Victory!

More evidence of the 'great planning' of our administration in the report:

Yet even as the report focuses on the big picture in the region, its acerbity is to be found in the details. It points out that only six of the 1,000 US Embassy employees in Baghdad are fluent in Arabic. Moreover, whereas a US military report spoke of 93 violent incidences having taken place in a single July day, it was actually 1,100. Only 10 US military intelligence officers worked for more than two years on addressing the uprising in Iraq; the others were transferred before they could learn the ropes. One can hardly say, in other words, that the Iraq fiasco came out of nowhere.

You know it makes me really irate that this president has done so much damage during his tenure.  As much of a f*ck up as Clinton was this bafoon takes the cake.

Dude - you must be embarrassed, I’m sure you meant to post this message to one of your numerous, liberal blog sites and not a Financial Services forum.  Anyway - we’ve all made mistakes.  However, if (and it’s a big if) you have anything that’s relevant to the industry - we’d be happy for the help.

Damn Apprentice you are so smart....this has nothing to do with our business or lives for that matter, I mean it's only war right? 

You must be embarassed that your idol and chief executive has been so persistent in ruining this country.

Ohh calm down and make-out with your Michael Moore poster again.

Not very constructive dude. 

Most people have lost all perspective when it comes to this conflict.  It is a blip on the radar relative to other real wars.  Single battles have taken far greater casualties  It's a police action, nothing more.  

At this point, leaving would create far worse problems than staying.  This Iraq study group has provided a disservice.  No real workable solutions. 

I personally favor McCain's solution, more troops on the ground.  We can't walk away from this.  It has to be won.

I don't advocate leaving.  I agree it has to be won.  McCain may have the solution, as may others.  I am interested in learning about solutions not just criticizing mistakes.  I don't claim to have the solution and am open to 'forward looking' ideas.

Never the less, responsibility for the misguided decision for Iraq must fall on the shoulders of our leader and it's my belief that there was major arrogance, ignorance and lack of substance in the decision to bring war to Iraq and in it's execution. 

It's my belief that the Bush administration failed at an opportunity to face and solve the problem of international terrorism by getting 'side tracked' in Iraq and thereby DECREASING the security of our nation and world...the report seems to support my view and not those of the Bush apologists who have vehemently defended their 'dunce' leader.

I would not take issue if people seemed more committed to solutions than their 'leader' or political paradigm.

By the way, I'm not a liberal nor a fan of Michael Moore (who I believe makes it more difficult to solve the problem).  I think those that automatically label others that disagree with them as 'liberals' or 'right wingers' are immature and not perceptive of the great variety of political perspectives available. 

The biggest issue I take with Bush is his immature, childish paradigm which splits everything into black and white.  Very nieve and unflattering for a man of his position. 

[quote=Pandale]

Not very constructive dude. 

Most people have lost all perspective when it comes to this conflict.  It is a blip on the radar relative to other real wars.  Single battles have taken far greater casualties  It's a police action, nothing more.  

At this point, leaving would create far worse problems than staying.  This Iraq study group has provided a disservice.  No real workable solutions. 

I personally favor McCain's solution, more troops on the ground.  We can't walk away from this.  It has to be won.

[/quote]

I think that the nature and the deep seated issues this war raises to the surface has the potential to be of far greater consequence than a 'police action' like Vietnam.  We're talking about a clash of religion and culture that has over a thousand years of inertia behind it and a lot of pent-up unreleased energy. 

Again, I repeat, I do not advocate leaving.  I do advocate a multi leg approach like the report suggests though.  Isolation of the players that we don't agree with will only exacerbate issues.  Diplomacy is of utmost importance in engaging with a culture we obviously don't understand, as evidenced by our execution of this war (only having 6 Arabic speaking staff for example).

[quote=dude]

 is his immature, childish paradigm which splits everything into black and white.  Very nieve and unflattering for a man of his position. 

[/quote]

pot, kettle.....

[quote=dude]  I do advocate a multi leg approach like the report suggests though.  Isolation of the players that we don't agree with will only exacerbate issues.  Diplomacy is of utmost importance ...[/quote]

As McCain has said, the ISG's comments about working with Syria and Iran (nice Holocaust denier’s meeting there, btw...) are laughable. Asking those two to help with Iraq is like the fire department asking the town pyromaniacs to help with fire prevention…

What you resist persists.  This is a wisdom you obviously have no understanding of; back to your mindless militarism George. 

You will never beat the muslim world into submission, they are exponentially poorer with much less to loose than you could even imagine.  They've got more fight in them than we ever will have because it is born out of a desperation that is not understood in this country.  This is a war which can't be 'won'

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

 is his immature, childish paradigm which splits everything into black and white.  Very nieve and unflattering for a man of his position. 

[/quote]

pot, kettle.....

[/quote]

Each time you 'open your mouth' it becomes clearer and clearer your lack of reading comprehension and the subsequent fool you make of yourself when you try to articulate your position provides endless hours of entertainment for me.  Thank you.

My paradigm is most certainly not of a 'black and white' nature.  Thanks for playing but....

I can only sit back in great satisfaction and watch the unraveling of events supporting the position I took long ago.  That this war is a joke being executed by the biggest clown of all.  I need no longer argue, I can let Baker and those in the 'inner circle' illuminate the truth. 

You could at least be a good looser instead of a bad looser Mike.  Grace and humility in the face of failure is a redeeming quality, take advantage of them Mike.

[quote=dude]

What you resist persists.  This is a wisdom you obviously have no understanding of; back to your mindless militarism George.  [/quote]

"Mindless militarism"? Who is it that thinks in simple black and white terms again?

[quote=dude]You will never beat the muslim world into submission,....[/quote]

So this is about that, eh? A war on the "muslim world"? Black and white, again?

[quote=dude]

  This is a war which can't be 'won'

[/quote]

Then why do you want us to stay in Iraq? Why not surrender now, convert to Islam or dig deep holes here to hide in and await the next 9/11?

[quote=dude]

My paradigm is most certainly not of a 'black and white' nature. 

[/quote]

Of course it is. An example; in thread after thread after thread you spend time beating up on a cartoonish version of a real person..

[quote=dude]

I can only sit back in great satisfaction and watch the unraveling of events supporting the position I took long ago.  [/quote]

Who says there aren't people hoping for a US defeat so they can say "I told you so"?

Who says there aren't people cheered by every US setback in Iraq?

"Asking those two to help with Iraq is like the fire department asking the

town pyromaniacs to help with fire prevention…"

Bad example in that many pyros ARE firemen in the first place! (before

you all start jumping up and down, I did NOT say many firemen are

pyros).

I was/am against this war and made many sour faces when I ridiculed

Colin Powell’s idea of Mobile Germ Warfare factories, among other

falacies) BTW have you all seen this? It is hysti fricking terical



In Video, Hussein Uses Slingshots and Bows to Rally Iraqis for War

(nytimes.com)



And yet, at this point there is NOTHING we can do short of adding

200,000 pairs of boot to the effort. We need to institute a draft, we need

to turn major control of this face saving effort to the French (ok maybe

not the French, not the Italians either… The Russians? No, well maybe, at

least they’ve had recent experience, the Brits? They’ll take a pass thank

you very much. Who’s left? Mexico? Sweden? India?) We need to know that

we are now in a humanitarian struggle to save the lives of hundreds of

thousands(if not millions) of Iraqui’s that we put in the path of danger.

This is a MAJOR disaster of OUR making. We made the mess, now we have

to clean it up. The only way to do that is to flood the country with

peacemakers carrying heavy arms.

I think Bush is being petulant so as to goad the Congress into impeaching

him. He’d rather go down in martyrdom than Dummiedom!

Mr.A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

And yet, at this point there is NOTHING we can do short of adding 200,000 pairs of boot to the effort. We need to institute a draft, we need to turn major control of this face saving effort to the French (ok maybe not the French, not the Italians either... The Russians? No, well maybe, at least they've had recent experience, the Brits? They'll take a pass thank you very much. Who's left? Mexico? Sweden? India?) [/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]The only way to do that is to flood the country with peacemakers carrying heavy arms. [/quote]

Is that your way of saying more troops?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I think Bush is being petulant so as to goad the Congress into impeaching him. He'd rather go down in martyrdom than Dummiedom!

Mr.A

[/quote]

Yeah, that's it...

No, I thought we'd just send the 200,000 pairs of boots.

Mr. A

We went there to get the WMDs. There weren’t any. Victory!!
We went there to depose Saddam. We did it. Victory!!
We went there to establish a democracy. We did it. Victory!!

Let’s say the word again, all together: VICTORY!!!
!–
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymRealOnUnload;

function SymOnUnload()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymRealOnUnload != null)
SymRealOnUnload();
}

function SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymRealOnUnload = window.onunload;
window.onunload = SymOnUnload;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//–>

Good.

Now, let’s get the hell outta there!

[quote=Pandale]

Not very constructive dude. 

Most people have lost all perspective when it comes to this conflict.  It is a blip on the radar relative to other real wars.  Single battles have taken far greater casualties  It's a police action, nothing more.  

At this point, leaving would create far worse problems than staying.  This Iraq study group has provided a disservice.  No real workable solutions. 

I personally favor McCain's solution, more troops on the ground.  We can't walk away from this.  It has to be won.

[quote=Sailor25]We went there to get the WMDs. There weren't any. Victory!!
We went there to depose Saddam. We did it. Victory!!
We went there to establish a democracy. We did it. Victory!!

Now, let's get the hell outta there!
[/quote]

Actually we have found WMDs http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005207.php

Lots of them.

The problem is that there isn't a clear definition of what a WMD is.  A big honking bomb delivered by missiles?  or is it a teeny tiny vial of smallpox or anthrax germs.  Given that Iraq is the size of California, I  can assure you that if I wanted to hide WMDs in the Trinity Alps, you would never find them.  The other problem is that the media who leans so far left they can see up their own butts have been hiding, distorting and just plain fabricating news to suit their agenda of making the Bush administration look bad and damn the consequences.

Sadaam was supporting and financing terrorism not just against his own people.  No one in the administration EVER said that Sadaam was behind the 9/11 attacks.  However, it is undisputed that he was supporting terrorism, was ramping up his nuclear capabilities and was likely to give more support in the form of nuclear bomb materials and chemical weapons.   With the help of the UN he was stealing billions from the food for oil program and using it to the above ends.

You can tuck your tail and run.  Show the world that we are cowards without any moral principles.  If we do this we might as well just resign ourselves to future and terrible attacks on our own country.  If we throw the Iraqi people and the rest of the middle east to the wolves, who would ever trust us again.  Who would ever want to be our friends. 

People who have no memory of or who want to deny our culpability in the disaster that we created by leaving a sucking vacuum in South East Asia are fully prepared to abandon millions of people in the Middle East to the same fate.   Waaaah..... its too hard... waaaah people are dying......waaaah I don't want to think about it......waaaaah  I'm mildy inconvenienced.........waaaah.

Life is hard.  War is hard. People die.  A lot of people die.  Many more will die before we either win and topple the radical Islamist who want to kill us all and destroy us, or before we lose everything we have created in the last 4000 years in our Western Civilization.  

If you think you are inconvenienced now by this itty bitty war, wait until we are all under Shaira Law.   

Bab-good words.  I have never advocated cut and run, in spite of what the peanut gallery seems to believe.  We must not cut and run, period. 

I just think that American's had no understanding of the nature of the realities of this culture.  The war was poorly justified (why not Iran and other state sponsors of terror for example?) and poorly executed, time for a new leader/strategy...Bush is obviously not fit for the presidency, he lookes like a scared and confused puppy everytime I see him on TV; stuttering, inarticulate, repetitive, moot etc... I really feel bad for him.

There was shallow thinking going on at the top...one of the most important rules in war is to KNOW YOUR ENEMY.  We obviously were clueless.

My perspective is, working in this industry can make you (more) conservative. How the world takes for granted a stable economy.

When the world is rocked by panic-induced recession, more little children in developing countries go to be hungry.

This has been a good year, thank God.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]

I can only sit back in great satisfaction and watch the unraveling of events supporting the position I took long ago.  [/quote]

Who says there aren't people hoping for a US defeat so they can say "I told you so"?

Who says there aren't people cheered by every US setback in Iraq?

[/quote]

MikeB,

Your lack of understanding of my position makes your comments concerning my position worthless....keep on wasting your time and 'serving' those clients of yours, it's of no consequence to me.

It makes me angry everytime we have a setback, not happy.  Everytime there is evidence of incompetence (not just the natural chaos of war) and piss poor planning in addition to my belief that Iraq is a DISTRACTION from the real problem of Al Queada and therefore is increasing our vulnerability to attack, since it is providing the 'terrorists' with so much fuel and tarnishing our reputation, I get angry....Even China leveraged our weak position concerning the war at the economic summit. 

My pleasure is not from the failure in Iraq.  Just the validation of the position I took long ago...that Iraq was a mistake and distraction and Bush is a tool/fool (you pick).  McCain's ideas are interesting and I'd like to see what his ideas for a 'broader' strategy are.

[quote=dude] It makes me angry everytime we have a setback....[/quote]

No doubt that anger is why you chose the words "great satisfaction"....

[quote=dude] My pleasure is not from the failure in Iraq.  Just the validation of the position I took long ago...that Iraq was a mistake and distraction and Bush is a tool/fool (you pick).  [/quote]

"Pleasure"......

[quote=dude]

McCain's ideas are interesting and I'd like to see what his ideas for a 'broader' strategy are.

[/quote]

No doubt when Bush sends in more troops, as McCain suggests, the "tool/fool" line will surface again soon in another form.

BTW, "war we cannot win"... "war on the muslim world"... where does that sort of thing come from?

[quote=dude]

What you resist persists.  This is a wisdom you obviously have no understanding of; back to your mindless militarism George. 

You will never beat the muslim world into submission, they are exponentially poorer with much less to loose than you could even imagine.  They've got more fight in them than we ever will have because it is born out of a desperation that is not understood in this country.  This is a war which can't be 'won'

[quote=dude]

Bab-good words.  I have never advocated cut and run, in spite of what the peanut gallery seems to believe.  We must not cut and run, period. 

I just think that American's had no understanding of the nature of the realities of this culture.  The war was poorly justified (why not Iran and other state sponsors of terror for example?) and poorly executed, time for a new leader/strategy...Bush is obviously not fit for the presidency, he lookes like a scared and confused puppy everytime I see him on TV; stuttering, inarticulate, repetitive, moot etc... I really feel bad for him.

There was shallow thinking going on at the top...one of the most important rules in war is to KNOW YOUR ENEMY.  We obviously were clueless.

[/quote]

I agree we have no idea of the enemy that we are dealing with.  And this is a huge problem.  We would like to assume that they are people who think like we do, unfortunately we might as well be dealing with people from another planet.  They do not hold the same values on life, liberty, personal respect, personal freedom and most importantly religious freedom.  We cannot... must not...negotiate with people who view that strategy with disdain.  It only makes us look more weak and cowardlythan we have already proven ourselves to be in their eyes.  We don't speak the same language in more ways than one.   

I agree, the war on terror should be expanded to every other country that also supports terrorism.  Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and any one else.  However, had Bush attempted to go that route the caterwauling from the left would be even more shrill than it is now, and I dare you to deny that.

I agree it was poorly executed.  That was because the war has been run by politicians and in the press instead of letting the soldiers, our professional warriors, do their job. We didn't send enough troops to begin with and we have been trying to run kinder gentler politically correct war. It's an ugly messy repugnant job.  We can't win a war if we aren't willing to do the ugly things and whine about every single soldier that is wounded.  It is sad and I feel for each one wounded and for the families of those who have died. 

BUT we need to realize that we are crying alligator tears while we are dealing with an enemy who has no compunction about using children and women as meat shields and finds it acceptable to blow up innocent civilians, to saw the heads off of living reporters, draw and quarter teachers who teach to women, stone to death or crush people under stones because they have committed personal sins, drills holes in peoples bodies and eyeballs for fun......need I go on?    

Until we get the guts to face the reality that we are in a serious war that is a fight of civilizations.  If we lose, we will be dooming generations of our descendants to unspeakable lives and turning back the clock of civilization by thousands of years.  This has NOTHING to do with George Bush or with the political parties in our country.  The left and you too, Dude, are getting high centered on Bush. That is just eyewash and a distraction.  

Bush is going to be gone in a few years, but the Islamofascists are going to be around for decades and perhaps for centuries if we don't get serious and quit the effing partisan bickering. We need to come up with a plan to save all of our collective a$$es instead of jockeying for political points, posturing and only caring about getting this or that political party into power.  There is soon going to be no point to that game if we don't pull together.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude] It makes me angry everytime we have a setback....[/quote]

No doubt that anger is why you chose the words "great satisfaction"....

[quote=dude] My pleasure is not from the failure in Iraq.  Just the validation of the position I took long ago...that Iraq was a mistake and distraction and Bush is a tool/fool (you pick).  [/quote]

"Pleasure"......

[quote=dude]

McCain's ideas are interesting and I'd like to see what his ideas for a 'broader' strategy are.

[/quote]

No doubt when Bush sends in more troops, as McCain suggests, the "tool/fool" line will surface again soon in another form.

BTW, "war we cannot win"... "war on the muslim world"... where does that sort of thing come from?[/quote]

The pleasure and satisfaction comes from being correct in my assesment of the state of this war (which is confirmed by the report)which in earlier debates you denied as 'left wing' BS.  You denied that a civil war was breaking out (now the report is confirming this as the case) in addition to a whole slew of other crap...which I don't frankly have the time to dig out of the archives to use against you.

I'm sure you'll find the time to pull them out though.

It also gives me pleasure that this report is coming from Baker which is of a 'conservative' paradigm and it is supporting all of those points you classified as 'left wing' etc....are you going to call Baker a liberal Michael Moore lover?  You can't....therefore I take pleasure in the fact that there's nowhere for you to go now that your ammunition is gone ('liberal' name calling etc...).

My pleasure has nothing to do with the awful state of this war, it has to do with your ammo being taken from you (and others who adhere so strongly to the party 'line') so now you'll have to engage with ideas instead of petty partisan posturing and misplaced accusations of me being a left wing sympathizer (which I am definitely not). 

I'll point out that in other issues you have brought good ideas that have influenced my opinions and I respect when you stand on your intellectual capital as opposed to the predictable 'smearing'.

[quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Sailor25]We went there to get the WMDs. There weren't any. Victory!!
We went there to depose Saddam. We did it. Victory!!
We went there to establish a democracy. We did it. Victory!!

Now, let's get the hell outta there!
[/quote]

Actually we have found WMDs http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005207.php

Lots of them.

The problem is that there isn't a clear definition of what a WMD is.  A big honking bomb delivered by missiles?  or is it a teeny tiny vial of smallpox or anthrax germs.  Given that Iraq is the size of California, I  can assure you that if I wanted to hide WMDs in the Trinity Alps, you would never find them.  The other problem is that the media who leans so far left they can see up their own butts have been hiding, distorting and just plain fabricating news to suit their agenda of making the Bush administration look bad and damn the consequences.

[/quote]

Babs....read the article....they haven't found WMD, just chemicals which apparently came in after the fall of Baghdad.  No disrespect but this link doesn't really establish anything.  I don't completely agree with all your positions, but appreciate and respect your approach.  I do think you have some good ideas though.

Dude as I contemplate some of your criticisms of Bush I think they are valid.  Others I disagree with.

I also agree with Babs that this whole damn thing has been run by politicians and we didn’t commit enough resources to engage in ‘nation-building’ from the beginning, nor have we been willing to do what it takes to crush the insurgents…the supporters of Hussein.  So now here we are.

I also agree with and like Bab’s analogy that the left is “high-centered” on Bush. 

[quote=joedabrkr]Dude as I contemplate some of your criticisms of Bush I think they are valid.  Others I disagree with.

I also agree with Babs that this whole damn thing has been run by politicians and we didn't commit enough resources to engage in 'nation-building' from the beginning, nor have we been willing to do what it takes to crush the insurgents...the supporters of Hussein.  So now here we are.

I also agree with and like Bab's analogy that the left is "high-centered" on Bush. 
[/quote]

I agree with babs on the 'high centered' position of the left as well.

Your post brings up the issue of 'nation building'....of which is a major issue for me and very critical to my opinion of the war.

When Bush first ran for the White House, he ran on a platform that expressed disdain for 'nation building' and George was very clear that he didn't want to go down that path.  This was a major reason that my wife and I voted for him over Al Whore.  I am a strong believer in Libertarian values and have a live and let live ideology (which has served me well btw)....nation building and all that comes with it is not where I'd like my tax resources to be directed, we have enough problems in our country as it is.

911 changed things and I completely understand the need to respond in a comprehensive way (which includes a judicious application of violence in the right places as well a some nation building).  In the case of Afghanistan, which was a clear 'safe haven' for the enemy, I am convinced that we were justified and pertinent in executing 'regime change' and subsequent nation building efforts. 

Afghanistan does not have the influence or power center that Iraq has and so is/was less likely to engage our country in a prolonged and INTENSELY controversial action like Iraq.  The implications and complexity of Iraq, it's historical roots and resources raises the stakes to a much much higher level.

If I were to compare it to investing I'd say that Afghanistan had a much better risk to reward ratio...although Iraq offered/offers the potential for a much greater prize, I don't believe it was/is within the aggregate risk tolerence of the American public to see it through and dedicate the resources necessary to be successful.  Add to that the other issues like really bad planning, tenous justification and lack of a comprehensive (to include robust diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and forging opportunities for the Muslim community to have their own victory in this exchange) strategy, I am very disappointed to say the least.

Right now our position and approach has come off as obstinant, arrogant, narrow and one sided.  We have made success more difficult by alienating those who could be allies in creating a win/win situation.  If we are to wage a 'cultural' war like Babbling Looney suggests (thats my take anyway) then we must understand the enemy.  I personally don't think waging a cultural war is wise or would solve anything....this is the war that I say we can't really win.

It’s not time for more ‘boots on the ground’…it’s time for more specialists

on the ground. Time for CIA, ONI, and Special Forces.



The problem is that it’s time for the Iraqis to take control of their country.

The above mentioned services have experts whose mission is to train

indigenous people in the arts of counter-insurgency, client protection,

espionage, counter-espionage and other of the gray and black arts. It’s time

for the local cops to take over the neighborhoods. The people are glad, I

think, to be rid of Saddam, but the gratitude fades and we are now viewed as

occupiers instead of liberators. More troops will simply reinforce that belief.

If a Shiite soldier has more loyalty to his tribe, his sect, or his faith than he does to his government then that government has no chance. The one U.S. Congressman who advocates this viewpoint has it exactly right.

This congressman also advocates finding the best 75000, and most loyal to the government, troops, putting them in an area that is securable and see how they do. His take: The government won't be seen as anything more than a U.S. puppet government until it can stand on its own two feet. That means that if the Iraqies want it they have to fight for it. We would pull back to an advisory roll. Failing that, it's time to leave.

Iran- interesting problem. Anyone think Iran would have nukes if Saddam was still around? Funny how things go when the balance of power is upset. One answer would be to subject Iran to a gasoline embargo. They import about 40% of their gas, so that would hurt. It's worth a try before invading them or bombing them. Of course I realize how outlandish non military options sound in this day and age.

In other off topic news the Georgia BOE has decided to let Harry Potter books stay on the shelves of Georgia schools. Good for them. The parent mounting the fight promises an appeal and a legal fight. I guess she believes she knows what is best for everyone.

[quote=BondGuy]His take: The government won't be seen as anything more than a <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />U.S. puppet government until it can stand on its own two feet. That means that if the Iraqies want it they have to fight for it. We would pull back to an advisory roll. Failing that, it's time to leave. [/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Critics of that approach, like Barry McCafferty point out that you'd be leaving US advisors in an extremely dangerous position, scattered two here, two there, across the entire country. His take: US troops have to train Iraqis AND do  security work while the Iraqi army gets its feet on the ground OR Iraqi troops will never "fight for it" if it appears the US will pull out and leave them like we did the Vietnamese boat people.

BTW, the Iraqis, including their police and army in their current state are already dying in much larger numbers than US troops.

[quote=BondGuy]Iran- interesting problem. Anyone think Iran would have nukes if Saddam was still around? [/quote]

Of course. Iranian pursuit of nukes began long before Saddam was taken down and probably started as a result of concern in Iran that Saddam was ahead of them in that game.

[quote=BondGuy] One answer would be to subject Iran to a gasoline embargo. They import about 40% of their gas, so that would hurt. It's worth a try before invading them or bombing them. Of course I realize how outlandish non military options sound in this day and age. [/quote]

Enforcing a gas embargo would be even harder than enforcing sanctions as regimes friendly to Iran and on their doorstep would be happy to provide them with refinery capacity. BTW, since everyone is pursuing non-military options they don’t sound outlandish at all.

