply with these demands, he kicked the inspectors out twice. Had the UN had any teeth behind their resolutions, we would not have had to do what we did.
As to the war on international terrorism, Osama bin Laden is not in Iraq, you are correct. He was, however, offered asylum there by Saddam. Saddam's Government was a well-documented supporter of Hammas and Hezbolla along with several other groups in the Middle East. Removing this State support was a good thing, IMO. There are still many supporters of these groups, including some here in this country, but they have lost one of their major sponsors.
Again, had Saddam complied with the UN mandates, none of this discussion would have been necessary, as there would have been no invasion.
Place the blame where it belongs -- on Saddam.

[catman]

And, by the way, have you forgotten that we still have a large contingent of troops in Afghansitan? We did not "pick up and leave" there, as you said.

[kirby]

As far as a cease fire agreement, when did they fire on us? This is the first time I've heard anything about this. They are in a different hemisphere.

I like the way you say it's beyond you why it is so hard for people to comprehend this. It's hard for people to comprehend because you are talking pure nonsense.

Pure nonsense?

Hey guy, the cease fire agreement is common knowledge. Do your own search for it if you're not up to speed.

Iraq was bound to behave in MANY ways to follow that agreement, and yet they BLATANTLY and REPEATEDLY failed to behave in accordance with their agreement. Hey, they violated it SO overwhelmingly, and for SUCH a long period of time that it was beyond absurd.

Military action should have taken place against Iraq long before it did.

[Jaguar Rick]

And, by the way, have you forgotten that we still have a large contingent of troops in Afghansitan? We did not "pick up and leave" there, as you said.

9/11 commission discounts Saddam-Bin Laden link


Agencies
Wednesday June 16, 2004



"The commission investigating the attacks on America of September 11 2001 has found "no credible evidence" of a relevant link between Iraq and al-Qaida, contradicting President