IMO the UN will come to some watered down sanctions agreement, the Iranians will ignore it and build nukes, the world will ignore it and the warnings about the dangers of that holocaust denying nutcase having nukes. The only thing that might stop it all is Israel doing what the rest of the world lacks (as they did to Iraq in 1980s) the courage to do, and that’s take out the facilities.

"Anyone think Iran would have nukes if Saddam was still around?"

You think it was Saddam's presence that held Iran's nuqular ambitions back?

I think it is Bush's presence that pushed the program forward, so, I guess you are correct in a way.

As far as ANY plan for Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world will say that the plan must start with Bush NOT being part of it.

They have been MASSIVELY incompetent so far. Why would any rational person think that they are going to be right "next time"?

If you think they'll get it right this time, please tell me why.

Mr. A 

[quote=mranonymous2u]

As far as ANY plan for Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world will say that the plan must start with Bush NOT being part of it.[/quote]

And how would "the majority of the people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world" go about making that so?

As far as ANY plan for Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world will say that the plan must start with Bush NOT being part of it.

Who gives a flying f$#$ what the majority of the people in the world think about how we run the United States foreign policy? They don't have our best interests at heart and some are actively rooting for us to fail.  They don't count. These decisions are up to the people who count......the voters and their elected representatives.    

If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?  Now, if she agrees......then that is another thing

[quote=babbling looney]If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided...that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?[/quote]

I thought 'A' stood for anonymous...

"Who gives a flying f$#$ what the majority of the people in the world think " <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Yeah! I think I'm right and so do all my friends so who cares that billions of people are telling me I'm wrong. What do they know?

"If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?"

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. There are laws against certain behaviors which the community has decided are assholian, thus, they forbid it, whether your wife likes it or not.

"Our best interests" We have long since ceded that moral construct. We gave away our right to care only about OUR best interests in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq. Our responsibility now is to make sure that the colossal clusterf$@* that we caused doesn't wind up with the murdering of millions of Iraqi's in the power void that we would leave there.  

Once again, I'll reiterate the complete lack of perspective that seems to permeate public opinion on Iraq. 

WWII ended August 1945, we're still in Europe and Japan.  Korea ended July 1953, we're still there.  Grenada, Panama, the Balkans, we're still there.

Make no mistake, Iraq was always a long term committment by which the U.S. (and the west) could project power in the region.  There happens to be a very valuable natural resource under those sands.  People need to get used to the fact that, Republican or Democrat, we will be operating in Iraq. 

More to the point, we’ll have a close friend in the Middle East. It won’t

happen overnight, but give 20 or 30 years, Iraq will be a stable democracy

and perhaps our closest ally in the region.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?"

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. [/quote]

Well. what do you know, world opinion polls have the power of law. Good thing that wasn't true when Reagan was in office, that wall he talked about might still be in place.

Mike,

I don't know if you think that disunderstanding people is a mark of wit, or if you really are as dumb as you sound.

Pretty much it doesn't make a difference to me either way, you're still not worth talking with.

Please know that unless I address you directly, I'm not interested in what you "think".

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Mike,

I don't know if you think that disunderstanding people is a mark of wit, or if you really are as dumb as you sound.

Pretty much it doesn't make a difference to me either way, you're still not worth talking with.

Please know that unless I address you directly, I'm not interested in what you "think".

Mr. A

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?"<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. [/quote]

"... but give 20 or 30 years, Iraq will be a stable democracy
and perhaps our closest ally in the region."

At our rate of spending there, "we" won't be anyone's ally. "We" will be living in a third world country in 20 or 30 years.

Mr. A 

[quote=Pandale] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Make no mistake, <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq was always a long term commitment [sic] by which the U.S. (and the west) could project power in the region.  [/quote]

You mean to say that the administration lied when they said we'd be in and out?

I can't believe that the pretzledent would lie to me, and that Dick Cheney seems like such an honest fellow.

For sure I knew that this was going to be a long term commitment and I said so many times at the time (which was, in my opinion, one really good reason not to rush into the commitment). I received the brickbats of "conservative Americans" for my trouble. Advisors who publicly averred what you are saying now were fired for saying so. I don't know what your position was then, but I agree with your assessment now.

The fact is that we are there. We could well have been "There" by turning Afghanistan into a US Army base and it would have been much better for all parties involved (especially when you consider that the world's biggest natural gas pocket is beneath the Caspian sea, this field will eventually fuel India and China, so being "protectorate" of that middle chunk of the pipeline would have been strategically smarter). 

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"Who gives a flying f$#$ what the majority of the people in the world think " <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Yeah! I think I'm right and so do all my friends so who cares that billions of people are telling me I'm wrong. What do they know?

"If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?"

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. There are laws against certain behaviors which the community has decided are assholian, thus, they forbid it, whether your wife likes it or not.

"Our best interests" We have long since ceded that moral construct. We gave away our right to care only about OUR best interests in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq. Our responsibility now is to make sure that the colossal clusterf$@* that we caused doesn't wind up with the murdering of millions of Iraqi's in the power void that we would leave there.  

[/quote]

Your contention is that we should take the opinion of "the rest of the world" to determine who is the President of the United States and that we should take their ideas?  Since when does anyone outside of  our own country get to tell us how to forumulate foreign policy.  We might ask for ideas and consider their ideas but they don't get to call the shots.

Maybe it wasn't clear enough for you,  but my analogy was comparing your household to an independent country or entity.  There is no law that gives your neighbors (other countries, to spell it out) the right to dictate what activities you can do in your own house (country).  However, there is a remedy when the neighbors feel that you (your country) is being dangerous to the rest of the neighborhood, and it is drastic.  We are in the midst of doing it right now in Iraq...... WAR.  

Why do you think we gave away the right to care about our own best interests?  I don't recall signing a suicide pact.  I think it IS in our own best interests to win the war on terror, whether it is focused in Iraq or Dearborn, Michigan.  Some people in our own country don't have the forbearance (guts) and patience (attention deficit disorder on a national scale) to finish the job.  We need to ignore them as they are whiney, irresponsible, morally bankrupt cowards who only care about themselves and hide behind political correctness.

If we run away from Iraq and hand victory on a silver platter to the terrorists, we will have lost any claim... ever.... of credibility and will be responsible for the horrible deaths of millions of people in the middle east and elsewhere in the world.........again.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You mean to say that the administration lied when they said we'd be in and out?[/quote]

You're thinking of the Clinton administration which said we'd be out of Bosnia in a year (a decade ago). I'm pretty certain this administration has said all along this will be a long fight, and of course, they got grief for saying so.

That’s how I understood it at least, how about you, BL?

Once again, I'll reiterate the complete lack of perspective that seems to permeate public opinion on Iraq. 

History will tell, for sure. In terms of how we make our living, a proactive policy and stable economic environment means the difference between eating beans or butter. No telling from this point in time who was "right". I saw Wall Street get bombed, and I see America saying, it's not okay to bomb Wall Street. If the implementation was poor, the learning will repay down the road. Bush ain't perfect. It's economics, and a lot of sacrifice by a few brave and willing Americans.

"Your contention is that we should take the opinion of "the rest of the world" to determine who is the President of the United States and that we should take their ideas?"<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No, my contention is that, we as Americans should not expect this president to come up with any better plans than the plans he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom out to George Tennet, Paul Bremer and General Tommy Franks (ret) for.

"Since when does anyone outside of  our own country get to tell us how to forumulate [sic]foreign policy.  We might ask for ideas and consider their ideas but they don't get to call the shots."

You're getting yourself tied up in your own hyperbole. I didn't say they have a legal say in our matters, I'm saying that a majority of people on this planet (many of whom are favorably disposed to the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />USA) think that he has set into motion actions that are globally disastrous.

Look, first of all there are such things as international laws. The problem with most of them is the lack of enforcement authority. But the rule of international law is an established precedent. If the international law were enforced, this administration would be in the Hague right now facing charges.

Secondly, it's not my fault if you used a poor analogy. What you described was essentially what a law is. I just pointed that out to you FYI. I didn't take the analogy seriously because all it did was show your lack of understanding.

"Why do you think we gave away the right to care about our own best interests?"

Because we put millions of people in the path of danger. If you tie someone down to the railroad tracks, and then walk away, you can't say "It was her own fault, that she couldn't squirm off the tracks before the train hit her." Culpability is a well established rule of law. If you cause some one to come to harm, you are as guilty as the perpetrator. Leaving those people now is murder. We, as a people are against murder, murdering and the murderers. Our only recourse at this juncture is to try our hardest to prevent this from happening.

"I think it IS in our own best interests to win the war on terror, whether it is focused in Iraq or Dearborn, Michigan."

Don't even... keep the jingoistic sloganeering for someone who doesn't know any better.

" Some people in our own country don't have the forbearance (guts) and patience (attention deficit disorder on a national scale) to finish the job. "

Honeybunch, I'm not advocating leaving Iraq. I'm just saying that expecting  George "Who Ever Would'a Thought That?" Bush's administration to lead us to any sort of victory anywhere is insanity.

Has this administration done ANYTHING that was right? They've taken 9/11 and made it into a punchline! You want to see terror? Watch the story of The Blitz on PBS! You didn't hear the Brits whining for six years over that! Politicians invoking 9/11 makes me cringe now!

This administration is completely inept.

"we will have lost any claim... ever.... of credibility and will be responsible for the horrible deaths of millions of people in the middle east and elsewhere in the world.........again."

So why are you so sure we're disagreeing?

I'm just saying that Bush needs to be fired! At least he needs to be relieved of this duty (Commander in Chief of American forces in Iraq).

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"… but give 20 or 30 years, Iraq will be a

stable democracy and perhaps our closest ally in the region."

At our rate of spending there, “we” won’t be anyone’s ally. “We” will be

living in a third world country in 20 or 30 years.

Mr. A

The difference is that the Marshall plan was a rebuilding effort, and this is a destruction effort.

The difference is that George Marshall and Harry Truman were at the top of that plan and they didn't make their presidential cabinet out of war profiteers.

Please. Please! PLEASE. Just please. THINK!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

The difference is that the Marshall plan was a rebuilding effort, and this is a destruction effort.

[/quote]

Yeah, that's how the people with the purple fingers thought about it....

The object of the exercise is to rebuild Iraq. There’s no other reason for us

to be there.



As to Marshall and Truman, they were both particularly vilified in their time.

(Truman, as you may recall, couldn’t even get re-elected to his second term.)

The Truman cabinet had it’s share of resignations and controversy.



This reminds me of the old joke:

Q: What’s the difference between a politician and a statesman?



A: Statesmen are all dead.



What we need are more statesmen.

[quote=mranonymous2u] Politicians invoking 9/11 makes me cringe now! [/quote]

My guess is it only makes you cringe when some of them do it....

[quote=mranonymous2u]I'm just saying that Bush needs to be fired! At least he needs to be relieved of this duty (Commander in Chief of American forces in Iraq).

[/quote]

I suggest you write your elected representitives and get them started on that right now.....

Hey, maybe we could get him replaced with Kerry, Carter, Clinton (H) or the Democrat Congressman that will be the head of the Intel committee and can't tell Shiite from shinola....

[quote=mranonymous2u] If the international law were enforced, this administration would be in the Hague right now facing charges. [/quote]

Would this be under real law, or your polls? Either way, your tinfoil hat needs adjusting...

"Would this be under real law, or your polls? Either way, your tinfoil hat

needs adjusting…"



Now that’s funny…I don’t care who you are!

"The object of the exercise is to rebuild Iraq. There's no other reason for us to be there."

As patently ridiculous as this statement is in the face of the reality in Iraq, I'll go along for the sake of the discussion.

Yes, let's rebuild Iraq. But before we can do that we have to find a way to stop having between 400-1,000 acts of violence per DAY.

Last night there was a show about The Blitz. This was when the Nazi's were bombing London (40,000 people died over the 5 months of bombings) and the one survivor in what was essentially treated as a throwaway line said,  "They tried to bomb us into submission, but they couldn't because when they bombed us we were like OY!" People don't give up when there are foreign interests trying to wrest control of their country.

How many times did the Alsace-Lorraine pass back and forth between Germany and France? It got to the point where the people weren't even sure what nationality they were.

Why do you think the Machiavelli wrote the pamphlet The Prince which is seen as the "bible" of politics? The fact was that he wrote it trying to placate the conquering Prince so that he would not kill him (which he did anyway) and the pamphlet is about how to control the conquered (essentially, you act like Saddam).

Why do you think we didn't prevail in Viet Nam? (Not because we didn't stay as the President said, which pisses in the eye of every Viet Nam Vet, that the draft dodging frat boy said that if we tried harder we'd have won in Viet Nam!)

Why are we The United States? Why is India, India? Why is South Africa integrated? Why is the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics a map makers' wet dream? Because it is nigh on impossible to sit on top of an indigenous population. That's why there are genocides. Come on, use your brain! Learn from history!

The only way to make this stop is to prove to the Iraqi people that the militaries' mission is to restore peace to this country.

Now ask yourself what it would take you to believe this if you were an Iraqi. The USA supported Saddam and provided him with the means to gas his own people. The United States supplied arms to both sides in a war with Iran that killed millions of men on both sides. The United States supported the dictator of Iran for years as he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. The United States gave Saddam a tacit approval to invade Kuwait and then changed their mind and invaded. The United States promised protection for all of the troops of Iraqi front liners and then sent them home, shut down their country with sanctions and turned their backs as Saddam's Republican Guard extracted vengeance on those that deserted. The United States invaded their country with a blitzkrieg that they called "Shock and Awe" killing thousands of Iraqi citizens as "collateral damage". The United States then let looters run the streets and destroy what little business was left for them. The United States had no post war plan that allowed for criminal enterprises to spring up like mushrooms in a cow pasture after a rain, the solution for getting water to the population was to let them sell it to each other, that way there'd be a profit driven distribution system. The United States, that can't even train the police and keep them from getting blown up by the score.

We'll leave it there... But the question remains, what would it take YOU to trust the Americans if YOU were an Iraqi? I don't think there is ANY way that they are going to trust Bush. Or any plan that he puts forth. If you don't have trust you won't have an end to the agitation. As a result you will not be in a rebuilding mode.

Now put on top of this the fact that we are not the only one's who have our eye on the prize. Whoever is sitting in the throne when the music stops gets all of the money that falls to the ground. This administration has literally LOST literally 10s of Billions of dollars in US Currency in Iraq. Lost, don't know where it is. Not lost, wasted. And extra special, you run the oil! For a prize like that, very smart men will pay very many dollars for a very long time to win.

Remember how the French helped us out in the Revolution? Thomas Jefferson said "Always expect every nation to act in it's own self interest."

This is the richest contest of ALL TIME. Ironically, the longer it goes on the richer the pot gets. If this were any other country doing what we are doing, we'd be pushing our man so hard our hands would be coming through his chest! Don't think for a second that Germany isn't pushing their man forward. Japan has a favorite in the race. Sweden has made contacts. China would LOVE to have exclusive rights to all that oil.

As to Harry Truman not winning, don't forget that he became President 83 days into Roosevelt's 4th term. Then he won his re-election. By the time he came up for re re election, the Dems had had the White House for 20 straight years, people were ready for a change. Even though the 21st amendment gave him the right to run, and he did run in the New Hampshire primary, when he lost that, he pulled out of the race.

Comparing the Marshall plan to this mess at this juncture is ridiculous.

Mr.A

The statement is valid and stands, your rambling PolySci 101 protestations

notwithstanding.



Why do you liberals think that inane, verbose commentary on unrelated

topics gives your position added credibility?

Prove it!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Prove it!

Mr. A

And that's why we have to be long winded. Because mental midgets like you who think in bumperstickerese will either, through arrogance or ignorance, misinterpret the slightest expectation of understanding. (You'll notice that I was able to follow your implication.)

I'm always willing to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but in these cases, I'm not sure which doubt is more probable.

Am I giving you the benefit of the doubt when I think you are trying your hardest but that you just don't have the mental horsepower to be able to follow a train of thought?

Am I giving you the benefit of the doubt by thinking that you are an obdurate prick who understands, but prefers to disinterpret with the intention of tangentializing the discussion away from his indefensible position?

There is the third choice, which is the combination of both. You deliberately disunderstand the question so that you can hide the fact that you are just too stupid to have a grown up conversation. But that's what I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt against.

You say that your statement (comparing the Iraq quagmire and the Marshall plan) stands. I say PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.

I doubt you can.

Mr. A

[quote=planrcoach]

Once again, I'll reiterate the complete lack of perspective that seems to permeate public opinion on Iraq. 

History will tell, for sure. In terms of how we make our living, a proactive policy and stable economic environment means the difference between eating beans or butter. No telling from this point in time who was "right". I saw Wall Street get bombed, and I see America saying, it's not okay to bomb Wall Street. If the implementation was poor, the learning will repay down the road. Bush ain't perfect. It's economics, and a lot of sacrifice by a few brave and willing Americans.

[/quote]

Then he should stop acting like he is and I might have some sympathy for his uncomfortable and humiliating position.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

And that's why we have to be long winded. Because mental midgets like you who think in bumperstickerese will either, through arrogance or ignorance, misinterpret the slightest expectation of understanding. (You'll notice that I was able to follow your implication.)

I'm always willing to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but in these cases, I'm not sure which doubt is more probable.

Am I giving you the benefit of the doubt when I think you are trying your hardest but that you just don't have the mental horsepower to be able to follow a train of thought?

Am I giving you the benefit of the doubt by thinking that you are an obdurate prick who understands, but prefers to disinterpret with the intention of tangentializing the discussion away from his indefensible position?

There is the third choice, which is the combination of both. You deliberately disunderstand the question so that you can hide the fact that you are just too stupid to have a grown up conversation. But that's what I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt against.

You say that your statement (comparing the Iraq quagmire and the Marshall plan) stands. I say PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.

I doubt you can.

Mr. A

[/quote]

I guess it's just you, me and bond guy fighting the good fight around here.  Thanks for your contributions. 

Interestingly, I read in the news today that in 'private meetings' before the war, top British officials secretly expressed they did not believe that Saddam was a threat....more evidence that strikes down the peanut galleries' claims that our allies though he was a threat.

Sorry...those who are drowning should ask for a lifesaver...not continue to pretend they are still sailing the ship.

[quote=Starka]The statement is valid and stands, your rambling PolySci 101 protestations

notwithstanding.



Why do you liberals think that inane, verbose commentary on unrelated

topics gives your position added credibility? [/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

And that’s why we have to be long winded. Because mental midgets like

you who think in bumperstickerese will either, through arrogance or

ignorance, misinterpret the slightest expectation of understanding. (You’ll

notice that I was able to follow your implication.)

I’m always willing to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but in

these cases, I’m not sure which doubt is more probable.

Am I giving you the benefit of the doubt when I think you are trying

your hardest but that you just don’t have the mental horsepower to be

able to follow a train of thought?

Am I giving you the benefit of the doubt by thinking that you are an

obdurate prick who understands, but prefers to disinterpret with the

intention of tangentializing the discussion away from his indefensible

position?

There is the third choice, which is the combination of both. You

deliberately disunderstand the question so that you can hide the fact that

you are just too stupid to have a grown up conversation. But that’s what

I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt against.

You say that your statement (comparing the Iraq quagmire and the

Marshall plan) stands. I say PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.

I doubt you can.

Mr. A

OK, good one, 1 point for you. I bow to your skills as a master... well, you know.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Now, will you please try to back up your inane "micro thoughtoids" with some semblance of intellectual integrity, honesty or facility?

Let me give you a hint... Aside from the fact that the circumstances on the street are very different in Today's <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq and post WWII Europe. The sheer dollars that have been spent by the US thus far dwarf the expenditure for the Marshall Plan.

Further, the Marshall Plan did not remain at it's peak spending level for anything near 20-30 years (which would have taken us into the 1970's) as such your economic comparison is seriously, fatally flawed.

That ought to be enough for you to figure out how to proceed.

BTW, I truly enjoy conversations such as these. I don't expect either of us to arrive at the solution to the world's dilemmas. The conversation is a way for people of intellect (which I assume that you are, being in this most intellectual of professions) to plumb the depths of the thought process.

I'm more than happy to be friends of persons with alternate viewpoints (I rarely agree with people who espouse Liberal "viewpoints" unless and until ) once we have discovered that the person has arrived at those opinions due to honest thought.  Kneejerks from the left or the right are just as much a pain in the balls. (Not to be confused with "Some of my best friends are Conservative!" even though some are.)

Mr. A

When did I make any staement or statements regarding the economic

aspects of the Marshall Plan? All I said was that there was opposition to it in

it’s time after you claimed that the godhead of Harry Truman was all seeing

and all knowing, as opposed to the current administration. You seem to be

getting tangled up in your own strawman arguments, then replying with ad

hominem attacks.



As ever, the quintessential, obfusicating liberal. You people are so

predictable.

You seem to be getting tangled up in your own strawman arguments, then replying with ad hominem attacks.

As ever, the quintessential, obfusicating liberal. You people are so
predictable.

Mental and verbal diarrhea as always and completely unable to stay on topic.  It never fails that a debate with a liberal will spin out of control and devolve into them name calling and attempting to denigrate their opponent....calling me Honeybunch....lol.

Instead of actually debating the points, they throw everything against the wall to see if any of it will stick and throw up a smoke screen to cloud the fact that they have no grasp of reality.  Making up your own facts is not an approved debating form.

(Blood and Money - Newsweek via MSNBC.com)

More terrible news about the quagmire in Iraq…oops my bad.

Actually the economy is booming and the Iraqi people are optimistic about

their future. I wonder how Bush was able to take control of Newsweek

magazine and make them publish all of this propaganda.

How about that? 

Someone above said we should learn from history.  What was the long term economic result from Germany, Japan, and S. Korea?  All three of those economies were reduced to rubble with no oil revenue to contribute.  

Can we squeeze out a little optimism here? 

This will all settle out, but it will take time. 

The next comment I'm sure will be how the economic growth in Iraq is the result of corruption, that the poor aren't benefiting, the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, etc.  Spare us the diatribe.

[quote=Starka] [quote=mranonymous2u]

"... but give 20 or 30 years, Iraq will be a
stable democracy and perhaps our closest ally in the region."

At our rate of spending there, "we" won't be anyone's ally. "We" will be
living in a third world country in 20 or 30 years.

Mr. A 

[/quote]

Dissenters claimed the same thing about the Marshall Plan. They were
wrong then, just as you are wrong now.[/quote]

[quote=Starka]The object of the exercise is to rebuild Iraq. There's no other reason for us
to be there.

As to Marshall and Truman, they were both particularly vilified in their time.
(Truman, as you may recall, couldn't even get re-elected to his second term.)
The Truman cabinet had it's share of resignations and controversy.

This reminds me of the old joke:
Q: What's the difference between a politician and a statesman?

A: Statesmen are all dead.

What we need are more statesmen.[/quote]

[quote=Starka]
When did I make any staement or statements regarding the economic
aspects of the Marshall Plan? All I said was that there was opposition to it in
it's time after you claimed that the godhead of Harry Truman was all seeing
and all knowing, as opposed to the current administration. You seem to be
getting tangled up in your own strawman arguments, then replying with ad
hominem attacks.

As ever, the quintessential, obfusicating liberal. You people are so
predictable.[/quote]

Pardon me what? The initial claim was in regards to the economics of our involvement in Iraq. Perhaps if you stopped pretending to know what you are talking about, you'd remember which of your inanities you're avoiding backing up.

I never once mentioned Harry S Truman before you brought up the Marshall Plan. As such you could not have been responding to anything I had said about him.

Mr. A

[quote=babbling looney]

You seem to be getting tangled up in your own strawman arguments, then replying with ad hominem attacks.

As ever, the quintessential, obfusicating liberal. You people are so
predictable.

Mental and verbal diarrhea as always and completely unable to stay on topic.  It never fails that a debate with a liberal will spin out of control and devolve into them name calling and attempting to denigrate their opponent....calling me Honeybunch....lol.

Instead of actually debating the points, they throw everything against the wall to see if any of it will stick and throw up a smoke screen to cloud the fact that they have no grasp of reality.  Making up your own facts is not an approved debating form.

[/quote]

I'm sorry, sweetiepie, is there something in this rant that effectively challenges a single thing that I said to you?

No, there is not.

You are dismissed!

Mr. A

As to Ad Hominem, it's Ad H when I say "He's a fool because he's a Repugnican" Not when I say "You said this foolish thing that foolish thing the other foolish thing, you are foolish."

See the difference?

Mr. A

Incorrect on all points as usual, Mr A.



But then we’re all used to that by now.

Incorrect quotes.

LOL

Good one Starka!

OK, I'm going to be letting this one go too. There obviously isn't anyone here who has the ability to take the other side on this issue.

But thanks for playing.

Mr. A

[quote=Pandale]Can we squeeze out a little optimism here?  [/quote]

No, it doesn't fit the preconceived everything-they-do-is-rubbish-worse-president-ever-omg-I-tol d-you-so meme...<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I'm sorry, sweetiepie, ...[/quote]

Yep....

What’s with this “sweetiepie” and “honeybunch” stuff.  Is there something going on here I’m not aware of?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Incorrect quotes.

LOL

Good one Starka!

OK, I’m going to be letting this one go too. There obviously isn’t

anyone here who has the ability to take the other side on this issue.

But thanks for playing.

Mr. A

[quote=Pandale]What's with this "sweetiepie" and "honeybunch" stuff.  Is there something going on here I'm not aware of?[/quote]

It is because I'm a female.   Mr. A can't hold together a coherent argument or stick to the topic. So he attempts to marginalize me by calling me ridiculous diminutive nicknames instead of addressing the issues.  I'm supposed to realize my female inferiority to his big masculine superiority  ......not

Typical of that type of mindset.  The same tactics they use against Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice who happen to be conservative blacks and who have "gone off the reservation" so to speak.  If you can't intellectually compete, then call names like Uncle Tom and draw ugly cartoons of black house slaves. 

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person. In fact I was on the debating team in college.  However, trying to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who only seems to think and speak in pre-scripted soundbites is a waste of time and pixels.

[quote=mranonymous2u]"
Bad example in that many pyros ARE firemen in the first place! FACT

 I was/am against this war and made many sour faces when I ridiculed
Colin Powell's idea of Mobile Germ Warfare factories, among other
falacies) FACT

In Video, Hussein Uses Slingshots and Bows to Rally Iraqis for War
(nytimes.com) FACT

And yet, at this point there is NOTHING we can do short of adding
200,000 pairs of boot to the effort. OPINION

We need to institute a draft,...OPINION

 ...we need to turn major control of this face saving effort to the... OPINION 

We need to know that we are now in a humanitarian struggle to save the lives of hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of Iraqui's that we put in the path of danger.... FACT

 
This is a MAJOR disaster of OUR making. FACT

We made the mess, now we have to clean it up. OPINION

The only way to do that is to flood the country with
peacemakers carrying heavy arms. I think Bush is being petulant so as to goad the Congress into impeaching him. He'd rather go down in martyrdom than Dummiedom! OPINIONS
[/quote]

Highlighteds added later for clarity above and below.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I think it is Bush's presence that pushed the program forward, so, I guess you are correct in a way....OPINION

As far as ANY plan for Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world will say that the plan must start with Bush NOT being part of it....OPINION

They have been MASSIVELY incompetent so far....FACT

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Yeah! I think I'm right and so do all my friends so who cares that billions of people are telling me I'm wrong. What do they know?... RHETORICAL STATEMENT/QUESTION<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. ...FACT

There are laws against certain behaviors which the community has decided are assholian, thus, they forbid it, whether your wife likes it or not....FACT

"Our best interests" We have long since ceded that moral construct. We gave away our right to care only about OUR best interests in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />Iraq....OPINION

Our responsibility now is to make sure that the colossal clusterf$@* that we caused doesn't wind up with the murdering of millions of Iraqi's in the power void that we would leave there.... OPINION  

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

At our rate of spending there, "we" won't be anyone's ally. "We" will be living in a third world country in 20 or 30 years....FACT but I'll give it to ya.

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I can't believe that the pretzledent would lie to me, and that Dick Cheney seems like such an honest fellow....LIE

For sure I knew that this was going to be a long term commitment and I said so many times at the time (which was, in my opinion, one really good reason not to rush into the commitment)....FACT

 I received the brickbats of "conservative Americans" for my trouble....FACT

Advisors who publicly averred what you are saying now were fired for saying so. ... FACT

I don't know what your position was then, but I agree with your assessment now....OPINION

The fact is that we are there....FACT

 We could well have been "There" by turning Afghanistan into a US Army base ...FACT

and it would have been much better for all parties involved... OPINION

 (especially when you consider that the world's biggest natural gas pocket is beneath the Caspian sea,...FACT

 this field will eventually fuel India and China, so being "protectorate" of that middle chunk of the pipeline would have been strategically smarter). ...OPINION

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

No, my contention is that, we as Americans should not expect this president to come up with any better plans than the plans he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom out to George Tennet, Paul Bremer and General Tommy Franks (ret) for.... OPINION

I didn't say they have a legal say in our matters,...FACT

 I'm saying that a majority of people on this planet (many of whom are favorably disposed to the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />USA) think that he has set into motion actions that are globally disastrous. ...FACT

Look, first of all there are such things as international laws....FACT

 The problem with most of them is the lack of enforcement authority....FACT

But the rule of international law is an established precedent...FACT

 If the international law were enforced, this administration would be in the Hague right now facing charges....FACT

Secondly, it's not my fault if you used a poor analogy....FACT

 What you described was essentially what a law is....FACT

I just pointed that out to you FYI. I didn't take the analogy seriously because all it did was show your lack of understanding. We'll just let this stand, it's factual, but ...

Because we put millions of people in the path of danger....FACT

Culpability is a well established rule of law....FACT

If you cause some one to come to harm, you are as guilty as the perpetrator. Leaving those people now is murder....FACT

We, as a people are against murder, murdering and the murderers. Our only recourse at this juncture is to try our hardest to prevent this from happening....OPINION

Honeybunch, I'm not advocating leaving Iraq...FACT

 I'm just saying that expecting  George "Who Ever Would'a Thought That?" Bush's administration to lead us to any sort of victory anywhere is insanity....OPINION

This administration is completely inept....OPINION borne out by a mulitiude of FACTS

I'm just saying that Bush needs to be fired! At least he needs to be relieved of this duty (Commander in Chief of American forces in Iraq)....OPINION

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

The difference is that the Marshall plan was a rebuilding effort, and this is a destruction effort....FACT

The difference is that George Marshall and Harry Truman were at the top of that plan and they didn't make their presidential cabinet out of war profiteers....FACT

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Yes, let's rebuild Iraq. But before we can do that we have to find a way to stop having between 400-1,000 acts of violence per DAY....FACT

 People don't give up when there are foreign interests trying to wrest control of their country. ...FACT

How many times did the Alsace-Lorraine pass back and forth between Germany and France? It got to the point where the people weren't even sure what nationality they were....FACT

Why do you think the Machiavelli wrote the pamphlet The Prince which is seen as the "bible" of politics? The fact was that he wrote it trying to placate the conquering Prince so that he would not kill him (which he did anyway) and the pamphlet is about how to control the conquered...FACT

 (essentially, you act like Saddam)....FACT

Why do you think we didn't prevail in Viet Nam? (Not because we didn't stay as the President said, which pisses in the eye of every Viet Nam Vet, that the draft dodging frat boy said that if we tried harder we'd have won in Viet Nam!) ...FACT

Why are we The United States? Why is India, India? Why is South Africa integrated? Why is the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics a map makers' wet dream? Because it is nigh on impossible to sit on top of an indigenous population....

That's why there are genocides....FACT

The only way to make this stop is to prove to the Iraqi people that the militaries' mission is to restore peace to this country. ...OPINION

The USA supported Saddam and provided him with the means to gas his own people....FACT

The United States supplied arms to both sides in a war with Iran that killed millions of men on both sides...FACT  The United States supported the dictator of Iran for years as he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people... FACT

The United States gave Saddam a tacit approval to invade Kuwait and then changed their mind and invaded. MOOT FACT

The United States promised protection for all of the troops of Iraqi front liners and then sent them home, shut down their country with sanctions and turned their backs as Saddam's Republican Guard extracted vengeance on those that deserted....FACT

 The United States invaded their country with a blitzkrieg that they called "Shock and Awe" killing thousands of Iraqi citizens as "collateral damage". ...FACT

The United States then let looters run the streets and destroy what little business was left for them....FACT

 The United States had no post war plan that allowed for criminal enterprises to spring up like mushrooms in a cow pasture after a rain,...FACT

 the solution for getting water to the population was to let them sell it to each other, that way there'd be a profit driven distribution system....FACT

The United States, that can't even train the police and keep them from getting blown up by the score....FACT

 I don't think there is ANY way that they are going to trust Bush. Or any plan that he puts forth....OPINION

 If you don't have trust you won't have an end to the agitation....OPINION

 As a result you will not be in a rebuilding mode...FACT

Now put on top of this the fact that we are not the only one's who have our eye on the prize....FACT

 Whoever is sitting in the throne when the music stops gets all of the money that falls to the ground....FACT

 This administration has literally LOST literally 10s of Billions of dollars in US Currency in Iraq. ...FACT

 And extra special, you run the oil!...FACT

 For a prize like that, very smart men will pay very many dollars for a very long time to win....FACT

 Thomas Jefferson said "Always expect every nation to act in it's own self interest."...FACT

This is the richest contest of ALL TIME...OPINION

 Ironically, the longer it goes on the richer the pot gets....FACT

If this were any other country doing what we are doing, we'd be pushing our man so hard our hands would be coming through his chest! OPINION

Don't think for a second that Germany isn't pushing their man forward. Japan has a favorite in the race. Sweden has made contacts. China would LOVE to have exclusive rights to all that oil....OPINIONS

Comparing the Marshall plan to this mess at this juncture is ridiculous....OPINION

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Further, the Marshall Plan did not remain at it's peak spending level for anything near 20-30 years ...FACT

 as such your economic comparison is seriously, fatally flawed....FACT

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

The initial claim was in regards to the economics of our involvement in Iraq. ...FACT

Perhaps if you stopped pretending to know what you are talking about, you'd remember which of your inanities...OPINION

... you're avoiding backing up...FACT

I never once mentioned Harry S Truman before you brought up the Marshall Plan. As such you could not have been responding to anything I had said about him....FACT

[/quote]

Let's see... 58 facts vs 25 opinions (lots rhetorical statements omitted). And you have posted how many facts? And of those how many were about the topic as opposed to your "factual opinion" of me and liberals in general?

You're shooting blanks palie.

But thanks for playing. Looking forward to a time when we'll go at it again. Or maybe the day we team up and bust somebody else's chops.

Happyness,

Mr. A

" So he attempts to marginalize me by calling me ridiculous diminutive nicknames instead of addressing the issues.  I'm supposed to realize my female inferiority to his big masculine superiority  ......not "

Come on, that's not true. Why would I expect anyone who calls herself Babbling Looney to fold just because I call her sweetiepie?

You take this stuff too seriously. You really oughtn't.

What's really funny BL is that you and I are on the same side of this issue. I'm for increasing the troop levels (and maybe a little armor and some protected Humvees instead of treating the reserves like cannon fodder).

Even though I'm against the leadership that this president has displayed, I do not think we CAN leave Iraq. I don't expect the president's leadership to get any better.

Mr. A

[quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Pandale]What's with this "sweetiepie" and "honeybunch" stuff.  Is there something going on here I'm not aware of?[/quote]

It is because I'm a female.   Mr. A can't hold together a coherent argument or stick to the topic. So he attempts to marginalize me by calling me ridiculous diminutive nicknames instead of addressing the issues.  I'm supposed to realize my female inferiority to his big masculine superiority  ......not [/quote]

True. BL. It's obviously an insecurity issue, probably exacerbated by getting his hind-end handed to him by a woman.

Sorry, Mr. A…many of your “facts” are merely opinion.  I’ll give you that some of your “facts” are widely-held opinions, but they are still…just opinions.

Which ones?

Mr. A

Since there are so many, how about an example?

They have been MASSIVELY incompetent so far....FACT

That's an opinion.  Just because there are a lot of people that feel that way does not make it a fact.  I feel that mistakes have been made, but massively incompetent?  Definitely an opinion.

There are plenty more like that, but I have Christmas cards to sign...

What part don't you like? "Massively"?

I'll give it to you.

Incompetent?

Sorry, no can do.

Mr. A

“We need to know that we are now in a humanitarian struggle to save the

lives of hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of Iraqui’s that we put in

the path of danger… FACT





This is a MAJOR disaster of OUR making. FACT



This administration is completely inept…OPINION borne out by a

mulitiude of FACTS



They have been MASSIVELY incompetent so far…FACT



If the international law were enforced, this administration would be in the

Hague right now facing charges…FACT



Why do you think we didn’t prevail in Viet Nam? (Not because we didn’t

stay as the President said, which pisses in the eye of every Viet Nam Vet,

that the draft dodging frat boy said that if we tried harder we’d have won

in Viet Nam!) …FACT



The difference is that the Marshall plan was a rebuilding effort, and this is

a destruction effort…FACT”

***********************************************************



Mr A, none of the above cited (and in fact many more of your quotes) are

"FACTS". I have no doubt that you believe these to be true, but no matter

how stongly you believe, they are not necessarily true.

"This administration is completely inept....OPINION borne out by a
mulitiude of FACTS "

I told you this one was an Opinion... But reading comprehension being what it is...

"Why do you think we didn't prevail in Viet Nam? (Not because we didn't stay as the President said, which pisses in the eye of every Viet Nam Vet, that the draft dodging frat boy said that if we tried harder we'd have won in Viet Nam!) ...FACT "

But the president DID say that (so it is a FACT) and it is a Piss in the eye of the Viet Nam Vets that were in Viet Nam while Bush WAS being a draft dodging Frat Boy. FACT I'm sorry if you don't like the reality, but reality bites sometimes.

"The difference is that the Marshall plan was a rebuilding effort, and this is a destruction effort....FACT"

The Marshall Plan was a rebuilding effort, FACT.

We are still trying to overcome the insurgency. FACT

We are at WAR, the president keeps saying so, war is an act of destruction. FACT, FACT, FACT.

You can say they're not facts until your lips fall off, it doesn't change anything.

Mr. A

You see, Mr A?



You have not addressed one single point I’ve made. As I said before, I don’t

doubt your sincerity…merely your intellect. You passion on this topic has

clearly clouded your ability to distinguish fact from fiction.

Another fact, you're boring.

Mr. A

Again, obfuscation and ad hominem attack.



Try to be a little less predictable, will you Mr A? It would be a welcome

change from the general run of liberals.



Thanks!

[quote=mranonymous2u]

(and maybe a little armor and some protected Humvees instead of treating the reserves like cannon fodder).

[/quote]

The usual talking points, the uparmored Humvee and upgraded body armor has been in Iraq for better than two years now...

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"Why do you think we didn't prevail in Viet Nam? (Not because we didn't stay as the President said, which pisses in the eye of every Viet Nam Vet, that the draft dodging frat boy said that if we tried harder we'd have won in Viet Nam!) ...FACT "[/quote]

I doubt you know two Vietnam vets. Every last one of them I know says we lost ONLY because we left and Bush never said we'd have won if we "tried harder". What a bag of gas you are "A"....

Having just gotten out of the United States Navy, flown missions and have friends in Iraq as I click this out and seeing what is going on, I feel I am qualified to say that Mr A has a load "facts" that more closely resembles a load of sh%t...

The fact is...we are winning.  The fact is...the Iraq's don't want to quit fighting with each other.  The fact is... schools are being opened, water plants are being built, electrical companies are coming online and things are slow...but improving.  My suggestion is that you leave winning wars to the professionals that fly and fight everyday and you just climb back into whatever hole you climbed out of and just sell stocks, bonds and insurance.  Until you've flown the missions and seen the faces keep you stupid opinions to yourself.

By the way...we won the battles in Southeast Asia...we just lost the politcal war.  My dad is a Vietnam Vet... don't go there...

Dude, you are a sorry American.



Just returned from Walter Reed and Bethesda. Talked with some of our wounded and they are patriotic.



I question if people like you are patriotic when every time we have a negative you jump up and down like its a personnal victory. Why?



Do you really see the light in the leaders of Iran, Venesuala, Al Queda and North Korea? Do you think that Iraq is the only front on this war of idology?



Look in the mirror and ask if you even want us to win? If you listen to political BS know that they are full of crap. They all voted on the same information. Most voted to stay in Iraq.



Remember I serve and have served. So please don’t smile when we stumble. There can only be one winner and that is America and our allies.

I also wonder who says we failed. Right now Abbas in Palestine is doing a great job. Lebannon is fighting for their freedom everyday. Lybia is acting with our interests. Turkey and Saudi is a great ally. Jordan is a super ally. Iraq as a country is fighting terrorism. Afganistan as a country is fighting against terrorism. Pakastan and India are going after terrorists. All of Europe is searching for terrorists. Banks and most financial institutions aroud the world are searching and taking the money. Passports are required and the CIA, FBI, Homeland, local enforcers and military are working together. All of the American Military branches are working with most countries around the world.



So I wonder what some of these “We are losing are really reffering to.” Okay so today 60 people and 2 American Troops died. We have about 200k in the region and there are 50 million people in the two countries, where we are battling.



Just spend 8 hours driving some visiting some real heros. They were positive and proud. They understand that this war is more then just a daily headline on CNN or some other moron who has no clue.

"By the way...we won the battles in Southeast Asia...we just lost the politcal war."

Let's assume this is true.

What should we learn from it?

Mr. A

"Look in the mirror and ask if you even want us to win? If you listen to political BS know that they are full of crap. They all voted on the same information. Most voted to stay in Iraq. "

HUH?

Err.. Good typing there Airforce.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"By the way...we won the battles in Southeast Asia...we just lost the politcal war."

Let's assume this is true.

[/quote]

"Assume"??????

Its absolutely true.  In fact...had we not had political idiots making money out of American blood Vietnam would have taken six months by some expert strategists estimates.  But instead we stayed from the late 50's until the early to mid 70's.  We no longer have officials that do what is right for America.  We have officials that do what is right for their political jobs AND America...if they can swing it.

Korea was a tie.  My Granddad fought in Korea and even he believed that.  My dad was a Vietnam era vet and he believes we won the battles but we lost the war.  We lost the war because the perception of the mainstream media, and the tree huggin, drug using, free-lovin, communist twinkle toed m&^%$# f@#$%^&s, gave evryone the perception that we were not winning and that to be a soldier and support our President (which were democrats AND republicans) was wrong.   Perception is reality.  These people skewed our reality of Vietnam.  These same people skew our reality now.  The reality is we are winning.  How many buildings have been blown up on US soil since September 11?  You can thank a vet and a soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or intelligence officer for that.

We have jobs selling securities.  They have jobs providing it.  Like I said before...don't throw out an unsubstantiated (sp?) argument when you haven't flown the mission or fought the fight.  The reason being.  A man with an experience is never the captive of the man with an argument.

"We have jobs selling securities.  They have jobs providing it."

'Nuff Said.

Mr. A

[quote=mikebutler222] [quote=mranonymous2u]

"Why do you think we didn’t prevail in Viet Nam? (Not because we didn’t

stay as the President said, which pisses in the eye of every Viet Nam Vet,

that the draft dodging frat boy said that if we tried harder we’d have won in

Viet Nam!) …FACT “[/quote]

I doubt you know two Vietnam vets. Every last one of them I know says we

lost ONLY because we left and Bush never said we’d have won if we

"tried harder”. What a bag of gas you are “A”…

SSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOORRRREEEEE!

Mr. A

You know what's interesting about this place? It's cutting edge. Whereas most every other bulletin board argument eventually devolves to a Hitlerian rant, this place devolves into Viet Nam machismo.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

... this place devolves into Viet Nam machismo.[/quote]

No, twit, this place has devolved to spending too much time correcting your ill-informed, poorly worded diatribes. 

Damn, I did good spelling… It was a long day, so brovo to my comments. Thanks for the corrections. You guys rule and seem to be happy Americans. Do you ladies take any action to accomplish anything or just go to a forum and blow hot air? That should keep you busy blowing hot air for at least 30 minutes.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You know what’s interesting about this

place? It’s cutting edge. Whereas most every other bulletin board

argument eventually devolves to a Hitlerian rant, this place devolves into

Viet Nam machismo.

“As an online discussion grows longer, the <A title=Probability

href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability”>probabili ty of a

comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches

one.” http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Mr. A

Also Vietnam was 30 years ago. Did Vietnam, China or any other enemy attack America? It was more based on threat then anything else. You look from 1982 to the present at the attacks to American interests.



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



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Terrorincidents2001atlas. jpg



What more has to be done to awake our nation?



I still think those who talk this political crap are really pissed off at the Bush Gore election. They relate more with Cindy Sheehan then with the American troop. Some agree with our enemy more then they agree with our ally. I don’t get how someone gets to that point.

“Pissed off” about the Bush Gore election? No, actually I was (and still am)

pleased with the outcome.

[quote=Starka]“Pissed off” about the Bush Gore election? No, actually I was (and still am)

pleased with the outcome. [/quote]

Don’t think he was referring to you Starka…rather the liberal crew who continue to maintain that the elections was “stolen” and that they have been deprived of their birthright to have a leftist president.

As I’ve said before, can you imagine if John Kerry or Al Gore were President on 9/11?  For all of Mr. Bush’s arguable flaws, at least he has been decisive, willing to take risks regardless of what the polls say, and active in trying to keep us safe.  Al Gore would have run to the always-ineffective U.N. to campaign and goodness only knows where we’d be today.  John Kerry probably would have threatened to cut off all Ketchup supplies to Muslim countries.

Starka,

It wasn't a judgement call, it was an observation.

Airforce,

"I still think those who talk this political crap are really pissed off at the Bush Gore election. They relate more with Cindy Sheehan then with the American troop. Some agree with our enemy more then they agree with our ally. I don't get how someone gets to that point. "

You don't get how someone gets to that point because they DON'T. Nobody really cares about the election anymore, what's done is done.

What annoys people is the caliber of the man who has put our sons and brothers (and daughters and sisters) in the way of harm.

I'm a Liberal Democrat, always have been. I identify with Cindy Sheehan's plight, but only in that the arrogance of the man who could have diffused that whole situation by just talking with her for a couple of hours. Her son died in his ill conceived, ill prepared for, ill planned, ill executed war. Doesn't his sacrifice merit her a few hours out of the president's time (especially given that he takes so much time off from his job in the first place). But that doesn't mean that I don't identify also with the troops. I'm all for adding to the troops, massively, to bring this situation under control.

But I will not delude myself to believe that this invasion has anything to do with some "World wide war on terrorism." Nor will I delude myself to believe that bombing a village and killing a man's wife and children is going to make him anything other than angry at the country whose name was on the bomb.

Isn't this what we tell our own servicemen? "What if they did that to your Mama? What would YOU do then?" Indeed, what WOULD YOU do?

Tell me, why do you think we rushed into Iraq? We weren't ready to invade Iraq, we didn't have the "Army we wanted" why couldn't we wait?

Mr. A

It doesn’t matter how you define the observation…you were the one who entered it into the debate, then you were the one who complained when it was used to defuse your contention.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Starka,

It wasn't a judgement call, it was an observation.

Airforce,

"I still think those who talk this political crap are really pissed off at the Bush Gore election. They relate more with Cindy Sheehan then with the American troop. Some agree with our enemy more then they agree with our ally. I don't get how someone gets to that point. "

You don't get how someone gets to that point because they DON'T. Nobody really cares about the election anymore, what's done is done.

What annoys people is the caliber of the man who has put our sons and brothers (and daughters and sisters) in the way of harm.

I'm a Liberal Democrat, always have been. I identify with Cindy Sheehan's plight, but only in that the arrogance of the man who could have diffused that whole situation by just talking with her for a couple of hours. Her son died in his ill conceived, ill prepared for, ill planned, ill executed war. Doesn't his sacrifice merit her a few hours out of the president's time (especially given that he takes so much time off from his job in the first place). But that doesn't mean that I don't identify also with the troops. I'm all for adding to the troops, massively, to bring this situation under control.

But I will not delude myself to believe that this invasion has anything to do with some "World wide war on terrorism." Nor will I delude myself to believe that bombing a village and killing a man's wife and children is going to make him anything other than angry at the country whose name was on the bomb.

Isn't this what we tell our own servicemen? "What if they did that to your Mama? What would YOU do then?" Indeed, what WOULD YOU do?

Tell me, why do you think we rushed into Iraq? We weren't ready to invade Iraq, we didn't have the "Army we wanted" why couldn't we wait?

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I'm a Liberal Democrat, always have been. I identify with Cindy Sheehan's plight, but only in that the arrogance of the man who could have diffused that whole situation by just talking with her for a couple of hours. [/quote]

So typical of your posts. "Arrogance"... You're probably not aware Bush DID meet with her, mother of a volunteer, a year before she became "peace mom"...

Her son died in his ill conceived, ill prepared for, ill planned, ill executed war. Doesn't his sacrifice merit her a few hours out of the president's time (especially given that he takes so much time off from his job in the first place). But that doesn't mean that I don't identify also with the troops. I'm all for adding to the troops, massively, to bring this situation under control.

But I will not delude myself to believe that this invasion has anything to do with some "World wide war on terrorism." Nor will I delude myself to believe that bombing a village and killing a man's wife and children is going to make him anything other than angry at the country whose name was on the bomb.

Isn't this what we tell our own servicemen? "What if they did that to your Mama? What would YOU do then?" Indeed, what WOULD YOU do?

Tell me, why do you think we rushed into Iraq? We weren't ready to invade Iraq, we didn't have the "Army we wanted" why couldn't we wait?

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Tell me, why do you think we rushed into <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq? [/quote]

You call 12 years of sanctions a "rush"?

As to why, I suggest you read the document passed in the House and Senate which even most Democrats signed. It details the reasons well.

 [quote=mranonymous2u]

We weren't ready to invade Iraq, …[/quote]

We were..

[quote=mranonymous2u]…we didn't have the "Army we wanted"[/quote]

I assume this is your attempt to sound as if you know something about the situation by making a passing comment about the equipment we CAME to need (and then field) once the situation on the ground changed. Sorry, we know you’re clueless on the subject, this won’t change anyone’s opinion.

[quote=mranonymous2u] why couldn't we wait?

Mr. A[/quote]

Let’s see, 12 years of sanctions, Saddam buying is way out via the  “oil chits for palaces” program the UN ran, what the entire world thought (review even Clinton’s comments from 1998 forward) was an ongoing WMD program and links to terror outfits. Yeah, we should have “waited”, there might have been a sign, like a Saddam WMD equipped terror outfit making another 9/11 attack here.

No doubt had that happened the vacuous like yourself would have been ranting about ho Bush “let it happen”….

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I'm a Liberal Democrat, always have been. I identify with Cindy Sheehan's plight, but only in that the arrogance of the man who could have diffused that whole situation by just talking with her for a couple of hours. [/quote]

So typical of your posts. "Arrogance" indeed... You're probably not aware Bush DID meet with her, the mother of a volunteer, a year before she became "peace mom"...

[quote=mikebutler222]

So typical of your posts. “Arrogance”… You’re probably not aware Bush DID meet with her, mother of a volunteer, a year before she became “peace mom”…

But I will not delude myself to believe that this invasion has anything to do

with some “World wide war on terrorism.”

************************************************************ **************

“A”, am I given to understand that you don’t believe that we’re at war with

terrorism, that the war is a new thing, or that you don’t believe that there

were and are terrorist factions that were trained, sheltered and supported by

the Hussein regime? Further, do I understand that anyone who believes any

of the above to be true are “deluded” to your way of thinking?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"By the way...we won the battles in Southeast Asia...we just lost the politcal war."

Let's assume this is true.

What should we learn from it?

Mr. A

[/quote]

We should learn:

The fact that you don't like Bush and probably feel that the election was stolen (waaaahhhh) is irrelevant.  The President is who he is and unless you want to see our country high centered (I like car analogies ) on time wasting activities like futile impeachment hearings and endless gassbags bloviating to the cameras in Congressional investigations, you and others like you should do something more constructive.  While we are wasting time on this bullcrap, the terrorists are planning their next moves against us.  They have said they want to destroy us.  I believe them and have no patience for this pointless navel gazing that the left wants to do.

[quote=babbling looney]The fact that you don't like Bush and probably feel that the election was stolen (waaaahhhh) is irrelevant.  [/quote]

Our buddy "A" is that curious combination of obvious misogynist and self-described liberal Democrat...<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I said I identify with her plight. You can take the rest of your assumptions and put them uptions your...

Yes, I'm well aware of the story. It doesn't dimimnish the fact that if Bush had taken a couple of extra hours out of his vacation, the whole thing would have been over.

Believe what you want about why we're there or what we're doing. I don't really care. The question is, what are we going to do?

"You hate George Bush and you're against the war..." Did I say either of these things? No I did not.

What Joedabrkr? Are you just itching to become the next Mikebutler/Starka? That's the best you have? Misquoting and assumptions? If so just say so and we'll both save a lot of time. You can be scroll fodder, no skin off my teeth.

"...but you identify with the troops?" I'm the one who keeps saying, let's bring in the reinforcements. Isn't that supporting the troops? Don't confuse politics and patriotism. There are plenty of Democrats in the trenches too. Truth be told, it has been the Democrats that fought and died in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. (don't say no, don't forget the South was solid Dem until LBJ and Civil Rights)

"Kinda like how most of your legislators were happy to vote in support of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan until things got a little tougher and less popular. BLAH BLAH BLAH RANT RANT RANT RAVE RAVE RAVE!"

1. I don't speak for anyone but myself. I wasn't in favor of giving the President those powers at the time. I was disappointed with the Democrats that they were in a position that allowed the Republicans to call a vote right before an election.

2. I have yet to hear a single person object to the invasion of Afghanistan, to the contrary, we'd all like to see more attention being paid to getting Bin Laden and ridding the world of the Taliban and Al queda. 

3. There is no honor in being wrong. There is less honor in not admitting a mistake.

4. There are plenty of Republicans that wish they never voted to give Bush this authority too, but I don't hear you talking about them.

5. The pot with the orange handle is De Caf!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Yes, I'm well aware of the story. It doesn't dimimnish the fact that if Bush had taken a couple of extra hours out of his vacation, the whole thing would have been over. [/quote]

First, I don't believe you were aware of the facts, your post made it celar you didn't. Second, if you really think it would have been "over" if he'd met with her aagin you're either a fool or a liar. Just take a look at what happened when McCain met with her.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"You hate George Bush and you're against the war..." Did I say either of these things? No I did not. [/quote]

Again, you must be joking.....

 [quote=mranonymous2u]That's the best you have? Misquoting and assumptions? [/quote]

Sounds like you're angry that someone might have (he didn't btw) stolen your M.O....

"... don't forget the South was solid Dem until LBJ and Civil Rights."

It stayed "solid Dem" in House, Senate and state elections until very recently...

 [quote=mranonymous2u]I was disappointed with the Democrats that they were in a position that allowed the Republicans to call a vote right before an election.[/quote]

How dare they have to take a vote and state their positions clearly and THEN have to face the voters. How very unfair....

[quote=mranonymous2u]I have yet to hear a single person object to the invasion of Afghanistan, ...[/quote]

I guess you had your ears closed when the "it's really for an oil pipeline" theory was being repeated...

Well, well… First, I am serving and have gone to the sand box. So I think I have a right to speak from the troop’s point of view. Cindy Sheehan is a Michael Moore leftist puppet. She does not even speak for 1/100th of the military population, yet she is the poster child for those on the left.



Her son, who was a fully mature man, volunteered to go back to IRAQ for a second tour. She spit on his dead grave and insulted our nation by aligning her self with Chaves/Iran/North Korea, then insulting our leaders, military and alleys (Israel and others).



Did we go to quick to war you ask? Well the list of attacks is large so we waited to long. We crushed Al Qaeda and Husain in a few months. We also removed about 90 of the top 100 terrorists in the world. Yes, the left always falls back to Osama. Osama is stuck in a hole. Each day he has to snoop around so he does not get a bomb on his head. War and rebuilding a nation is never easy. The left wants everything easy and completed yesterday.



I hate even talking about this crap with people like you Mr. A. You just don’t get it or even are open to hearing another opinion. You look at everything in the rear view mirror. We try to look forward. In 2001 the president and our nation witnessed something that can not be described in words. We took proactive action on the best Intel we and every other nation in the world had. Before 9.11 we were very reactive. Beirut and Semolina we ran. WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. Note we also view attacks against our allies (Isreal, Britan, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, Afganistan, Lebannon and others) as attacks against us.



So you think we should be passive again?

Ladies and gents just returned from visiting 30 of out OEI and OIE wounded warriors. They are proud and do believe in the cause.

"Not to let wars be swayed by the left leaning propagandistic press."

No longer a problem, the left leaning press has been replaced with the corporate profits driven press.

"To let the military professionals, who know best how, formulate the battles on the ground."

Yes, and after this mess we will have learned not to fire those professionals whenever they disagree with the politicians.

"To keep the professional politicians far far away from any decisions that are life and death, since they only care about their own a$$es and being re-elected. "

We tried to get rid of Carl Rove, it didn't stick.

"To stop being so politically correct and concerned about minuscule day to day events, counting every death as if it were some sort of a scorecard in a football game, and to concentrate on the end game."

Yeah cause if there aren't 50,000 dead, it just doesn't count!

"The fact that you don't like Bush and probably feel that the election was stolen (waaaahhhh) is irrelevant."

Which is exactly what I said above. Do you even read or are you a skimmer?

"...you should do something more constructive. "

Like coming to the suggestion that we ought to put more troops on the ground and we ought to get advice from someone other than the mullyack that created this abortion! 

You seem to want to do SOMETHING and are willing to run around like a silly goose with it's head cut off if that's something enough.

That's the quickest way to get yourself and others killed in a war.

Mr. A

"Cindy Sheehan is a Michael Moore leftist puppet. She does not even speak for 1/100th of the military population, yet she is the poster child for those on the left."

Sez you.

I've barely heard her name since the 2004 election.

"  We crushed Al Qaeda and Husain in a few months." You STILL think Saddam had anything to do with Al Queda? Even the administration has shot this canard in the face! It was obviuos from the very start that this was a lie.

Truth be told, Saddam was our strongest ally in the middle east. If we weren't in an all fired hurry to "avenge daddy's legacy" (One of my MANY opinions) there is no reason that we couldn't have brokered a deal with this religiously MODERATE (by middle eastern standards, liberal by mid west standards, Godless by West Texas standards) nation. Would I have liked it? No, but I recognize that there are times that we makes deals with unsavory characters when it is in our countries best interests.

"I hate even talking about this crap with people like you Mr. A. You just don't get it or even are open to hearing another opinion."

That's really not nice and not true, I've been nothing but conversational with you. I'm interested in thought out opinions. But I won't just swoon over the lies that have been told to us by this administration, and I'm underimpressed by persons who simply vomiturate the pablum fed to them by the administration.

"WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. "

Not true, but then we had a Congress that was wasting the world's time with a witchhunt around a $60,000 loss in a real estate transaction. Not to mention that we also had issues in Haiti, Somalia (which George H Bush decided to spring on the nation at the very time he was a lame duck, it did take the focus off the FACT that he pardoned all of he witnesses against him in the Iran/Contra treason case he would have been named in.) and Bosnia.

Mr. A

[quote=AirForce]



I hate even talking about this crap with people like you Mr. A. You just don’t get it or even are open to hearing another opinion. You look at everything in the rear view mirror. We try to look forward. In 2001 the president and our nation witnessed something that can not be described in words. We took proactive action on the best Intel we and every other nation in the world had. Before 9.11 we were very reactive. Beirut and Semolina we ran. WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. Note we also view attacks against our allies (Isreal, Britan, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, Afganistan, Lebannon and others) as attacks against us.



So you think we should be passive again?[/quote]

We ran away from WHEAT?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

“Cindy Sheehan is a Michael Moore leftist puppet. She does not even speak for 1/100th of the military population, yet she is the poster child for those on the left.”

Sez you.

I've barely heard her name since the 2004 election.

"  We crushed Al Qaeda and Husain in a few months." You STILL think Saddam had anything to do with Al Queda? Even the administration has shot this canard in the face! It was obviuos from the very start that this was a lie.

Truth be told, Saddam was our strongest ally in the middle east. If we weren't in an all fired hurry to "avenge daddy's legacy" (One of my MANY opinions) there is no reason that we couldn't have brokered a deal with this religiously MODERATE (by middle eastern standards, liberal by mid west standards, Godless by West Texas standards) nation. Would I have liked it? No, but I recognize that there are times that we makes deals with unsavory characters when it is in our countries best interests.

"I hate even talking about this crap with people like you Mr. A. You just don't get it or even are open to hearing another opinion."

That's really not nice and not true, I've been nothing but conversational with you. I'm interested in thought out opinions. But I won't just swoon over the lies that have been told to us by this administration, and I'm underimpressed by persons who simply vomiturate the pablum fed to them by the administration.

"WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. "

Not true, but then we had a Congress that was wasting the world's time with a witchhunt around a $60,000 loss in a real estate transaction. Not to mention that we also had issues in Haiti, Somalia (which George H Bush decided to spring on the nation at the very time he was a lame duck, it did take the focus off the FACT that he pardoned all of he witnesses against him in the Iran/Contra treason case he would have been named in.) and Bosnia.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"Not to let wars be swayed by the left leaning propagandistic press."

No longer a problem, the left leaning press has been replaced with the corporate profits driven press. [/quote]

I just love the way the left has convinced themselves of this one...

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"To let the military professionals, who know best how, formulate the battles on the ground."

Yes, and after this mess we will have learned not to fire those professionals whenever they disagree with the politicians.[/quote]

Another one of those vacuous toss-away lines from people who think they’re witty, but simply betray the fact that they don’t have a clue. The obvious reference to Shenseki, who was already scheduled to retire (he had gone behind Rummy’s back to get Congress to revive the Crusader artillery system that Rummy had rightfully killed) long  he made his “300k” comment, and it misses the fact that he was never a commander on the ground in Iraq, and that his advice contradicted the advice from the real ground commanders.

It’s the same tortured logic that says Cindy Sheehan would have gone away if Bush had met with her again.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"To keep the professional politicians far far away from any decisions that are life and death, since they only care about their own a$$es and being re-elected. "

We tried to get rid of Carl Rove, it didn't stick. [/quote]

Oh, that’s such a knee-slapper. Say, you think BL might have been referring to the politicians like Kerry or Clinton who sad Saddam was a danger, voted for the war and then back peddled from those comments and votes when the polls changed?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"To stop being so politically correct and concerned about minuscule day to day events, counting every death as if it were some sort of a scorecard in a football game, and to concentrate on the end game."

Yeah cause if there aren't 50,000 dead, it just doesn't count! [/quote]

IOW, we didn’t mean it when Kennedy said “bear any burden”. What we really meant was “hey, we were only joking”.

Does the MR stand for mister or mental retardation?

[quote=mranonymous2u]Truth be told, Saddam was our strongest ally in the middle east. [/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Well, aside from <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Israel, the Saudis, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and most anyone else we had fought a war with and whose airspace we hadn’t patrolled for better than a decade, and whom we hadn’t worked to have the UN impose sanctions on….

 [quote=mranonymous2u]If we weren't in an all fired hurry to "avenge daddy's legacy" …[/quote]

(Cue Twilight Zone music, the “real reason” for the war is about to be exposed…)

[quote=mranonymous2u](One of my MANY opinions) there is no reason that we couldn't have brokered a deal with this religiously MODERATE (by middle eastern standards, liberal by mid west standards, Godless by West Texas standards) nation. [/quote]

You mean like the last “deal” for unrestricted UN weapons inspections?

I guess the problem is we just didn’t try hard enough to trust Saddam….

[quote=mranonymous2u] But I won't just swoon over the lies that have been told to us by this administration, and I'm underimpressed by persons who simply vomiturate the pablum fed to them by the administration. [/quote]

Uh, yeah, that’s it. It has nothing to do with your political orientation and the obvious lies from other sources you’re happy to swallow whole…

[quote=mranonymous2u]"WTC1, Cole, Embassies and other attacks we remained passive. "

Not true, but then we had a Congress that was wasting the world's time with a witchhunt …[/quote]

Ah, I always love this one. It’s the “Clinton would have acted like a Commander in Chief and responded if the mean old Republicans hadn’t distracted him” gambit….

[quote=mranonymous2u]Not to mention that we also had issues in Haiti, Somalia (which George H Bush decided to spring on the nation at the very time he was a lame duck, it did take the focus off the FACT that he pardoned all of he witnesses against him in the Iran/Contra treason case he would have been named in.) and Bosnia. [/quote]

Where’s that Twilight Zone music again…. Haiti was Clinton’s own creation as was Bosnia (which came later, and when Clinton sent troops w/o UN approval and to the praise of those evil GOP types who were keeping him from fighting terrorism) , in Somalia Clinton changed the mission from feeding starving people to capturing war lords and ignoring the calls from commanders on the ground for the personnel and equipment required for that new mission.. and “Iran-Contra” gets in the mix too?

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You STILL think Saddam had anything to do with Al Queda? Even the administration has shot this canard in the face! It was obviuos from the very start that this was a lie.[/quote]

Here we go again..the twisting of the facts from "no command and control agreement" or "no operational control" to "had nothing to do with"... the bi-partisan Senate investigation and the 9/11 Commision BOTH said there was an AQ/Saddam link.

Airforce,

Yes, I understand that Saddam was persona non grata post Desert Storm. Give me a little credit and you'll understand a lot more of what I mean. If you're going to think that every letter I type is part of a elaborate plan to trip you up, it'll be tougher for us to understand each other.

There was no significant terrorism coming out of Iraq. Saddam was a guy on the figurative ballz of his azz. He was an ironfisted cult of fear and personality that held his country together through years of a siege reality. To him the only diety that meant anything was Saddam. It would have taken a little doing, but we could easily have turned him in exchange for lifting the sanctions. Again, nothing we haven't done before, many times.

I always felt it was a failing of the Clinton administration that he didn't work towards normalized relations with Saddam.

I don't think Saddam was a great guy, or even a good guy (he was less bad than The Shah of Iran), He was a tyrant! But who can you trust in the Middle East now? Saudi Arabia? They're not bad as shopkeepers, but they are not a country we could stage wars from. Iran?  Syria? No one else comes close in terms of land mass we'd need.

As to the legalities in the Clinton White House, I said "AROUND a $60,000 real estate loss" the other issues were part of this investigation. It doesn't really matter what the investigations were about, the fact was that they took up time, energy  and political capital (the true target) that ought have been better used for the benefit of the Union.

"The thing I think is amusing is how you label yourself as a Liberal Democrat, and then you squeal about us making assumptions when we attack certain of your positions."

You are free to attack MY positions. You are not free to assign me positions based upon your perceptions of Liberal Democrats. I'm not here to answer for other democrats. I judge the people here only by what they have written here, not by some position that some other so called Conservative espouses.

Fair Enough?

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I always felt it was a failing of the Clinton administration that he didn't work towards normalized relations with Saddam. [/quote]

Gee, I wonder why he thought normalized relations were out for the question...

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADDRESS

--------

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

As to the legalities in the Clinton White House, I said “AROUND a $60,000 real estate loss” the other issues were part of this investigation. It doesn’t really matter what the investigations were about, the fact was that they took up time, energy  and political capital (the true target) that ought have been better used for the benefit of the Union.

Mr. A

You're obfuscating again Joe. And misquoting.

I'm sure you think you're charming and eriudite, the wittiest of them all.

A ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!

You're this ll far from scroll troll.

That'd be too bad, I had higher hopes for you.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You’re obfuscating again Joe. And misquoting.

I'm sure you think you're charming and eriudite, the wittiest of them all.

A ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!

You're this ll far from scroll troll.

That'd be too bad, I had higher hopes for you.

Mr. A

[quote=Pandale]Does the MR stand for mister or mental retardation?[/quote]

Guess what "A" stands for...

Indy, guy, that's like the very first thing people say. I mean, really, you have no more imagination than that?

The Mental Retardation was at least semi original (It would have been better if you had said "Mentally Retarded" but I'll give you a B - for effort).

Mr. A

Oh, I thought I had been addressing Airforce above, now I see it was Joe.

I was wondering why he said that about misquoting.

That's what happens (to me) when (I'm)you're scrolling past God knows what static in the middle.

Joe, you're generally an ok guy I don't know why you feel the need to distort.

As to SPECIFICALLY MISQUOTING:

"You hate George Bush and you're against the war, but you identify with the troops? "

I never said I hate George Bush. (Far as you know)

I didn't say I'm against the war. I don't agree with the stories that were told to get us into this war, and I do think that war ought to be a last last resort. I'm against people killing people. But to be "against" this war at this time is ridiculous. It's like deciding not to be in a car crash after you went speed demoning around the blind turns at break neck speeds and now your car is smashing into a busload of baby nuns. Be against it all you want, it's going to happen, and slamming on the breaks isn't going to do any good.

"That's right, don't might that other stuff."

I never said nor implied, "Don't mind the other stuff." I said the particulars weren't important to the discussion at this time and that they were included in the original statement when I said "around". Ken Starr thought they were related so I don't see why I need to differentiate.

Mr. A

You know it's really sad to read the well informed and spirited opinions that are exchanged here, when those of lesser intellect start going down the path of 'name calling' or boxing other into a 'stereotype' because they have opinions that are different.

Why do so few around here seem to have the patience and self understanding that is required for a productice discussion of the issues.

Example: Mr A is obviously a liberal democrat...but, I think he has stated some positions that are not popular among the 'left'.  To me, it's intellectually feeble and a waste of discussion to bash him for what other liberals may believe, in fact it's completely invalid.

I have yet to see him accuse others here of being 'right wing' or broadly labeling someone else.  He is sticking to his ideas and seems to want to focus on the issues.  Everyone else is seeming to denigrate to their best 'sand box' behaviour.

I have felt the same way too....although I am not politically in alignment with Mr A (being a strong Libertarian) I have been repeatedly labeled a 'leftist'. 

You know, it's OK to be a conservative and disagree with the leadership.  I know plenty of Republicans who are ashamed of Bush, as they should be.  As I've said before, if Bush were a little more humble and not so 'righteous', I wouldn't be so 'Anti-Bush', we all make mistakes or act prematurely.

Oh and those who are in the military....if we were actually fighting for our freedom and liberty in Iraq, I'd be right there with you.  To me, the most ignorant sounding 'battle cry' is that we're fighting for freedom and security in Iraq.  If we had devoted a fraction of the resources we've put into Iraq into an effective Homeland Defence strategy and rooting out terrorism....I'd feel much safer.

People don't understand that the Sunni's and Shia's have irreconcilable issues.  I will summarize it for those who are nieve to the issue:

The Shia in essence believes in a Monarchial (or royalty like)authority, whereas the Sunni's believe in an elected (tribal elder) authority.  It's comparable to trying to make a government that serves two masters who's fundamental religous beliefs counteroppose each other.

To the Sunni's, the Shia are a religious monarchy and heretics....

quote: Imam Ash-Shafi'i, one of the most prominent early scholars of his time said in regards to the Shi'a "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi’ites

It's my contention that anyone here or in our government who doesn't have at least a basic grasp of the nature and intensity of the division between these two groups is too ignorant to have an informed opinion.

It would be akin to trying to have had a goverment that split power between our forefathers and the British crown when we established this country...not reconcilable.

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

Both Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance.

The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."

On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself.

The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).

You guys all think you're so smart, how do you reconcile that without a tyrant like Saddam?  Like him or not he maintained an almost impossible balance in a highly divided country that is unlikely to be maintained by a 'democracy'.  You see the shia's don't really believe in a 'democracy'.

The peanut gallery is dismissed.

I would like to clarify that this is not an issue of the two 'sects' hating on each other for their religious beliefs, it is all about a deep seeded attitude on who should lead the muslim nation:

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

Shia Muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession. Sunni Muslims counter that there is no basis in Islam for a hereditary privileged class of spiritual leaders, and certainly no basis for the veneration or intercession of saints. Sunni Muslims contend that leadership of the community is not a birthright, but a trust that is earned and which may be given or taken away by the people themselves.

____________________

It is more complicated than this, especially because of the tribal dynamics of the area, but you can start to see the picture.

To simplify for all:

This is a civil war about Monarcy vs Democracy.

We took down the guy (Saddam) who (although undeniabley a tyrant) represented those who champion the idea of democracy (and represented the minority in Iraq).

The Sunni's are far more in alignment with our concepts of democracy.  It's unfortunate we disposed of their power.

It's all about knowing your enemy. 

[quote=dude]

You know it's really sad to read the well informed and spirited opinions that are exchanged here, when those of lesser intellect start going down the path of 'name calling' or boxing other into a 'stereotype' because they have opinions that are different. [/quote]

Sounds very reasoned, until you consider your own behavior as you began this thread....in fact, that's what most everyone of your threads which are little more than "bush is stoopid" topes.

[quote=dude]

  As I've said before, if Bush were a little more humble and not so 'righteous', I wouldn't be so 'Anti-Bush', we all make mistakes or act prematurely. [/quote]

Again the cartoonish version of a real person is produced for the bashing....

[quote=dude]Oh and those who are in the military....if we were actually fighting for our freedom and liberty in Iraq, I'd be right there with you.  [/quote]

I've already provided what Clinton siad of Saddam in 1998, if you still want to hang what Saddam was as some twisting of the facts on Bush's part, well, so be it.

[quote=dude]To me, the most ignorant sounding 'battle cry' is that we're fighting for freedom and security in Iraq.  If we had devoted a fraction of the resources we've put into Iraq into an effective Homeland Defence strategy and rooting out terrorism....I'd feel much safer. [/quote]

If you'd feel safer playing defense (as if we're not already doing that) alone, fine. After 9/11 many of us realized that that appraoch just wasn't going to work.

[quote=dude]People don't understand that the Sunni's and Shia's have irreconcilable issues.  I will summarize it for those who are nieve to the issue:[/quote]

Not sure what nieve means, but if you think Sunni's and Shia's can't live together and need a dictator like Saddam to keep them in line, consider Muslim, secular and democratic Turkey.

Sorry, dude, but this sounds too much like your "war on the Islamic world" and "we can't win" posts.

[quote=dude]

The Sunni's are far more in alignment with our concepts of democracy.  It's unfortunate we disposed of their power.

It's all about knowing your enemy. 

[/quote]

Right, and we're so lucky you know them.

BTW, the Sunnis, the ones we "disposed" the power of, that's the 10% of the Iraqi population that Saddam sprang from, the ones running the rape rooms and the mass graves, and you're suggesting he stayed in power despite 12 years of ignoring UN weapons inspection requirements and the world's intelligence agencies thinking he was back to making WMDs he could have easily handed off to any number of terrorist pals for use here. Nope, not buying it.

[quote=dude]

It's my contention that anyone here or in our government who doesn't have at least a basic grasp of the nature and intensity of the division between these two groups is too ignorant to have an informed opinion. [/quote]

I assume you're talking about the head of the House Intel Committee that Pelosi just appointed who didn't know the diff.

I've already provided what Clinton siad of Saddam in 1998, if you still want to hang what Saddam was as some twisting of the facts on Bush's part, well, so be it.

If you'd feel safer playing defense (as if we're not already doing that) alone, fine. After 9/11 many of us realized that that appraoch just wasn't going to work.

Not sure what nieve means, but if you think Sunni's and Shia's can't live together and need a dictator like Saddam to keep them in line, consider Muslim, secular and democratic Turkey.

__________________________________________________

Clinton was as much an idiot as Bush.

Mike: you obviously believe that democracy and monarchy can be reconciled....I hate to do this but I think you're 'stoopid' if that is the case.  C'mon Mike, you're a  smart guy.   Read about your enemy and get back to me.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

The Sunni's are far more in alignment with our concepts of democracy.  It's unfortunate we disposed of their power.

It's all about knowing your enemy. 

[/quote]

Right, and we're so lucky you know them.

BTW, the Sunnis, the ones we "disposed" the power of, that's the 10% of the Iraqi population that Saddam sprang from, the ones running the rape rooms and the mass graves, and you're suggesting he stayed in power despite 12 years of ignoring UN weapons inspection requirements and the world's intelligence agencies thinking he was back to making WMDs he could have easily handed off to any number of terrorist pals for use here. Nope, not buying it.

[/quote]

But you DO buy that the Shia's are going to be our standard bearers for democracy right?  HAHAHAHAHHAHAA!  You so so fun-nay.

Before you recommend investments Mike, do you analyze them to ensure that they have a good likelihood of working out?  I do.

How is a democracy supposed to work in Iraq Mike?  Lay it out for me, I'm really interested.

[quote=dude]

To simplify for all:

This is a civil war about Monarcy vs Democracy.[/quote]

To simplify for dude, the Sunnis are the ones fighting to end the budding Shia/Sunni democracy and install the theocracy which would include the establishment of Shira law.

The Iranian Sunnis are assisting in that, and Iran itself is a democracy in name only since the mullahs get to select candidates. Of course this all ignores the AQ connection, which is a Sunni group and has no interest in democracy.

So much for the monarchy vs democracy theory.

It's all about knowing the facts.

[quote=dude]

Clinton was as much an idiot as Bush. [/quote]

Sure are a lot of idiots out there, and so many of them have access to experts, research and intel you don't have.

What are the odds of that?

[quote=dude]

Mike: you obviously believe that democracy and monarchy can be reconciled....I hate to do this but I think you're 'stoopid' if that is the case. [/quote]

Uh, the UK? Turkey? Any number of European governments?

[quote=dude]

 C'mon Mike, you're a  smart guy.   Read about your enemy and get back to me.

[/quote]

Sorry, dude, you just have the players and motivations wrong. For example, AQ is Sunni, where's the monarcy vs democracy conflict there?

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

The Sunni's are far more in alignment with our concepts of democracy.  It's unfortunate we disposed of their power.

It's all about knowing your enemy. 

[/quote]

Right, and we're so lucky you know them.

BTW, the Sunnis, the ones we "disposed" the power of, that's the 10% of the Iraqi population that Saddam sprang from, the ones running the rape rooms and the mass graves, and you're suggesting he stayed in power despite 12 years of ignoring UN weapons inspection requirements and the world's intelligence agencies thinking he was back to making WMDs he could have easily handed off to any number of terrorist pals for use here. Nope, not buying it.

[/quote]

But you DO buy that the Shia's are going to be our standard bearers for democracy right?  HAHAHAHAHHAHAA!  You so so fun-nay.

[/quote]

I can't imagine where I got that idea. Could it be because 80% of the population voted (hmmm, sounds like an interest in democracy to me) and that the predominately Shia public elected a government?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

To simplify for all:

This is a civil war about Monarcy vs Democracy.[/quote]

To simplify for dude, the Sunnis are the ones fighting to end the budding Shia/Sunni democracy and install the theocracy which would include the establishment of Shira law.

The Iranian Sunnis are assisting in that, and Iran itself is a democracy in name only since the mullahs get to select candidates. Of course this all ignores the AQ connection, which is a Sunni group and has no interest in democracy.

So much for the monarchy vs democracy theory.

It's all about knowing the facts.

[/quote]

HAHAHHAHAHAHA!  Iraq is Shia bro!  You got it ass backwards! 

You know absolutely NOTHING about this and you will proceed to make a MAJOR ass out of yourself.  

The Sunnis are fighting to prevent a IRAN like DEMOCRACY, which you pointed out is in NAME ONLY.  The insurgency is to prevent the MONARCHY from ruling.  You can't argue what you don't understand (yet you still do, I feel embarassed for you). 

You can't read my man.

Dude,

I appreciate your kind words. I'm confident that there are others who lurk here and see the disparity in the quality of the arguments.

Hey, I'm no angel, I will be brusque.

As to the split between the Sunni and the Shia. Thank you.

I am put into mind of the opposition to JFK in that he was "Too religious" and they asked him point blank if he was going to take his marching orders from the Pope.

In this country we have any number of "religious leaders" who purport to be chosen by God (there are those who think it is God's will that they were elected to office). The point being that there IS a way for there to be a melding of those two ideologies. (Not that they're going to start liking each other)

Alternately... errr... hmmm.... I'd like to think that there could be two to several houses of government wherein the Shia Sheik (?) could shimmy till the shank of the evening in that portion of the government and the elected Sunni could head another branch... I'd like to be able to find some sort of balancing mechanism wherein neither had absolute control over the other (sort of the function of the three branches here, but broader). The problem with fundamentalists, though is that they believe that they are controlled by God, as such, whenever they don't get what they want, they see it as an assault on God. (Imagine there no Heaven, indeed!).

Thanks for the nut to gnaw on. I'll enjoy it.

Mr. A 

[quote=dude]

How is a democracy supposed to work in Iraq Mike?  Lay it out for me, I'm really interested.

[/quote]

If the example of Turkey doesn't do it for you, just what do you need? Hasn't it already been proven that your monarchy versus democracy meme is fictional? The fight is between Islamists who want to establish a Taliban like Shira law gov't and those who favor pluralism.

It would be nice if it broken down along sectarian lines, but there are radicals on both sides.

Oops…IRAN is Shia.  Sorry about the typo.

[quote=mranonymous2u]Indy, guy, that’s like the very first thing people say.

Mr. A[/quote]

Gee...I can't imagine why...

I still get agnostic and gnostic confused sometimes...

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

How is a democracy supposed to work in Iraq Mike?  Lay it out for me, I'm really interested.

[/quote]

If the example of Turkey doesn't do it for you, just what do you need? Hasn't it already been proven that your monarchy versus democracy meme is fictional? The fight is between Islamists who want to establish a Taliban like Shira law gov't and those who favor pluralism.

It would be nice if it broken down along sectarian lines, but there are radicals on both sides.

[/quote]

Mike......Turkey is not Iraq.  I'm not going to comment on Turkey since I'm not familiar with their history.  I am speaking from a seminar I attended with people who are from the area and could speak from the citizen point of view (not the foreign occupying army POV) as to the nature of the conflict.

Mike, you made my point for me when you said that IRAN is a democracy in NAME ONLY....IRAN is predominantly SHIA, just like Iraq.  By upsetting the power balance in Iraq, we took a big risk of creating another Iran.

Sounds like VICTORY to me! 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

How is a democracy supposed to work in Iraq Mike? Lay it out for me,

I’m really interested.

[/quote]

If the example of Turkey doesn’t do it for you, just what do you need?

Hasn’t it already been proven that your monarchy versus democracy

meme is fictional? The fight is between Islamists who want to

establish a Taliban like Shira law gov’t and those who favor pluralism.

It would be nice if it broken down along sectarian lines, but there are

radicals on both sides.

[/quote]

http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey

Muslims in Turkey are dominantly Sunnis.<A class=“external

autonumber” title=https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/

tu.html href=“https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/

tu.html”>[1]. Religious observance in comparison to other

predominantly Muslim-populated countries is low and

[COLOR=#cc0000]Muslim identity tends to be based more on tradition

and cultural heritage rather than actual belief in religious dogma.[/

COLOR] The Turkish governmental system are based on European

republican state with strong flavour of secularism. While attempting to

reform in order to strengthen bonds with European Union in hopes of

future accession.

Sorry about the harsh insult…I’m just tiring of the uniformed leading the blind.  Have fun fighting for FREEDOM in Iraq!

Mike,

Whether you WANT to see it or not....the Sunni's are our best hope for Democracy in the muslim world, not the Shia.  I don't know how we achieve our mission of democracy by unseating the Sunni's and installing the Shia's.

This is the foundation of my paradigm concerning Iraq and the muslim world in general.

And to be clear:

Turkey works because it is mostly Sunni, got it?

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

To simplify for all:

This is a civil war about Monarcy vs Democracy.[/quote]

To simplify for dude, the Sunnis are the ones fighting to end the budding Shia/Sunni democracy and install the theocracy which would include the establishment of Shira law.

The Iranian Sunnis (should read SHIA, which is the religion of Iran)are assisting in that, and <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iran itself is a democracy in name only since the mullahs get to select candidates. Of course this all ignores the AQ connection, which is a Sunni group and has no interest in democracy.

So much for the monarchy vs democracy theory.

It's all about knowing the facts.

[/quote]

HAHAHHAHAHAHA!  Iraq is Shia bro!  You got it ass backwards!  [/quote]

Perhaps you could point out where I said Iraq WASN'T predominantly Shia? Saddam, otoh, was from the Sunni 20% of the population.

A good bit of the sectarian violence comes from Sunnis who enjoyed great power and favor when one of their own, Saddam, ran the country. OTOH, you also have players like Shia Al-Sader’s militia causing a great deal of violence.

[quote=dude]The Sunnis are fighting to prevent a IRAN like DEMOCRACY,…[/quote]

Uh, sorry, dude, but Iran IS Shia AND they’re assisting Sunnis “insurgents” in Iraq. There goes your monarchy vs democracy theory.

BTW, Saudi Arabia, of monarchy fame, Sunni.

Now, your theory again?

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

How is a democracy supposed to work in Iraq Mike?  Lay it out for me, I'm really interested.

[/quote]

If the example of Turkey doesn't do it for you, just what do you need? Hasn't it already been proven that your monarchy versus democracy meme is fictional? The fight is between Islamists who want to establish a Taliban like Shira law gov't and those who favor pluralism.

It would be nice if it broken down along sectarian lines, but there are radicals on both sides.

[/quote]

Mike......Turkey is not Iraq.  I'm not going to comment on Turkey since I'm not familiar with their history. [/quote]

Perhaps you should be before you begin to pontificate that Sunnis and Shia can't live together in a democracy, since that's exactly what Turkey is.

[quote=dude] I am speaking from a seminar I attended..[/quote]

Oh, well, that changes everything, obviously....

[quote=dude][Mike, you made my point for me when you said that IRAN is a democracy in NAME ONLY....IRAN is predominantly SHIA, just like Iraq.  By upsetting the power balance in Iraq, we took a big risk of creating another Iran.

Sounds like VICTORY to me! 

[/quote]

The Taliban, the prototype Islamicfacsist state, is Sunni.

If only it was as simple as you seem to believe and all the nutcases in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan were just one sect.

[quote=dude]Sorry about the harsh insult....I'm just tiring of the uniformed leading the blind.  Have fun fighting for FREEDOM in Iraq![/quote]

"Uniformed"????

Look, dude, Sunnia AND Shia live in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Turkey and it's a democracy.

Saudi Arabia, which has a monarchy is SUNNI as was the TALIBAN. Iran, which has the mullahs running the show is Shia, Iraq, which was a dictatorship run by a SUNNI is predominately SHIA.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Obviously there’s no clear “this side is for a monarchy” and “this side supports a democracy” divide, no matter how you wish otherwise.

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

How is a democracy supposed to work in Iraq Mike? Lay it out for me,

I’m really interested.

[/quote]

If the example of Turkey doesn’t do it for you, just what do you need?

Hasn’t it already been proven that your monarchy versus democracy

meme is fictional? The fight is between Islamists who want to

establish a Taliban like Shira law gov’t and those who favor pluralism.

It would be nice if it broken down along sectarian lines, but there are

radicals on both sides.

[/quote]

http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey

Muslims in Turkey are dominantly Sunnis.<A class=“external

autonumber” title=https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/

tu.html href=“https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/

tu.html”>[1]. Religious observance in comparison to other

predominantly Muslim-populated countries is low and

[COLOR=#cc0000]Muslim identity tends to be based more on tradition

and cultural heritage rather than actual belief in religious dogma.[/

COLOR] The Turkish governmental system are based on European

republican state with strong flavour of secularism. While attempting to

reform in order to strengthen bonds with European Union in hopes of

future accession.

[/quote]

Your outburst aside, what part of the differs from what I said? Shias

and Sunnis in a democracy. BTW, Saudia Arabia is ALSO mostly Sunni and

it’s a monarcy.

Mike B said: BTW, <?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />Saudi Arabia, of monarchy fame, Sunni.<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

Now, your theory again?

______________________

We're talking from a religious POV Mike.

[quote=dude]

Mike,

Whether you WANT to see it or not....the Sunni's are our best hope for Democracy in the muslim world, not the Shia. [/quote]

Sunnis, eh? The sect of the Saudis and the Taliban?

Sorry, your entire monarcy/democracy theory is hogwash. There's not a breakdown on the line of the sects on that issue, both sides have anti-democratic fundimentalists within their ranks.

[quote=dude]

This is the foundation of my paradigm concerning Iraq and the muslim world in general.

[/quote]

And it's 100% wrong.

Dude…has it gotten to that?

[quote=dude]

And to be clear:

Turkey works because it is mostly Sunni, got it?

[/quote]

Sorry, dude, but the Taliban and SA are both mostly Sunni too.

Your entire "Sunnis favor democracy" is hogwash.

I’m speaking primarily about the Iraqi Sunni’s here MikeB…they are a very moderate and forward looking ‘version’ who in many ways embraced western ideologies (relatively speaking).  I’m done with your spin Mike, I’m getting dizzy.

[quote=dude]

Mike B said: BTW, <?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />Saudi Arabia, of monarchy fame, Sunni.<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

Now, your theory again?

______________________

We're talking from a religious POV Mike.

[/quote]

Huh? SA is SUNNI, a monarchy and lives under Shira law.

Again, the "Sunnis favor democracy" line is fiction.

Mike....Iraqi Sunnis favor democracy. 

Democratic concepts are more in line with Sunni ideology since they believe their leaders should be elected from the people.

Fascist concepts are more in line with Shia ideology since they believe that their leaders should come from the 'royal' (for lack of a better word) bloodlines which are 'divinely' choosen.

You are simplifying my position mike...it's not that simple.  I'm wasting my fingers here.

[quote=dude]I'm speaking primarily about the Iraqi Sunni's here MikeB.....they are a very moderate and forward looking 'version' who in many ways embraced western ideologies (relatively speaking).  I'm done with your spin Mike, I'm getting dizzy.[/quote]

The "moderate and forward looking" supporters of a dictator? The ones getting support from Shia Iran in their fight against the fledgling democracy?

The Sunnis are fighting because (in no particular order) they fear what might happen with Shias in charge after what Sunni Saddam did, some want to install a Taliban style goverment (also Sunni) which is why some many insuregent factions have adopted Jihadist themes and names.

Iran supports the Shia not the Sunnis Mike....you don't understand this at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5108496.stm

[quote=dude]

Mike....Iraqi Sunnis favor democracy. 

Democratic concepts are more in line with Sunni ideology since they believe their leaders should be elected from the people.

Fascist concepts are more in line with Shia ideology since they believe that their leaders should come from the 'royal' (for lack of a better word) bloodlines which are 'divinely' choosen.

You are simplifying my position mike...it's not that simple.  I'm wasting my fingers here.

[/quote]

You've been fed a fiction, dude. Iraqi Sunnis HAVE a democracy, if they'd just stop fighting it. There are Sunnis IN the current government, even as a minority since they're about 20% of the population.

Sunnis have proved themselves every comfortable with fascist concepts, see the Taliban, Saddam and Shira law in S.A..

Iran didn't support the Taliban Mike:

The Taliban's main supporters were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Along with the United Arab Emirates, they were the only countries to recognize Taliban-led Afghanistan. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cooperated in efforts by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency to arm the anti-communist mujahadeen. After the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan ceased to be a priority for U.S. strategists, but Saudi Arabia and Pakistan continued their support. Involvement in Afghanistan served a strategic interest for Pakistan, which also has a large ethnic Pashtun population, and appealed to the conservative Wahhabi Muslims who hold substantial political clout in Saudi Arabia. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia became partners in the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" and halted their official support of the Taliban. But Gannon believes the Taliban is still receiving support from the ISI. Gannon says, "In Pakistan, the military always hedges its bets." Pakistani officials have repeatedly denied offering support to the Taliban and point to a buildup of tens of thousands of forces on their border with Afghanistan as proof of their commitment to stopping infiltrations.
__________________________________

Try again.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Mike....Iraqi Sunnis favor democracy. 

Democratic concepts are more in line with Sunni ideology since they believe their leaders should be elected from the people.

Fascist concepts are more in line with Shia ideology since they believe that their leaders should come from the 'royal' (for lack of a better word) bloodlines which are 'divinely' choosen.

You are simplifying my position mike...it's not that simple.  I'm wasting my fingers here.

[/quote]

You've been fed a fiction, dude. Iraqi Sunnis HAVE a democracy, if they'd just stop fighting it. There are Sunnis IN the current government, even as a minority since they're about 20% of the population.

Sunnis have proved themselves every comfortable with fascist concepts, see the Taliban, Saddam and Shira law in S.A..

[/quote]

Mike the only point you are making here is that this is complex.  In addition to the Shia/Sunni issue, you have tribal issues etc...

The democracy that Iraq will have will eventually resemble Iran's democracy bro.  We're talking about a paradigm that believes it's leaders are willed by god based on the prophetic bloodline.  Give me a break if you think that 'foundation' can establish a true democracy.

[quote=dude]

Iran didn't support the Taliban Mike:[/quote]

I didn't say Iran supported the Taliban, I simply pointed out the Taliban was SUNNI. Now, why would predominantly Shia Iran support SUNNI Taliban?

This misunderstanding of your is a vestige of your fictional "this side supports democracy, this side supports monarchy". BOTH sects have an element of radicalism that would establish their own sect's version of a theocracy.

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Mike....Iraqi Sunnis favor democracy. 

Democratic concepts are more in line with Sunni ideology since they believe their leaders should be elected from the people.

Fascist concepts are more in line with Shia ideology since they believe that their leaders should come from the 'royal' (for lack of a better word) bloodlines which are 'divinely' choosen.

You are simplifying my position mike...it's not that simple.  I'm wasting my fingers here.

[/quote]

You've been fed a fiction, dude. Iraqi Sunnis HAVE a democracy, if they'd just stop fighting it. There are Sunnis IN the current government, even as a minority since they're about 20% of the population.

Sunnis have proved themselves every comfortable with fascist concepts, see the Taliban, Saddam and Shira law in S.A..

[/quote]

Mike the only point you are making here is that this is complex.  In addition to the Shia/Sunni issue, you have tribal issues etc... [/quote]

Close, it IS more complex than you make it sound because there are elements of fundimentalism on both sides.

[quote=dude]The democracy that Iraq will have will eventually resemble Iran's democracy bro.  We're talking about a paradigm that believes it's leaders are willed by god based on the prophetic bloodline. [/quote]

You keep saying that with zero proof. It's already been proved any number of times that your claim that the two sects differ on theocracy/democracy/monarcy because BOTH sides have fundimentalists that would happily install the worst form of Islamofacist state.

The question is is the Shia majority in Iraq going to install a theocracy with a democratic cover, ala Iran and that seems doubtful at this point. In fact, the doubt is so great that Iran is helping INSURGENTS and not the current elected government, even though it's mostly Shia.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Iran didn't support the Taliban Mike:[/quote]

I didn't say Iran supported the Taliban, I simply pointed out the Taliban was SUNNI. Now, why would predominantly Shia Iran support SUNNI Taliban?

This misunderstanding of your is a vestige of your fictional "this side supports democracy, this side supports monarchy". BOTH sects have an element of radicalism that would establish their own sect's version of a theocracy.

[/quote]

You said Iran was supporting the Sunni insurgency as well.

[quote=dude]

Iran supports the Shia not the Sunnis Mike....you don't understand this at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5108496.stm

[/quote]

I understand it just fine, thanks.

Here’s where you’re right, dude, Iran is assisting Shia INSURGENTS.

Here’s where you’re wrong; everything else.

Iraq Sunnis have absolutely no basis to claim they’re more in synch with democracy because of some overarching belief of their sect. Their sect has happily installed governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan and a monarchy in Saudi Arabia. In their own nation Iraqi Sunnis, when given a chance, installed a dictatorship that persecuted Shia and Kurds alike. I have no idea who ran the seminar you attended, trying to portray Sunnis as fighters for democracy, but clearly they had an interest in propaganda.

Shia, as well, can’t claim their sect has a special warm place for democracy since their sect installed the theocracy in Iran and theirs is the sect of Al Qaeda. In fact, a good bit of the anti-democratic insurgency, evidently with help from Iran, is fighting a fledgling united (Shia majority) government in Iraq as we speak.

The point is the fight isn’t between democracy leaning Sunnis and monarchy favoring Shia. It’s between Shia, Sunni and Kurd who want to establish a more secular state, ala Turkey, versus extremists on both sides who would install their own sect’s version of an Islamofascist state.

I doubt MODERATE Sunni's (the kind you find in Iraq) would establish an Islamofascist state bro.  When they were in control, I don't recall seeing burkas in Bagdhad.  You're spin spin spinning here.

Are we going to talk about the situation in Iraq here or are you going to keep on citing irrelevant points.

Just because Saudi Arabia has a political past of Theocracy has nothing to do with the religious issues.  My understanding is that the royal family is not the religious leadership....unlike Iran. 

Your point is like saying that Christians support Monarchy because there have been Christian monarchies in the past....completley invalid. 

You could make the observation though that it would be a violent outcome if we forced protestant christians to take rule from the catholics (and this is a weak analogy at best)....in fact it was and they were forced to go to America during that era. 

Quit playing 'dodge the ball' here.  Your position is weak and uninformed and as I have pointed out repeatedly, you have made many innaccurate observations.  You sound more like someone who is stuck to their sinking ship as opposed to evaluating what the best ship to sail is. 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Iran supports the Shia not the Sunnis Mike....you don't understand this at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5108496.stm

[/quote]

I understand it just fine, thanks.

Here’s where you’re right, dude, Iran is assisting Shia INSURGENTS.

Here’s where you’re wrong; everything else.

Iraq Sunnis have absolutely no basis to claim they’re more in synch with democracy because of some overarching belief of their sect. Their sect has happily installed governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan and a monarchy in Saudi Arabia. In their own nation Iraqi Sunnis, when given a chance, installed a dictatorship that persecuted Shia and Kurds alike. I have no idea who ran the seminar you attended, trying to portray Sunnis as fighters for democracy, but clearly they had an interest in propaganda.

Shia, as well, can’t claim their sect has a special warm place for democracy since their sect installed the theocracy in Iran and theirs is the sect of Al Qaeda. In fact, a good bit of the anti-democratic insurgency, evidently with help from Iran, is fighting a fledgling united (Shia majority) government in Iraq as we speak.

The point is the fight isn’t between democracy leaning Sunnis and monarchy favoring Shia. It’s between Shia, Sunni and Kurd who want to establish a more secular state, ala Turkey, versus extremists on both sides who would install their own sect’s version of an Islamofascist state.

[/quote]

Mike, assuming your correct (which you're not), you think this reality is conductive to success in Iraq?  Three (or six according to you) competing, impassioned zealots fighting for control. 

We can make these people work together how?

I'm anxiously awaiting your sage insight.

Sorry..

Three or six competing, impassioned factions.

[quote=dude]

I doubt MODERATE Sunni's (the kind you find in Iraq) would establish an Islamofascist state bro. When they were in control, I don't recall seeing burkas in Bagdhad. You're spin spin spinning here. [/quote]

Those MODERATE Sunnis of yours installed a dictatorship that persecuted Shia and Kurds. Some MODERATES there, pal. Some of your MODERATE Sunnis are fighting against an elected government unity just as insurgent (READ: theocratic) Shia are.

[quote=dude]

Are we going to talk about the situation in Iraq here or are you going to keep on citing irrelevant points.[/quote]

When you try to assert that something endemic to Sunnis makes them favorable to democracy it isn’t “irrelevant” to point out that’s just not true and that the Islamists in the Sunni sect has supported all manners of non-democratic governments.

[quote=dude]

Just because Saudi Arabia has a political past of Theocracy has nothing to do with the religious issues. [/quote]

Uh, a theocracy is a government BY a religion, dude, it sure DOES have to do with religious issues. S.A. lives under Shira law, you might want to learn what that is before you go further.

[quote=dude]

My understanding is that the royal family is not the religious leadership....unlike Iran. [/quote]

The royal family has appointed religious leaders and they’re Sunni. They (the mullahs) dictate the laws, the royal family attends to secular matters, living large, finance and international relations. In Iran the religious leaders run the legal system and the government runs secular matters, live large and handle the international stuff. Bottom line, there’s not much of a difference aside from S.A, has a royal family who understands why being our friend is important, the mullahs in Iran feel differently.

[quote=dude]

Your point is like saying that Christians support Monarchy because there have been Christian monarchies in the past....completley invalid. [/quote]

Actually, to use your latest metaphor, you’ve been claiming that Catholics hold religious beliefs that makes them democracy-inclined and that Protestants hold religious beliefs that make them monarchy inclined. When I point out BOTH sides have had governments of both democratic and monarchy form, you change to (fill in nationality here) Catholics support democracy, even though there’s no history of that being true and despite the fact they’re fighting against a democracy in their home country right now.

Clearly this religious component that supports democracy or monarchy just isn’t there.

[quote=dude] Quit playing 'dodge the ball' here. Your position is weak and uninformed and as I have pointed out repeatedly, you have made many innaccurate observations. [/quote]

No, dude, that would be the guy that says the Sunni SECT believes something than makes them a friend of democracy and the Shia SECT believes in something that makes them inclined towards a monarchy, and when the many, many examples to the contrary are mentioned, he retreats to claim that IRAQI Sunnis are inclined to democracy, even though they didn’t have one when they had a chance and are fighting against having one now.

[quote=dude]

Mike, assuming your correct (which you're not), ...[/quote]

No, dude, I am right...

[quote=dude]you think this reality is conductive to success in Iraq?  Three (or six according to you) competing, impassioned zealots fighting for control.  [/quote]

I don't know how you came up with six, but so long as their fighting, there's a problem. Part of the solution is understanding that the enemy isn't Shia OR Sunni, the enemy is the elements of both groups that don't want an elected unity government.

[quote=dude]We can make these people work together how?

I'm anxiously awaiting your sage insight.

[/quote]

They (Sunni and Shia) already live elsewhere (Turkey) in a democracy. That's the answer to your "it won't work" claim. Can we "make" them? That depends.

Done.

Dude and Mr.A with there hero Cindy Sheehan… Three stoogers. Comparing a bad and good day in their minds.



Good day… bad news for our troops and alleys.



Bad day… Lebanon government gets stronger. Abbays in Palestine demands early vote, thus weakening Hezbollah. Iran president loses support throughout country. China comes down hard on North Korea. Wow, all this happened over the past two days.



No wonder you three are jumping up and down trying to prove your theory on victory.

[quote=AirForce]Dude and Mr.A with there hero Cindy Sheehan.. Three stoogers. Comparing a bad and good day in their minds.

Good day... bad news for our troops and alleys.

Bad day... Lebanon government gets stronger. Abbays in Palestine demands early vote, thus weakening Hezbollah. Iran president loses support throughout country. China comes down hard on North Korea. Wow, all this happened over the past two days.

No wonder you three are jumping up and down trying to prove your theory on victory.
[/quote]

Airforce, I have no idea what you're talking about...maybe it's because you have no idea what I'm talking about.  Thanks for playing.  Your ASSumptions are of little interest to me.  That's the problem with you brick heads around here, you open your mouths and take action before you know anything. 

If someone doesn't agree with you that MUST mean they agree with the other side.   This is the epitome of narrow and small minded.  I don't have interest in transacting with those who can't comprehend outside the box they've been fed. 

OK, you all win...I'm a liberal, Clinton loving, pansy ass who thinks that we should send hugs n' kisses to the terrorists.  I love Iran and North Korea and think we should stick our tails between our legs and go running home.....  I'll put a sock in it and leave all the answers to our infallible leader and all the enlightened guys who have so valiantly protected my freedoms in Iraq since they seem to be the only ones qualified to make decisions, being that they fought and killed people and all.  They seem to have the answers and our world is better off in the hands of the military anyway.

Uhhhh…hey guys I’m not sure if this is a good thread to ask this or not, but ummm, I’m wondering if you could tell me which of the wirehouses you think are, you know, like number one?

[quote=joedabrkr]Uhhhh....hey guys I'm not sure if this is a good thread to ask this or not, but ummm, I'm wondering if you could tell me which of the wirehouses you think are, you know, like number one? [/quote]

[quote=dude]

OK, you all win…I’m a liberal, Clinton loving, pansy ass who thinks that we should send hugs n’ kisses to the terrorists.  I love Iran and North Korea and think we should stick our tails between our legs and go running home…  I’ll put a sock in it and leave all the answers to our infallible leader and all the enlightened guys who have so valiantly protected my freedoms in Iraq since they seem to be the only ones qualified to make decisions, being that they fought and killed people and all.  They seem to have the answers and our world is better off in the hands of the military anyway.

correction-
"Second, while I think the situation in Iraq is far from good…"

oops…spell check wouldn’t have caught that.  Bad proofreading and too late an hour…

Why do liberals always seem to be crying?  They always...or let me rephrase...usually complain more than offer viable options.  I am a moderate republican...conservative about many things but liberal on others.  I just don't get caught up in whining and sitting in the corner while I suck my thumb and cry about how I am a victim.

Geeze...you may be a victim...but you have the choice whether or not to STAY a victim.  Therein lies your power.

I read these posts and wonder what the h&^% some people are thinking...

Case in point.  I am against the smoking bans.  All of them.  They are broad and not balanced at all.  I own a cigar company.  I love to smoke a great cigar.  In fact I smoke 3 - 5 a day...  But I have chosen not to complain about the communists that are taking my freedom to smoke OUTSIDE away from me (I get the inside thing...except bars, cigar lounges and smoke shops...WTF...who goes into a cigar lounge and gets offended by smoke?).

So...I lobby to those that can make a difference and work towards what I want...I just don't get caught up complaining about something that I, alone can not change...

OK, you all win…I’m a liberal, Clinton loving, pansy ass who thinks that we should send hugs n’ kisses to the terrorists. I love Iran and North Korea and think we should stick our tails between our legs and go running home…



Sounds like a Dude to me. Glad you opened up and let us know who you really are. CIndy Sheehan would be proud of you.

" I really truly believe this."

This is what is wrong with religion as the center of a person's life (not that it is the center of yours). Belief does not equal reality. If one REALLY reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally believes something, it has no bearing on the reality.

And even if it were [true], is this war the ONLY solution? Couldn't we cut off their suppy to their energy? What if we spent $20 billion dollars on energy solutions? Mega projects that pipe geo cooled air into homes instead of using air conditioners. Slot car highways that travel faster and safer than the killing field/iron icefloes* that claim so many each day. Tidal flow electric generation, More fuel efficient cars. More energy efficient homes.  Etc Etc Etc?

If we could turn to the Middle East and say. "Keep it!"  Then what? What if we had no more business interests in the region (Let's keep Isreal off to the side for right now)? How much would they care about our lifestyle?

"the women who are free to dress as they please "

Are you confusing Afghanistan and Iraq? I think you are. Iraq wasn't the Burka state.

"a few stories that talk about the kids that are now going to school,"

As if they weren't going to school before we blew up the school, killed the teachers and destroyed the economic infrastructure that suported them (yes, I read the article).

"First of all, I don't think people give GW enough credit for making what he felt was the best decision in a historically difficult situation."

So if I disagree with him I'm not giving the credit for the decision?

But you are right (in MY case) I don't think that his decision was in any way based on that historically difficult situation. It was a foregone conclusion that we were going to go to war against Iraq. The doctrine of Preemptive Strike was floated in the GHBush administration, it was just looking for a way out (this would prove in the NeoCons minds that this Bush was really one of them, as opposed to his Poser father).

The plans for Iraq were discussed from day ONE of this Presidency.

This is a big reason why it's hard to believe in the "this is the front line on the war on terror" line.

"Sometimes I think that we forget that this was literally the very first time the continental U.S. was attacked by a foreign enemy essentially in modern history. "

And what, in the cold light of day did we come to realize from it? One thing that we learned is that we are far too big of a nation and an economy for terrorists to be anything more than a nuisance to.

Do you REALY think that there is a country on the planet that could overcome the USA?

When Colin Powell sat there in the UN and said "If Saddam can get his weapons here he could destroy an area 8 times the size of NYC.!"

IF he got EVERYTHING here he could destroy an area less than 240 miles in diameter. No fun for sure, I'm within that circle. But it wouldn't even put more than a dent in the USA. Natural disasters can do worse (remember the floods of the mid 90's? They destroyed an area 60 miles either side of the the Mississippi, we barely flinched).

Our lifestyle is at zero risk from terrorists. Our lifestyle is at risk of fear. We as individuals may be at risk from terrorists, but our nation is not.

And every nation on Earth, every thinking leader knows this. It takes egos with armies as had both Napoleon and Hitler to attempt otherwise (they both made the mistake with Russia). There is no one even remotely on the horizon with this combination.

Mr. A

* Iron Icefloes...

I like that one! As we allow our demented parents to climb into automobiles and drive them down to Florida. It's like a lottery, with they make it or am I coming into an inheritance?

I kill me!

Mr. A

[quote=AirForce]OK, you all win...I'm a liberal, Clinton loving, pansy ass who thinks that we should send hugs n' kisses to the terrorists. I love Iran and North Korea and think we should stick our tails between our legs and go running home.....

Sounds like a Dude to me. Glad you opened up and let us know who you really are. CIndy Sheehan would be proud of you.[/quote]

Ah, what this country has become. If you can't attack the belief attack the believer. Desent is unpatriotic as is anything less than 100% unconditional support for what our government is doing. Sad really, considering that our country was built on desent and questioning the status quo.

Of course there are many countries where desent is not an option, nor is questioning government. They are not pleasant places to live. We, unless we are very careful, could become one of them.

And then there's Cindy Sheehan. A right wing lightning rod. Everyone who desents on Iraq is a Cindy Sheehan lover. Personally, I find her to a very mild antiwar protester, as antiwar protesters go. By Vietnam era standards she wouldn't even register on the national scene. But the right wing handlers decided to campaign her as the anti-Bush.Their followers fell for it hook, line and sinker, as is evidenced by AF's post. PT Barnum said it right. Amazing to watch people who don't even know they're being sold a line of propaganda.

As for Iraq, I'm on board early as saying we shouldn't have invaded. Bush is on record as having an Iraq agenda 911 was excuse to execute it. At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan. Then I supported the war thinking that maybe bringing democracy to that country would be a good thing. However, now we are caught in their civil war.

The Vietnam War was lost sometime between 1968 and 69. Staying until 1975 did nothing but double the number of dead American soldiers. And then as now the battle cry was we can't leave. The reasoning was something known as the Domino Theory. That is if we allowed the communist to over run South Vietnam the entire pacific rim would fall to communism like Dominos, one after the other. That theat then is as real as terrorism is today. The Domino Theory was wrong.

I don't know what the answer is for Iraq, but, repeat after me: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of ?

Want to attack me on something else, try this

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims. And "to get" is the wrong tense because FEMA has yet to restore that housing. Nice huh? Can't pin that one on Brownie. I sure hope my family never needs these guys.

The word is “dissent”.  If you’re going to debate an issue, please use the verbiage correctly.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims. And "to get" is the wrong tense because FEMA has yet to restore that housing. Nice huh? Can't pin that one on Brownie. I sure hope my family never needs these guys.

Once again, the inability to stay on topic and throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks.  The subject of this tread is Victory  in Iraq not the FEMA ineptitudes or what color jammies George Bush wears to bed.

I, like some of the other posters consider myself a moderate.  Conservative in fiscal issues, moderate to liberal on social issues and very conservative and militant when it comes to the safety of my Country AND myself. 

I also resent being pushed into a stereotype as a Bush loving clone because I support certain actions AKA: using military force to control if not eradicate radical Islamists who wish us no good.  I also resent the stereotyping of "BushMcChimpHilter" by the left in this country and their seeming Amazing Kreskin like abilities to read his mind and motives.  That's a really good power that I hope you all are using in your careers as financial advisors. 

I don't think Bush is a "God" or a perfect human being.  I do think that he has the best interests of our Country and its citizens at heart.  We can take issue with some of his decisions, but trying to demonize and denigrate the human being only negates any validity of your arguments.  When people stoop to that level they have lost any credibility in my eyes.

Presenting opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. 

Its my opinion that the "War on Terror" consists of a wider swath that just Iraq and is not just a recent development.  Here are some supporting factual events upon which I draw my conclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/mod ern.html

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

The left focuses laser like on a small area of Iraq and on one person (Usama Bin Laden) and is willfully ignoring of the wider picture.  The wider geographic picture and the wider demograpchic picture. The left focuses on one person to blame (George Bush) and ignores the historical events that have brought us to this. Have we, the United States, made diplomatic mistakes in the last 20 years that have led up to this juncture.....sure.  But we can't continually look backward and whine about it.    We must go forward.

The left wants it all to just go away.  Well it won't. They think we should talk and play nice with psycopathic killers. Well, I won't.

It is my opinion that just putting "more troops on the ground" in Iraq is going to be a futile disaster unless we also go in with the determination to "kick a$$ and take names".... as they say in my neck of the woods.  Tying one hand behind our backs is not a way to win a war.  The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades.  We are now paying the price.

An essay by Pat Conroy's book "My Losing Season" via a link from Power Line.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=397352

Hope this gives some perspective to all of you young posters who mean well.   Pat thought he was in the right also. 

Hope this also gives you guys some perspective on my mindset and my perspective.   Those years aren't just history that I have read about in books or that have been filtered through the distorted lense of college professor's biases to me. I lived through those years and don't want to see them happen again.

"I do think that he has the best interests of our Country and its citizens at heart."

That's a really good power that I hope you all are NOT using in your career as financial advisor. 

Bush has displayed that he is not interested in the opinions or needs of those not with him. You're either with us or you're against us.

"The left focuses laser like on a small area of Iraq and on one person (Usama Bin Laden) and is willfully ignoring of the wider picture. "

OSAMA AND IRAQ ARE NOT THE SAME ISSUE!

That you will still bring those two up in the same sentence shows a fundamental disconnect with the FACTS of this issue. 

"The left focuses on one person to blame (George Bush) and ignores the historical events that have brought us to this. Have we, the United States, made diplomatic mistakes in the last 20 years that have led up to this juncture.....sure.  But we can't continually look backward and whine about it.    We must go forward. "

OK, so we're wrong to ignore the past and wrong about looking at the past?

You are babbling. I'm sorry to have to say so, but the evidence is clear.

"as they say in my neck of the woods"

Your neck of the woods ought to be spending it's time looking for the blockage, 'cause there's no blood getting to the brains of your woods!"

"The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades. "

Who did that? You want to know? He was Secretary of Defense under President Bush I. His name was DICK CHENEY! Look it up!

"Presenting opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. "

Point out the facts that you have presented please.

I pointed out mine and I pointed out my opinions too. Will you do the same?

Bet you won't.

Oh, and it will also be nice if your fact support some sort of conclusion too (as opposed to the fact that you mentioned about the downsized military which runs counter to your assertion that we have men of talent in office.)

Mr. A

"An essay by Pat Conroy's book "My Losing Season"

I guess if an essay is written by someone who has read a book is good, then an essay by someone who has written a book must be better and an essay written BY a book must be even bestest!

Mr. A

[quote=Starka]The word is "dissent".  If you're going to debate an issue, please use the verbiage correctly.[/quote]

Whew, did I write that? OK, which one of you guys is using my screen name?

Actually I've had a life long battle with malapropism. I've tried everything, Malaprops Anonymous, The Mrs. Malaprop Clinic, and the Just Spell No Program. Yet the back sliding continues.

I've used this disability to my advantage. Once while in a high class night club(they let me in anyway) my small group got into a debate about the meaning of a word. I thought it meant one thing and the rest of the group thought it meant something else. To settle the debate we determined that we needed a qualified outside opinion. An opinion that could only be rendered by the most beautiful woman in the club. Since I couldn't act as arbiter I decided that I should be our group's emissary. So off I went. Turned out that I was wrong. And later that night she showed me just how wrong I was. That led to an long term relationship. The word: Asexual. After that relationship ended my best friend and I realized we had hit on something with the malaprop thing. Typical in these clubs woman would ask what you did for a living. We'd answer that we were Malaproptologist. If they answered "Where's your office?" we knew we had a live one. So malapropism has been good for me.

As for your suggestion I'll pass. You can look upon my bad grammar, misspellings, and malopropisms as a gauge of my intelligence. Or you can look at them as I do, scars on fine leather. The choice is yours. Of course I already know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

If you can't attack the belief attack the believer.

I'll bet you leave the E off potatoe too!

Mr. A

[quote=babbling looney]

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims. And "to get" is the wrong tense because FEMA has yet to restore that housing. Nice huh? Can't pin that one on Brownie. I sure hope my family never needs these guys.

Once again, the inability to stay on topic and throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks.  The subject of this tread is Victory  in Iraq not the FEMA ineptitudes or what color jammies George Bush wears to bed.

I, like some of the other posters consider myself a moderate.  Conservative in fiscal issues, moderate to liberal on social issues and very conservative and militant when it comes to the safety of my Country AND myself. 

I also resent being pushed into a stereotype as a Bush loving clone because I support certain actions AKA: using military force to control if not eradicate radical Islamists who wish us no good.  I also resent the stereotyping of "BushMcChimpHilter" by the left in this country and their seeming Amazing Kreskin like abilities to read his mind and motives.  That's a really good power that I hope you all are using in your careers as financial advisors. 

I don't think Bush is a "God" or a perfect human being.  I do think that he has the best interests of our Country and its citizens at heart.  We can take issue with some of his decisions, but trying to demonize and denigrate the human being only negates any validity of your arguments.  When people stoop to that level they have lost any credibility in my eyes.

Presenting opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. 

Its my opinion that the "War on Terror" consists of a wider swath that just Iraq and is not just a recent development.  Here are some supporting factual events upon which I draw my conclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/mod ern.html

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

The left focuses laser like on a small area of Iraq and on one person (Usama Bin Laden) and is willfully ignoring of the wider picture.  The wider geographic picture and the wider demograpchic picture. The left focuses on one person to blame (George Bush) and ignores the historical events that have brought us to this. Have we, the United States, made diplomatic mistakes in the last 20 years that have led up to this juncture.....sure.  But we can't continually look backward and whine about it.    We must go forward.

The left wants it all to just go away.  Well it won't. They think we should talk and play nice with psycopathic killers. Well, I won't.

It is my opinion that just putting "more troops on the ground" in Iraq is going to be a futile disaster unless we also go in with the determination to "kick a$$ and take names".... as they say in my neck of the woods.  Tying one hand behind our backs is not a way to win a war.  The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades.  We are now paying the price.

[/quote]

First- The problem with Iraq is not a marginalized military. Inept leadership from the top has brought us to this place. The war was ill conceived and is ill executed. Our military was marginalized after Vietnam, yet as bad as things were Desert Storm's mission was accomplished with ease. So the problem isn't a marginallized military. The problem is a failure to understand the big picture.

Second- Inept is as inept does. The same inept leadership that has bungled Iraq and the war on terror is the same group that has bungled the Katrina response. Ok, we can just talk about a limited area of the ineptitude but the two are one. The problem with Iraq isn't in Iraq, it's in Washington DC. The problem with the Katrina response isn't on the Gulf Coast, it's in Washington DC.

Third- The war on terror can't be won militarily. Idealogic wars never are. Communism comes to mind. This isn't about who has the biggest military and the most guns. It's about winning hearts and minds. How are we doing in that department in the middle east?

Fourth- If the Iraqi people can't stand alone they can't stand at all. It's time for another vote. Not here, but there. Should we stay or should we go? Let the purple fingers decide.

Looks like there were a few deletions of posts…

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I'll bet you leave the E off potatoe too!

Mr. A

[/quote]

Float like a butterfly

Sting like a bee

I am the smartest

Potato no E?

And even if it were [true], is this war the ONLY solution? Couldn't we cut off their suppy to their energy?

No, we couldn't. We were even losing the sanction and after 12 years of Saddam not living up to his agreements...

 What if we spent $20 billion dollars on energy solutions?

AQ doesn't care what energy sources you lose. It's just amazing how people continue to fail to understand them.

If we could turn to the Middle East and say. "Keep it!"  

Even if the entire world could do that, that not what this is about...

.It was a foregone conclusion that we were going to go to war against Iraq.

Fiction...

 The plans for Iraq were discussed from day ONE of this Presidency.

Given that regime change was official US policy since 1998 and since Clinton had to attack Iraq twice to get Saddam to live up to his agreements to the US and UN it would have been foolish not to cosider that contingency.

This is a big reason why it's hard to believe in the "this is the front line on the war on terror" line.

Even if you can't bring yourself to believe Bush, perhaps you could believe AQ. They say the same thing.

And what, in the cold light of day did we come to realize from it? One thing that we learned is that we are far too big of a nation and an economy for terrorists to be anything more than a nuisance to.

Simply delusional. 3,000 Americans were killed, the economy went into the tank and it was a "nuisance". Just amazing...

Do you REALY think that there is a country on the planet that could overcome the USA?

"Overcome"? As in occupy? You really haven't a clue as to what's going on here...

IF he got EVERYTHING here he could destroy an area less than 240 miles in diameter.

I feel much better now...

Our lifestyle is at zero risk from terrorists.

I had to read that twice. It's simply stunning....

Ah... Rod McCuen, gotta love him.

Mr. A

 And then there's Cindy Sheehan. A right wing lightning rod. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

If you like, I can give you dozens of cites from the MSM and liberal/left writers about how "Peace Mom" was the catalyist for the "peace movemnent". It's rather strange to see that twisting into "right wing lightening rod"

 Personally, I find her to a very mild antiwar protester, as antiwar protesters go. By <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Vietnam era standards she wouldn't even register on the national scene.

I donno, she blamed the president for the death of her volunteer, re-enlisted son and that the terrorists who actually killed him were innocent. Saying Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist. Posing with Chavez. What does she have to do, appear in a video with some guys about to cut the head off an “infidel”?

But the right wing handlers decided to campaign her as the anti-Bush.

I have to assume that’s a typo. It sure wasn’t the “right wing” to made “Peace Mom” what she is.

Bush is on record as having an Iraq agenda 911 was excuse to execute it.

I don’t even know what that means. If you’re saying Bush said POST-9/11 we can’t let Saddam shake off sanctions having never submitted fully to WMD inspections, I agree. If you’re saying Bush linked Saddam to 9/11, well, no.

 At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan.

AQ members and other terrorists had been living the fat life in Saddam’s Iraq long before we went to Afghanistan.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims.

Let me guess, FEMA was following regs about how long they were to provide housing before state and local agencies were supposed to take over the job. FEMA can’t win. They made it easy to get funds and help to people and there was outrage a short time later when it turned out money flowed too quickly to be well accounted for. Now they get banged for not being lenient enough. I have news for you, I went through a hurricane and the resulting FEMA process, it’s never neat and tidy, it’s catch as catch can in a disaster area.

[quote=babbling looney]

Once again, the inability to stay on topic and throw everything up against the wall to see what sticks.  [/quote]

It's the wack-a-mole debating method. It's often used by people who know each and every one of their specific talking points can't withstand a close examination.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"I do think that he has the best interests of our Country and its citizens at heart."

That's a really good power that I hope you all are NOT using in your career as financial advisor. 

Bush has displayed that he is not interested in the opinions or needs of those not with him. You're either with us or you're against us.

So.  I agree with this.  You are either with us or against us.  Why should I care about the opinions and needs of my enemies?

"The left focuses laser like on a small area of Iraq and on one person (Usama Bin Laden) and is willfully ignoring of the wider picture. "

OSAMA AND IRAQ ARE NOT THE SAME ISSUE!

Where did I say that?  Do you have reading comprehension issues.

That you will still bring those two up in the same sentence shows a fundamental disconnect with the FACTS of this issue. 

"The left focuses on one person to blame (George Bush) and ignores the historical events that have brought us to this. Have we, the United States, made diplomatic mistakes in the last 20 years that have led up to this juncture.....sure.  But we can't continually look backward and whine about it.    We must go forward. "

OK, so we're wrong to ignore the past and wrong about looking at the past?

When did I say that?  We should learn from the past.  We should not dwell on the past.

You are babbling. I'm sorry to have to say so, but the evidence is clear.

"as they say in my neck of the woods"

Your neck of the woods ought to be spending it's time looking for the blockage, 'cause there's no blood getting to the brains of your woods!"

Thank you for proving again that the left cannot long hold a discussion without getting nasty and calling names.   Do I make fun of your typos and call you names?

"The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades. "

Who did that? You want to know? He was Secretary of Defense under President Bush I. His name was DICK CHENEY! Look it up!

So what?  Again ...looking at the past and pointing fingers instead of trying to look ahead and fix the mistakes that have been made by decades of both Democrats and Repbulicans.  Do you dispute that the military has been reduced and marginalized . That they have, among other things, been ejected from recruiting in institutions of higher learning.....now there is an oxymoron.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1730016/posts

Opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. "

Point out the facts that you have presented please.

I pointed out mine and I pointed out my opinions too. Will you do the same?

Bet you won't.

Sure I did.  Those little blue underline thingies are links to listings of historical events upon which I draw my conclusions.  I see that you have conveniently deleted them. 

Oh, and it will also be nice if your fact support some sort of conclusion too (as opposed to the fact that you mentioned about the downsized military which runs counter to your assertion that we have men of talent in office.)

Point out to me where I said we have men of "talent" in office.  You can try to put words in my mouth all you want, but it won't work.  You can spin like a top and screw yourself into the ground. Making up things isn't helpful.

Mr. A

"Where did I say that?  Do you have reading comprehension issues?"

No, but apparently have writing comprehension issues!

"When did I say that?  We should learn from the past.  We should not dwell on the past."

I don't know the exact time, but pretty much right before I cited where you said it.

"Thank you for proving again that the left cannot long hold a discussion without getting nasty and calling names.   Do I make fun of your typos and call you names?"

YES! You just called me the Left again you nutjob!

"So what?  Again ...looking at the past and pointing fingers instead of trying to look ahead and fix the mistakes that have been made by decades of both Democrats and Repbulicans.  Do you dispute that the military has been reduced and marginalized "

You're more fun that eating peanuts! You say that the history that you look at is important to look at but not important as soon as I look at it and explain why in the present day we are looking at what we're looking at.

It would be one thing if it was some Elmo Guggutz that dismantled the military and then went to live in obscurity and had nothing whatever to do with the present state of the Military but it wasn't Elmo! It was DICK CHENEY who was the architect of the downsized military after George Bush I "won" the Cold War "Desert Storm and "proved" that "smart bombs" were all we needed to fight any future wars.

It's evidence of the utter contempt for you that this administration has. How can they respect you if you are stupid enough to fall for the lies they know they are telling?

"Sure I did.  Those little blue underline thingies are links to listings of historical events upon which I draw my conclusions.  I see that you have conveniently deleted them"

Firstly, those are called sources, those should be used to evidence your facts, not provide them. I should not have to read your source material to find the facts that you are presenting and supposedly basing an opinion on.

Secondly, I have not and can not conveniently or otherwise deleted anything.

I like you, you're silly!

"Point out to me where I said we have men of "talent" in office. "

You're right, there's no need to infer that you mean the men in office have talent. Only a crazy person would insist that we should blindly follow leaders with no talent.

And besides, that's history! I'm paying too much attention to things that were written entire minutes ago! I should leave interpreting history to you and then I should stand there and take it as you scold me for not spending enough time understanding the history that I shouldn't be wasting my time looking at!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks for the laughs Babs! You are the best!

Mr. A

Thirdly, That blue underlined thingy was a link to.... AN OPINION FORUM!

You are absolutely the cherry on the top!

If you're a put on you're great! The greatest, and I've seen some really great ones, heck I've been a great one but not nearly as good as you are! You are FANTASTIC!

If you're not... err nevermind.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades. "

Who did that? You want to know? He was Secretary of Defense under President Bush I. His name was DICK CHENEY! Look it up!

[quote=mranonymous2u]

It would be one thing if it was some Elmo Guggutz that dismantled the military and then went to live in obscurity and had nothing whatever to do with the present state of the Military but it wasn't Elmo! It was DICK CHENEY who was the architect of the downsized military after George Bush I "won" the Cold War "Desert Storm and "proved" that "smart bombs" were all we needed to fight any future wars. [/quote]

What a steamy pile of gross exaggertation and distortion. The Bush 1 administration did not "dismantle" the military. POST Cold War, the military was down-sized to a size appropriate for the end of the need for large numbers of heavy armored divisions in Europe.

HOWEVER, the cutting continued after Bush 1 left office (I was in, I recall clearly). The fat was gone and cuts went into the meat. The Army went from 18 dividsions, to 14, 12 and then 10 by 1996. More to the point, the military wasn't reshaped to fit the threat we see clearly today.

I'm loath to do a lot of Clinton bashing on this since it really took 9/11 to open all eyes (well not all, some of them here sure are sealed shut) but the "Cheney dismantled the military" is just plain hogwash.

[quote=mikebutler222]Looks like there were a few deletions of posts…[/quote]

Why do you say that?

“Where did I say that?  Do you have reading comprehension issues?”

No, but apparently have writing comprehension issues!

SB ... apparently you have...

Apparently I do too!

Mr. A

Friends (I mean this),

Interestingly, I just recieved an email from one of my best friends that was forwarded from another friend.  He is flying a blackhawk in Iraq.  Because the letter was so sincere and poignant to our discussion I will post it for all of you to read:

//–>

Joe,

Look it up!

It was Cheney who was the architect of the downsizing of the military. FACT

Facts is facts, and Clinton's popularity amongst the military is of zero import to those facts.

No wonder you are so easily deluded, you don't know anything.

here's something else you might want to know, when Stephen Clobert says "I don't have to know with my brain, I know here in the gut!" He's being sarcastic. He's making fun of those folks who think things are true because they really really and truly believe that they are true.

I still like you though. You're no Babbling Looney, but I still think you're an A OK guy!

Mr. A 

Dude!

Seriously, DUDE!

Your name is MARK?

Kidding.

Thanks for the letter.

It's truly disheartening to hear how dispirited your friend is. he seems about to be headed for a "God doubting crisis" too. Maybe that is the bottom he bounces off (instead of abandoning his faith).

I know he doesn't know me, but if it comes up, please tell him that I admire him.

Mr. A

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=mikebutler222]Looks like there were a few deletions of posts....[/quote]

Why do you say that?
[/quote]

It seemed that people were responding to posts that didn't exist. I probably just missed them. My bad.

Thirdly, That blue underlined thingy was a link to.... AN OPINION FORUM!

Let me repost for you.  I don't think that PBS or the US Government are actually opinion forum forums.  

Here you go.

Its my opinion that the "War on Terror" consists of a wider swath that just Iraq and is not just a recent development.  Here are some supporting factual events upon which I draw my conclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/mod ern.html

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

[quote=mranonymous2u]

It was Cheney who was the architect of the downsizing of the military. FACT [/quote]

Downsizing a military built to face a now extinct USSR is not "dismantling" it. Furthermore the reductions by the Bush 1 adinsitration were followed by more cuts during the Clinton administration. Your desire to demonize Cheney is obviously stronger than your interest in the facts.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Facts is facts, and Clinton's popularity amongst the military is of zero import to those facts. [/quote]

On the contray, some of the problem many in uniform had with the Clinton adminsitration centered on the cuts into the meat of the services.

[quote=mranonymous2u] ...when Stephen Clobert says ...[/quote]

If you're watching Cobert we know at least where part of your problem comes from. That's a big an indicator as someone on the right saying "When Rush says"....

[quote=dude]

Some think that just because we are over here that soldiers have a better opinion of what is going on but I think ours is more bias than most. [/quote]

Let me go get that 20 lbs bag of salt as I read this....

"Thank you for proving again that the left cannot long hold a discussion without getting nasty and calling names.   Do I make fun of your typos and call you names?"

YES! You just called me the Left again you nutjob!

Wow. You think that infering that you are "Left", which by the way you admitted to being a liberal Democrat, is calling you names?   Are you ashamed of being a liberal Democrat?  If I wanted to call you names, you will certainly know it when it happens.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Dude!

Seriously, DUDE!

Your name is MARK?

Kidding.

Thanks for the letter.

It's truly disheartening to hear how dispirited your friend is. he seems about to be headed for a "God doubting crisis" too. Maybe that is the bottom he bounces off (instead of abandoning his faith).

I know he doesn't know me, but if it comes up, please tell him that I admire him.

Mr. A

[/quote]

No my name is not Mark...this was a message forwarded by my friend 'Mark' from my very good friend 'Josh'.  I doubt this will be a faith abandoning situation for him, he's one of the strongest, most commited men I have known.  I haven't heard from him for quite a while and when I read this email this morning, I started to feel the tears well up (I miss him very much). 

To be honest, I was taken aback in the timing of his letter relative to this discussion.....I've been experiencing alot of synchronicities lately.

[quote=babbling looney]

Wow. You think that infering that you are "Left", which by the way you admitted to being a liberal Democrat, is calling you names?  [/quote]

That was my first thought as well

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Some think that just because we are over here that soldiers have a better opinion of what is going on but I think ours is more bias than most. [/quote]

Let me go get that 20 lbs bag of salt as I read this....

[/quote]

Mike, your an a-hole in the extreme.  I feel sorry for you that your that callous.  I will no longer waste my time with you.  If you are going to question my integrity then why waste my breath with you.

F*ck off.

your=you’re

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

Some think that just because we are over here that soldiers have a better opinion of what is going on but I think ours is more bias than most. [/quote]

Let me go get that 20 lbs bag of salt as I read this....

[/quote]

Mike, your an a-hole in the extreme.  I feel sorry for you that your that callous.  I will no longer waste my time with you.  If you are going to question my integrity then why waste my breath with you.

F*ck off.

[/quote]

Sure thing, dude, we're suppose to accept as 100% fact, a letter that just came to you from a friend in Iraq that you've never mentioned before, and which, btw, supports your standing position. 

A letter where a soldier on the ground says the views of those actually in uniform and there are bias and the press is objective, yeah, by golly, that's a common point of view from people in uniform....

http://web.mac.com/joshthemule/iWeb/Site/Welcome.html

His website AS*HOLE!

Liars are often the ones most suspicious of others lying to them.

How’s spitting on one of our good men in uniform feel there MikeyB?

He who knows no evil suspects none.

That's where I feel misunderstood.  My opinion is borne out of LOVE for these people (both our soldiers and innocent Iraqi's) and a hope that their efforts WON'T be in vain.

Just because my opinion and position is different from another is no indication that I'm a 'liberal, unpatriotic snob'.  My life experiences have taught me different things than the experiences of others.  I generally believe violence breeds more violence (there are exceptions of course).

I could just as easily say that those promoting war in Iraq are unpatriotic to waste our lives and resources on a country who's population doesn't want to change.  Sounds to me like the epitome of anti-patriotism to me.

I recognize the issue is not as simple as I illustrated, but it makes my point.

oops…bad grammar again.  Mike, you got me fired up over that one…my mistake for taking you too seriously.

babs,

Puleese! You use the term 'The Left' as a pejoritive term all of the time and now this one time I'm supposed to inject MY definition into what you say?

Sorry. No will do.

But it does go to show why you are so confused about everything you think is perfectly clear, you expect the reader to differentiate between voices in your head.

Just like I'm supposed to discern between which blue underlined thingy has "facts" and which one has opinions.

Dude,

The guy is scroll fodder, he's not worth having a discussion with because he thinks the whole exercise of discussion is about the disrepresentation of what is said.

I don't even read his posts. I don't know why he bothers to cite me in them.

Mr. A

[quote=babbling looney][quote=mranonymous2u]

"The Military has been gradually reduced and marginalized for decades. "

Who did that? You want to know? He was Secretary of Defense under President Bush I. His name was DICK CHENEY! Look it up!

So what?  Again ...looking at the past and pointing fingers instead of trying to look ahead and fix the mistakes that have been made by decades of both Democrats and Repbulicans.  Do you dispute that the military has been reduced and marginalized . That they have, among other things, been ejected from recruiting in institutions of higher learning.....now there is an oxymoron.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1730016/posts

Opinions in a debate as opinions is a qualified tactic as long as you support those opinions with FACTS and not just more opinions. "

Point out the facts that you have presented please.

Sure I did.  Those little blue underline thingies are links to listings of historical events upon which I draw my conclusions.  I see that you have conveniently deleted them. 

[/quote] [/quote]

Which opinion did the little blue underline thingy provide facts for?

Mr. A

[quote=mikebutler222]

 And then there's Cindy Sheehan. A right wing lightning rod. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

If you like, I can give you dozens of cites from the MSM and liberal/left writers about how "Peace Mom" was the catalyist for the "peace movemnent". It's rather strange to see that twisting into "right wing lightening rod"

It is the right that has made her the poster girl for everything anti-Bush.

 Personally, I find her to a very mild antiwar protester, as antiwar protesters go. By <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Vietnam era standards she wouldn't even register on the national scene.

I donno, she blamed the president for the death of her volunteer, re-enlisted son and that the terrorists who actually killed him were innocent. Saying Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist. Posing with Chavez. What does she have to do, appear in a video with some guys about to cut the head off an “infidel”?

Exactly the right wing diatribe I speak of. She's a mother who lost her son. She's gonna say and do a lot of things no doubt some not so smart. I don't think any of her actions paint her as anything more than what she is, a person in pain who wants the killing to stop. You want the killing to stop too, don't you? It's the right that elevates her to something more than a mother who is against the war.

But the right wing handlers decided to campaign her as the anti-Bush.

I have to assume that’s a typo. It sure wasn’t the “right wing” to made “Peace Mom” what she is.

It's the right that has marginalized her anti war stance in an attempt to paint desent, ops make that dissent, as unpatriotic. The right has latched on to such garbage as Sheehan is helping the enemy. As if they need any help defeating this President.

Bush is on record as having an Iraq agenda 911 was excuse to execute it.

I don’t even know what that means. If you’re saying Bush said POST-9/11 we can’t let Saddam shake off sanctions having never submitted fully to WMD inspections, I agree. If you’re saying Bush linked Saddam to 9/11, well, no.

Prior to 9/11 Bush had made "Dealing with Iraq" a priority of his admin. Dealing with can correctly be read as militarily. It was just a matter of when and how. Shortly after 9/11 Cheney or maybe it was Rummy ordered Richard Clark to find an Iraq connection to the terrorist attacks. Problem was there was none and they were told so. Yet instead of that news flash stopping the admin from moving forward with the invade Iraq plan they merely changed the reasoning for invasion to WMD. This even though there was no hard evidence that Iraq wasn't in compliance with UN sanctions. We made a strong case that it was our belief that they weren't, however, right up to the day of the invasion military intell officers charged with finding WMDs worried about the complete lack of actual targets. It looked like they had WMDs but we'd not seen any prior to the war starting. Yet it is why we went to war. Like I said, Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to execute his Iraq plan. This is outlined in Woodward's newest book "State of Denial." Woodward is noone's schill. Read and then render judgement.

 At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan.

AQ members and other terrorists had been living the fat life in Saddam’s Iraq long before we went to Afghanistan.

As well as Saudi Arabia, Yeman, and a host of other middle eastern and North/Central Africian countries, not to mention Malaysia. Why not invade them too?

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims.

Let me guess, FEMA was following regs about how long they were to provide housing before state and local agencies were supposed to take over the job. FEMA can’t win. They made it easy to get funds and help to people and there was outrage a short time later when it turned out money flowed too quickly to be well accounted for. Now they get banged for not being lenient enough. I have news for you, I went through a hurricane and the resulting FEMA process, it’s never neat and tidy, it’s catch as catch can in a disaster area.

FEMA made it easy? Now that's a typo right? Actually the way FEMA handed out the money to the republican faithful was easy and probably criminal. After completely bungling the clean up, not helping many if not most of those in need, you're right, the big hand struck 12 and FEMA threw all those people it should have helped out on their butts. They followed that up with letters that identified only in code how, & why those in need had been denied. The court ordered an apology for that insult. So the story is inept agency fails in its mandate, and then uses the rule book to deny benefits, pack up and go home.

You folks have been having way too much fun with this thread.  It took me a while to get caught up.

So now the subject has changed from victory in Iraq to victory in Louisiana?  You'd better start reading the code of Napoleon.

No agency could possibly have been adequately funded and prepared for disaster on the scale of Katrina and Rita.  Programs like FEMA are always standing toward the rear of the soup line.

The aftermath of these tragedies was predictible confusion.  What was shameless was the media and the left using it as another vehicle with which to bash the administration. 

This has been a generalized theme of the opposition since GW was elected.  To latch on to anything negative that happens and blame the president, irregardless of true culpability.

irregardless?  Are you sure?

Exactly! Irregardless of the true culprit!

Irregardless of the favortism and cronyism that was exposed in this administration.

Irregardless of the fact that the administration was not in the least bit prepared for another terrorist strike on this nation! They couldn't even handle a threat they KNEW was on it's way! That was the reason that Katrina was the beginning of the end for Bush et al. Because we found out just how competant his team was, and it's scarry!

We let this team spend billions of dollars, thinking they were making a cracker-jack response team. Then we saw what our billions bought us!

We thought, "Hey, at least we know that if there's another 911, Homeland Security will be ready to pick up the shattered pieces. If there's a biological terror hit, they'll be able to bring it under control right away!" We were irregadrless of the facts, before Katrina.

Once we regarded them, we knew what they were and who was culpable.

Mr. A 

[quote=dude]irregardless?  Are you sure?[/quote]

He meant regardless but then again I get totally get it with the misuse and misspelling of words.

I just couldn't resist a little sucker punch...all in good fun.

[quote=Pandale]

You folks have been having way too much fun with this thread.  It took me a while to get caught up.

So now the subject has changed from victory in Iraq to victory in Louisiana?  You'd better start reading the code of Napoleon.

No agency could possibly have been adequately funded and prepared for disaster on the scale of Katrina and Rita.  Programs like FEMA are always standing toward the rear of the soup line.

The aftermath of these tragedies was predictible confusion.  What was shameless was the media and the left using it as another vehicle with which to bash the administration. 

This has been a generalized theme of the opposition since GW was elected.  To latch on to anything negative that happens and blame the president, irregardless of true culpability.

[/quote]

Let me ask you something. Have you seen the video of Bush at some event or press conference telling us that the reason that the response was so badly botched was that he had no idea about the magnitude of the storm? If you haven't, it's must watch TV. REGARDLESS of whether you've seen it, those pesky left leaning journalist have matched it up with another video. In this one, a briefing to Bush by the head of the Natl Hurricane Center in Miami. Anyone watching and listening can clearly hear the briefer tell Bush that it's a cat 4 storm that may go to cat 5 and WILL hit New Orleans or close enough and will be a federal disaster. To which Bush responds that he understands.

That briefing took place a day before landfall clearly contradicts the president's claim that he didn't know how bad it was going to be and thus didn't push to get the response rolling. He is, in impolite terms, caught in a lie on the video. Then there's Chertoff telling reporters he didn't know people were trapped at the Superdome while at the same time CNN was showing those trapped people. And yet it is we, who demand accountablity, who are wrong?

The admin has no place to hide on this so they've spun their well documented Katrina response failure into a left wing political attack. What's really unbelievable is that there are people who have bought into the spin. Pandale, you come to mind here.

Iraq and Katrina are linked by the same inept and non forthright leadership.

Sorry, regardless.

You can't blame the president for everything that goes wrong, yet that has been the tactic.  I'll admit it has been a successfull strategy, but is gaining political ground in this manner worth the consequences.  Does it, in fact assist our adversaries?

What people forget about Iraq is that we are not dealing with enemies that are a bunch of idiots.  They are quite intelligent and well versed in methods to influence events through military tactics as well as our own political processes and media. 

Not every failure in Iraq is the fault of the administration.  All wars have failures.  All wars have failures and all have cost.  The behavior of our media and opposition have undermined the ability of this country to wage an effective war. 

Example:  Abu Graib.  Excuse me, torture?  That kind of torture reminded me of the comfy chair skit in Monty Python!  The media had a feeding frenzy with it. 

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

 And then there's Cindy Sheehan. A right wing lightning rod. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

If you like, I can give you dozens of cites from the MSM and liberal/left writers about how "Peace Mom" was the catalyist for the "peace movemnent". It's rather strange to see that twisting into "right wing lightening rod"

It is the right that has made her the poster girl for everything anti-Bush.

The right didn't create her, it's awfully weird to have you blame the right for her high profile.

 Personally, I find her to a very mild antiwar protester, as antiwar protesters go. By <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Vietnam era standards she wouldn't even register on the national scene.

I donno, she blamed the president for the death of her volunteer, re-enlisted son and that the terrorists who actually killed him were innocent. Saying Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist. Posing with Chavez. What does she have to do, appear in a video with some guys about to cut the head off an “infidel”?

Exactly the right wing diatribe I speak of.

Since when is quoting the woman, her own words a "right wing diatribe"?

 I don't think any of her actions paint her as anything more than what she is, a person in pain who wants the killing to stop. You want the killing to stop too, don't you? It's the right that elevates her to something more than a mother who is against the war.

You really need to stop blaming the right for this darling/creation of the left. While I understand her pain, trying to paint her as someone who simply wants to stop the killing is, well, disingenious at best.

But the right wing handlers decided to campaign her as the anti-Bush.

I have to assume that’s a typo. It sure wasn’t the “right wing” to made “Peace Mom” what she is.

It's the right that has marginalized her anti war stance in an attempt to paint desent, ops make that dissent, as unpatriotic.

I never said anything about being "unpatriotic", but it's astounding how quickly the left raises that as a defense. Again, I simply quoted the woman.

The right has latched on to such garbage as Sheehan is helping the enemy. As if they need any help defeating this President.

When did I say anything about her helping the enemy? Another false charge.

 OTOH, just as Giap in Vietnam knew he had to win the PR battle here since he couldn't win the military battle there, her words do, in fact, aid the enemy. HOWEVER, I wouldn't silence her just because of that side effect and I NEVER suggested we should.

Bush is on record as having an Iraq agenda 911 was excuse to execute it.

I don’t even know what that means. If you’re saying Bush said POST-9/11 we can’t let Saddam shake off sanctions having never submitted fully to WMD inspections, I agree. If you’re saying Bush linked Saddam to 9/11, well, no.

Prior to 9/11 Bush had made "Dealing with Iraq" a priority of his admin. Dealing with can correctly be read as militarily.

Pure, unadulterated nonsense. "Dealing" in no way shape or form is purely military AND dealing with him, in one form or another was obviously what we were going to have to do, given his history with us and the UN on inspections.

 Shortly after 9/11 Cheney or maybe it was Rummy ordered Richard Clark to find an Iraq connection to the terrorist attacks.

So says Clarke, others there said otherwise.

 Yet instead of that news flash stopping the admin from moving forward with the invade Iraq plan they merely changed the reasoning for invasion to WMD.

Rubbish. There was no "move forward to invade" prior to 9/11, there was an acknowledgement of the history that Clinton commented on in the post I provided. The "changed the reasoning" is pure conspiracy gibberish. Clinton as far back as 1998 had talked about the danger Saddam posed.

This even though there was no hard evidence that Iraq wasn't in compliance with UN sanctions.

Be serious, every intel agency in the world thought he was involved in WMDs, his refusal to allow full, unimpeded inspections provided even more evidence.

 Like I said, Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to execute his Iraq plan.

Lunacy....Bush said repeatedly that there was no evidence to link Saddam and 9/11.

This weaving of conspiracies, even in the face of the comments of every Democrat going back to 1998 saying the very same thing about Saddam and WMDs leaves many on the left looking like they should be wearing the tinfoil hats we hear about so often.

  At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan.

AQ members and other terrorists had been living the fat life in Saddam’s Iraq long before we went to Afghanistan.

As well as Saudi Arabia, Yeman, and a host of other middle eastern and North/Central Africian countries, not to mention Malaysia. Why not invade them too?

High profile AQ members, no some local affliates, and the point is your "in Afghanistan" comment over-simplified reality.

The fact is not one of the countries you mentioned not only had AQ members and other terrorists who had killed Americans in the past living large and openly, none of the ALSO were in violation of 12 years of inspections that came in an agreement that ended a war between that country and ours. Not one of those countries not only had the terrorist links, but had had WMD programs (and fears that they continued) had shot down US planes on patrol and was the subject of a law making regime change official US policy.

IOW, apples and oranges.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims.

Let me guess, FEMA was following regs about how long they were to provide housing before state and local agencies were supposed to take over the job. FEMA can’t win. They made it easy to get funds and help to people and there was outrage a short time later when it turned out money flowed too quickly to be well accounted for. Now they get banged for not being lenient enough. I have news for you, I went through a hurricane and the resulting FEMA process, it’s never neat and tidy, it’s catch as catch can in a disaster area.

FEMA made it easy? Now that's a typo right?

Not at all. Right after FEMA finally made it to town they issued debit cards, remember? FEMA got in hot water when they didn't control them well enough and they ended up being used in strip clubs and the like. A GAO investigation months later said that ALL accounting controls were too loose and money was lost in a variety of ways, and it happened because they wanted to "cut the red tape" to assist.

Actually the way FEMA handed out the money to the republican faithful was easy and probably criminal.

Huh? Sounds like you forgot already what party the state and local governments in LA were made from...you're back in Lala land on this one.

After completely bungling the clean up, not helping ....

Sorry, but given how you twisted the facts above that I'm very familiar with, I'm not much interested in your take on FEMA in the Gulf.

FEMA was 24-48 hours late in getting to downtown N.O., beyond that I see nothing that happened there that didn't happen in the post-hurricane environment I saw up-close and personally. The fact that FEMA regs called for them to hand off, after a certain amount of time the housing issue to state and local gov'ts doesn't sound like ineptitude, other than on the part of the locals, it sounds like the rules Congress wrote for them.

[quote=BondGuy]

Let me ask you something. Have you seen the video of Bush at some event or press conference telling us that the reason that the response was so badly botched was that he had no idea about the magnitude of the storm? [/quote]

Of course that's not what he said. Everyone knew what Cat strom is was. What he said was we didn't know the levees had collapsed. That's what caused the REAL problem in N.O.. 

Perhaps you saw the video of LA's Gov saying the VERY SAME THING hours after it became known that it had happened. IOW, believe it or not, there isn't perfect info in a disaster.

 [quote=BondGuy]Then there's Chertoff telling reporters he didn't know people were trapped at the Superdome while at the same time CNN was showing those trapped people. And yet it is we, who demand accountablity, who are wrong? [/quote]

My guess in next time FEM will have TVs on and won't be taking info from lacal authorities.

If what you wanted was accountability you'd have beheaded Blanco and the the Mayor of N.O., the folks that were feeding info to Chertoff. The people who wouldn't mobilize the LA National Guard when Bush asked, the people who left school buses to sink instead of evactuating people.

FEMA was 24-48 hr behind where they should have been, but you're pinging the Feds with things the locals were to be in control of until the Feds arrived.

[quote=BondGuy]

Iraq and Katrina are linked by the same inept and non forthright leadership.

[/quote]

Thank you for the repeat of the talking points....

“what Cat storm it was”

[quote=Pandale]

So now the subject has changed from victory in Iraq to victory in Louisiana? 

[/quote]

See above "wack-a-mole debate tactics". No doubt if we continue we'll hear how Bush gave North Korea nukes, didn't pass Kyoto and caused herpes to spread in rural Arkansas.

Watch closely, because even they know none of their talking points can withstand close examination, so you'll see a misquote here, a twist of facts there and bit of baseless conspiracy-mongering thrown in for good measure.

[quote=Pandale]

You can't blame the president for everything that goes wrong, ...[/quote]

Sure you can and it's even easier if you're still simmering that he was "appointed not elected".....

So I wonder what would cause the Bush apologists to question their hero? 

I would trust the insights of some of these folk if what they said meshed with reality...even a little bit.

So far, based on their attitudes (and my interpretation of those attitudes, admittedly) Bush is pretty infallible and his 'mistakes' are not mistakes at all, but in fact are the vast misperceptions of the people of the left wingers and the world.  He's just 'misunderstood' right?

At what point do the Bush apologists lose the bias?  What needs to happen to hear opinions from them that SEEM to be balanced.  I'm not asking wholesale criticism here...just a whiff of independence or deviation from at least some of Bush's positions would be really encouraging that there are REAL people talking here...not just 'talking heads'.

I'll say that I was a Bush supporter early on....it's hard to remember those days, I have been thoroughly dissappointed.  It seems that everything I liked him for....compassionate conservative ideology, domestic vs international focus (not being a world police etc..), fiscal conservative values etc... has dissappeared.

Although I'm not too excited about all of his education reforms, I will say that I like the fact that he supports charter schools...my oldest daughter goes to a charter school that beats the snot out of the public fool systems' idiot factories.  They teach how to think not just how to pass tests.  So there's a good/bad....almost a point for Bush in my book.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Pandale]

So now the subject has changed from victory in Iraq to victory in Louisiana? 

[/quote]

See above "wack-a-mole debate tactics". No doubt if we continue we'll hear how Bush gave North Korea nukes, didn't pass Kyoto and caused herpes to spread in rural Arkansas.

Watch closely, because even they know none of their talking points can withstand close examination, so you'll see a misquote here, a twist of facts there and bit of baseless conspiracy-mongering thrown in for good measure.

[/quote]

Bush is spreading herpes to rural Arkansas?  When did he start boozin' it up with Clinton?  Oh...you're talking about Bush Sr. right?  I guess they're best of friends these days. 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

 And then there's Cindy Sheehan. A right wing lightning rod. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

If you like, I can give you dozens of cites from the MSM and liberal/left writers about how "Peace Mom" was the catalyist for the "peace movemnent". It's rather strange to see that twisting into "right wing lightening rod"

It is the right that has made her the poster girl for everything anti-Bush.

The right didn't create her, it's awfully weird to have you blame the right for her high profile.

 Personally, I find her to a very mild antiwar protester, as antiwar protesters go. By <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Vietnam era standards she wouldn't even register on the national scene.

I donno, she blamed the president for the death of her volunteer, re-enlisted son and that the terrorists who actually killed him were innocent. Saying Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist. Posing with Chavez. What does she have to do, appear in a video with some guys about to cut the head off an “infidel”?

Exactly the right wing diatribe I speak of.

Since when is quoting the woman, her own words a "right wing diatribe"?

 I don't think any of her actions paint her as anything more than what she is, a person in pain who wants the killing to stop. You want the killing to stop too, don't you? It's the right that elevates her to something more than a mother who is against the war.

You really need to stop blaming the right for this darling/creation of the left. While I understand her pain, trying to paint her as someone who simply wants to stop the killing is, well, disingenious at best.

But the right wing handlers decided to campaign her as the anti-Bush.

I have to assume that’s a typo. It sure wasn’t the “right wing” to made “Peace Mom” what she is.

It's the right that has marginalized her anti war stance in an attempt to paint desent, ops make that dissent, as unpatriotic.

I never said anything about being "unpatriotic", but it's astounding how quickly the left raises that as a defense. Again, I simply quoted the woman.

The right has latched on to such garbage as Sheehan is helping the enemy. As if they need any help defeating this President.

When did I say anything about her helping the enemy? Another false charge.

Open your thinking. I didn't say you made this charge. I clearly identified it as the right. Are you the right?

  her words do, in fact, aid the enemy.

Mike you're smarter than this, right?

Bush is on record as having an Iraq agenda 911 was excuse to execute it.

I don’t even know what that means. If you’re saying Bush said POST-9/11 we can’t let Saddam shake off sanctions having never submitted fully to WMD inspections, I agree. If you’re saying Bush linked Saddam to 9/11, well, no.

Prior to 9/11 Bush had made "Dealing with Iraq" a priority of his admin. Dealing with can correctly be read as militarily.

Pure, unadulterated nonsense. "Dealing" in no way shape or form is purely military AND dealing with him, in one form or another was obviously what we were going to have to do, given his history with us and the UN on inspections.

Mike you need to educate yourself here. Bush make no secret of this FACT. Deposing Saddam was job one from Bush's first day in office. Clearly it was going to be the military's job. Don't believe it, tell it to Bob Woodward.

 Shortly after 9/11 Cheney or maybe it was Rummy ordered Richard Clark to find an Iraq connection to the terrorist attacks.

So says Clarke, others there said otherwise.

Woodward confirms Clarke's claims.

 Yet instead of that news flash stopping the admin from moving forward with the invade Iraq plan they merely changed the reasoning for invasion to WMD.

Rubbish. There was no "move forward to invade" prior to 9/11, there was an acknowledgement of the history that Clinton commented on in the post I provided.

Correct "no move FORWARD to invade" prior to 9/11. That move started the day after 9/11. However, a move to invade was "in the wind" before 9/11. Bush wanted Saddam dead.

The "changed the reasoning" is pure conspiracy gibberish. Clinton as far back as 1998 had talked about the danger Saddam posed.

Tell it to Woodward, who by the way, kept tapes of all interviews to back up his claims made in his book. No terrorist link, so thus call off the invasion plan. Yet the plan still moves forward. However, it does so without Colin Powell who is staunchly against invasion. The admin then starts it's war chant of WMDs.

This even though there was no hard evidence that Iraq wasn't in compliance with UN sanctions.

Be serious, every intel agency in the world thought he was involved in WMDs,

key word "thought" that word has cost a lot of lives. Let me give you a better word "Know" And one last word "wrong" We were wrong. We thought they had WMDs. Now we "know" they didn't.

 his refusal to allow full, unimpeded inspections provided even more evidence.

Evidence of what? His ostinance?

 Like I said, Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to execute his Iraq plan.

Lunacy....Bush said repeatedly that there was no evidence to link Saddam and 9/11.

He says that now. However, per Clarke, and Woodward, plans to invade Iraq we started on 9/12/01. call that whatever you'd like.

This weaving of conspiracies, even in the face of the comments of every Democrat going back to 1998 saying the very same thing about Saddam and WMDs leaves many on the left looking like they should be wearing the tinfoil hats we hear about so often.

I don't get the conspiracy thing? What does the tinfoil hat comment mean?

  At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan.

AQ members and other terrorists had been living the fat life in Saddam’s Iraq long before we went to Afghanistan.

As well as Saudi Arabia, Yeman, and a host of other middle eastern and North/Central Africian countries, not to mention Malaysia. Why not invade them too?

High profile AQ members, no some local affliates, and the point is your "in Afghanistan" comment over-simplified reality.

The fact is not one of the countries you mentioned not only had AQ members and other terrorists who had killed Americans in the past living large and openly,

15 of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia, where they lived openly. So I guess that's one country huh?

none of the ALSO were in violation of 12 years of inspections that came in an agreement that ended a war between that country and ours. Not one of those countries not only had the terrorist links, but had had WMD programs (and fears that they continued) had shot down US planes on patrol and was the subject of a law making regime change official US policy.

Saudi Arabia didn't have links? Oh yeah, no links, just terrorist living there who came to our country boarded airliners and flew them into buildings. But wait, they're our oil life line. Can't do much there. 

IOW, apples and oranges.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims.

Let me guess, FEMA was following regs about how long they were to provide housing before state and local agencies were supposed to take over the job. FEMA can’t win. They made it easy to get funds and help to people and there was outrage a short time later when it turned out money flowed too quickly to be well accounted for. Now they get banged for not being lenient enough. I have news for you, I went through a hurricane and the resulting FEMA process, it’s never neat and tidy, it’s catch as catch can in a disaster area.

FEMA made it easy? Now that's a typo right?

Not at all. Right after FEMA finally made it to town they issued debit cards, remember? FEMA got in hot water when they didn't control them well enough and they ended up being used in strip clubs and the like. A GAO investigation months later said that ALL accounting controls were too loose and money was lost in a variety of ways, and it happened because they wanted to "cut the red tape" to assist.

Actually the way FEMA handed out the money to the republican faithful was easy and probably criminal.

Huh? Sounds like you forgot already what party the state and local governments in LA were made from...you're back in Lala land on this one.

After completely bungling the clean up, not helping ....

Sorry, but given how you twisted the facts above that I'm very familiar with, I'm not much interested in your take on FEMA in the Gulf.

FEMA was 24-48 hours late in getting to downtown N.O.,

You're really Micheal Chertoff aren't you? Mike, try 96 hours. I'll do the math for you, that's four days. Four days of people suffering and dying while Chertoff, Bush and company telling us on national TV 'What problem?"

 beyond that I see nothing that happened there that didn't happen in the post-hurricane environment I saw up-close and personally. The fact that FEMA regs called for them to hand off, after a certain amount of time the housing issue to state and local gov'ts doesn't sound like ineptitude, other than on the part of the locals, it sounds like the rules Congress wrote for them.

It's ineptitude if nothing gets done. Which in large part is the case.

All you liberals how diluted your vision is....can't you see how wonderful things are in the free and democratic Iraq?  Simple dead enders are all these insurgents are, they are desperate and in their last throes!  How can you honestly blame Bush when it's the media who is obviously to blame for undermining his absolute decisions.  Shame on you for trying to hold him accountable, it only weakens our standing and fight against the terrorists.  Can't you understand what his clear cut goals and strategies are in our fight in Iraq?  You must be, well, liberal if you can't! 

[quote=csmelnix]

All you liberals how diluted your vision is....can't you see how wonderful things are in the free and democratic Iraq?  Simple dead enders are all these insurgents are, they are desperate and in their last throes!  How can you honestly blame Bush when it's the media who is obviously to blame for undermining his absolute decisions.  Shame on you for trying to hold him accountable, it only weakens our standing and fight against the terrorists.  Can't you understand what his clear cut goals and strategies are in our fight in Iraq?  You must be, well, liberal if you can't! 

[/quote]

Actually:   is more appropriate.  Better get the medics, there's hemmoraging going on down here!

Remember dude, it's only Murphy's law were dealing with in Iraq not ineptness.

I'll try to remember but I think I already forgot!

Who's Murphy anyhow and does he have jurisdiction?

[quote=csmelnix]

All you liberals how diluted your vision is....can't you see how wonderful things are in the free and democratic Iraq?  Simple dead enders are all these insurgents are, they are desperate and in their last throes!  How can you honestly blame Bush when it's the media who is obviously to blame for undermining his absolute decisions.  Shame on you for trying to hold him accountable, it only weakens our standing and fight against the terrorists.  Can't you understand what his clear cut goals and strategies are in our fight in Iraq?  You must be, well, liberal if you can't! 

[/quote]

Guffaww! Guffaww! You funny! Well done!

Mr. A

Open your thinking. I didn't say you made this charge. I clearly identified it as the right. Are you the right?

“Open your thinking” !?!?!

You begin this baseless tirade about what “the right” does, how they “created” this woman, what “the right” says about her in a conversation that features NONE of the things you’re talking about and all in response to me quoting the woman.

her words do, in fact, aid the enemy.

Mike you're smarter than this, right?

Nice editing of my point. You're more honest than this, right?

Prior to 9/11 Bush had made "Dealing with Iraq" a priority of his admin. Dealing with can correctly be read as militarily.

Pure, unadulterated nonsense. "Dealing" in no way shape or form is purely military AND dealing with him, in one form or another was obviously what we were going to have to do, given his history with us and the UN on inspections.

Mike you need to educate yourself here. Bush make no secret of this FACT. Deposing Saddam was job one from Bush's first day in office.

Pure fiction. Regime change was ALREADY US policy. Clinton had ALREADY attacked Saddam for not living up to his obligations on inspections. Saddam had ALREADY fired at US patrol aircraft. IOW, Saddam was a know problem. Spinning that into Bush was already committed to an invasion is sophistry.

Clearly it was going to be the military's job. Don't believe it, tell it to Bob Woodward.

Shortly after 9/11 Cheney or maybe it was Rummy ordered Richard Clark to find an Iraq connection to the terrorist attacks.

So says Clarke, others there said otherwise.

Woodward confirms Clarke's claims.

No, he doesn’t, and nowhere does even Clarke say “Cheney told me to lie and provide bogus evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11”. Asking the guy to see if Saddam, among others, was involed is one thing, “creating evidence” is another.

Yet instead of that news flash stopping the admin from moving forward with the invade Iraq plan they merely changed the reasoning for invasion to WMD.

Rubbish. There was no "move forward to invade" prior to 9/11, there was an acknowledgement of the history that Clinton commented on in the post I provided.

Correct "no move FORWARD to invade" prior to 9/11. That move started the day after 9/11. However, a move to invade was "in the wind" before 9/11. Bush wanted Saddam dead.

“In the wind” oh what a load of horse pucky. You really need to let the endless conspiracy crap go…

The "changed the reasoning" is pure conspiracy gibberish. Clinton as far back as 1998 had talked about the danger Saddam posed.

Tell it to Woodward,…

Again, bull pucky. Woodward says nothing of the sort.

This even though there was no hard evidence that Iraq wasn't in compliance with UN sanctions.

Be serious, every intel agency in the world thought he was involved in WMDs,

key word "thought" that word has cost a lot of lives. Let me give you a better word "Know" And one last word "wrong" We were wrong. We thought they had WMDs. Now we "know" they didn't.

The fact remains every intel agency in the world thought he had them. Spinning it to suggest the administration KNEW he didn’t is just another in a long line of distortions you’re tossing out. BTW, dead, certain proof isn’t something intel agencies often produce. Bush had a choice, trust Saddam at the risk of many, many American lives POST 9/11, or remove all doubt. No matter what you think about how the war’s been conducted, claiming he didn’t have reason to go isn’t reasonable.

his refusal to allow full, unimpeded inspections provided even more evidence.

Evidence of what? His ostinance?

Evidence that he wasn’t living up to the agreement he’d signed ending the Gulf War. Evidence that he had something to hide.

Like I said, Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to execute his Iraq plan.

Lunacy....Bush said repeatedly that there was no evidence to link Saddam and 9/11.

He says that now. However, per Clarke, and Woodward, plans to invade Iraq we started on 9/12/01. call that whatever you'd like.

Again, Woodward says nothing of the sort.

This weaving of conspiracies, even in the face of the comments of every Democrat going back to 1998 saying the very same thing about Saddam and WMDs leaves many on the left looking like they should be wearing the tinfoil hats we hear about so often.

I don't get the conspiracy thing? What does the tinfoil hat comment mean?

You have to be joking…

At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan.

AQ members and other terrorists had been living the fat life in Saddam’s Iraq long before we went to Afghanistan.

As well as Saudi Arabia, Yeman, and a host of other middle eastern and North/Central Africian countries, not to mention Malaysia. Why not invade them too?

High profile AQ members, no some local affliates, and the point is your "in Afghanistan" comment over-simplified reality.

The fact is not one of the countries you mentioned not only had AQ members and other terrorists who had killed Americans in the past living large and openly,

15 of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia, where they lived openly. So I guess that's one country huh?

The 15 from S.A. didn’t live openly as a member of AQ, and you have to know that.

none of the ALSO were in violation of 12 years of inspections that came in an agreement that ended a war between that country and ours. Not one of those countries not only had the terrorist links, but had had WMD programs (and fears that they continued) had shot down US planes on patrol and was the subject of a law making regime change official US policy.

Saudi Arabia didn't have links?

The government? No. Some of their citizens? Yes. Were they living opening in the local branch office of AQ? No.

S.A. was also not the Club Med for retired terrorists that had killed Americans, as Iraq was.

IOW, apples and oranges.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims.

Let me guess, FEMA was following regs about how long they were to provide housing before state and local agencies were supposed to take over the job. FEMA can’t win. They made it easy to get funds and help to people and there was outrage a short time later when it turned out money flowed too quickly to be well accounted for. Now they get banged for not being lenient enough. I have news for you, I went through a hurricane and the resulting FEMA process, it’s never neat and tidy, it’s catch as catch can in a disaster area.

FEMA made it easy? Now that's a typo right?

Not at all. Right after FEMA finally made it to town they issued debit cards, remember? FEMA got in hot water when they didn't control them well enough and they ended up being used in strip clubs and the like. A GAO investigation months later said that ALL accounting controls were too loose and money was lost in a variety of ways, and it happened because they wanted to "cut the red tape" to assist.

Actually the way FEMA handed out the money to the republican faithful was easy and probably criminal.

Huh? Sounds like you forgot already what party the state and local governments in LA were made from...you're back in Lala land on this one.

“money to the Republican faithful”????

After completely bungling the clean up, not helping ....

Sorry, but given how you twisted the facts above that I'm very familiar with, I'm not much interested in your take on FEMA in the Gulf.

FEMA was 24-48 hours late in getting to downtown N.O.,

You're really Micheal Chertoff aren't you? Mike, try 96 hours.

Wrong, as usual. They were 24 to 48 hours later than they should have been. The Feds are NOT expected to be on the spot immediately, “poof”, with equipment that can’t even be positioned in front of the coming storm. That first day or two if need be is the locals to handle.

beyond that I see nothing that happened there that didn't happen in the post-hurricane environment I saw up-close and personally. The fact that FEMA regs called for them to hand off, after a certain amount of time the housing issue to state and local gov'ts doesn't sound like ineptitude, other than on the part of the locals, it sounds like the rules Congress wrote for them.

It's ineptitude if nothing gets done. Which in large part is the case.

You might not be aware of this, but the Feds don’t have the authority to commandeer the locals government and the National Guard. FEMA doesn’t have the power to simply ignore the rules Congress writes for it. You keep talking “accountability”, but you’re dead silent on “accountability” anywhere other than the Feds. Bush asked Blanco to get her N.G. units up and running, she said no. It wasn’t Bush who decided not to evacuate, it wasn’t Bush that reported that the storm had past and the levees were intact.

The fact is all you have is an endless diatribe and a series of conspiracy theories. It’s really quite remarkable.

I was trying to remember what old poster “A” sounds so much  like…

oy…you know it’s getting bad when Mike and BondGuy start with the colors…

Thank Heaven that the coice of fonts is limited!

SP: choice

[quote=Starka]SP: choice[/quote]

[quote=mikebutler222]

Open your thinking. I didn't say you made this charge. I clearly identified it as the right. Are you the right?

“Open your thinking” !?!?!

You begin this baseless tirade about what “the right” does, how they “created” this woman, what “the right” says about her in a conversation that features NONE of the things you’re talking about and all in response to me quoting the woman.

her words do, in fact, aid the enemy.

Mike you're smarter than this, right?

Nice editing of my point. You're more honest than this, right?

You're saying that her words aid the enemy? If so then you've got to be smarter than to believe that.

Prior to 9/11 Bush had made "Dealing with Iraq" a priority of his admin. Dealing with can correctly be read as militarily.

Pure, unadulterated nonsense. "Dealing" in no way shape or form is purely military AND dealing with him, in one form or another was obviously what we were going to have to do, given his history with us and the UN on inspections.

Mike you need to educate yourself here. Bush make no secret of this FACT. Deposing Saddam was job one from Bush's first day in office.

Pure fiction. Regime change was ALREADY US policy. Clinton had ALREADY attacked Saddam for not living up to his obligations on inspections. Saddam had ALREADY fired at US patrol aircraft. IOW, Saddam was a know problem. Spinning that into Bush was already committed to an invasion is sophistry.

Sophistry? OK mike i'm having trouble with dissent and throw this word? Still, not fiction. But to be clear, by the time 9/11 had rolled around the Bush admin was unsure as to exactly what to do about Iraq. But it was a priority first term agenda item. That it was going to invovle the military was a forgone conclusion. No one expected Saddam to go quietly into the night.

Clearly it was going to be the military's job. Don't believe it, tell it to Bob Woodward.

Shortly after 9/11 Cheney or maybe it was Rummy ordered Richard Clark to find an Iraq connection to the terrorist attacks.

So says Clarke, others there said otherwise.

Woodward confirms Clarke's claims.

No, he doesn’t, and nowhere does even Clarke say “Cheney told me to lie and provide bogus evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11”. Asking the guy to see if Saddam, among others, was involed is one thing, “creating evidence” is another.

Don't know where you're getting the Clarke lie info. I wasn't aware clarke lied about anything. Quite the opposite. He's very credible despite the typical whistleblower hacchet job defense put out by the Bush admin spin team. He said that the iraq invasion plan formulation started on 9/12. he said either Rummy or Cheney told him to find an Iraq connection. Not to lie about it but to find some link. This was said in the belief at the time that there had to be one. Clarke was incredulous at the comment. He would find out who did this to us regardless of who it was. Personally, based on his expert knowledge he didn't think Iraq was even in the mix. Later analysis proved that out. But that the admin was so keen on linking Iraq goes to the agenda item. Iraq invasion planning started before they were cleared on the 9/11 attacks. That it didn't stop when Iraq was cleared was a problem for some in the admin. We no longer had a clear reason for attacking them. still, the wheels were turning and that was that, Invade iraq it was and nothing was going to stop it. As for Woodward, maybe try reading the book.

Yet instead of that news flash stopping the admin from moving forward with the invade Iraq plan they merely changed the reasoning for invasion to WMD.

Rubbish. There was no "move forward to invade" prior to 9/11, there was an acknowledgement of the history that Clinton commented on in the post I provided.

Correct "no move FORWARD to invade" prior to 9/11. That move started the day after 9/11. However, a move to invade was "in the wind" before 9/11. Bush wanted Saddam dead.

“In the wind” oh what a load of horse pucky. You really need to let the endless conspiracy crap go…

Mike where are you reading conspiracy into what i'm saying. There was no conspiracy that i'm aware of. Just an admin taking a wrong course.

The "changed the reasoning" is pure conspiracy gibberish. Clinton as far back as 1998 had talked about the danger Saddam posed.

Tell it to Woodward,…

Again, bull pucky. Woodward says nothing of the sort.

Again reading the book would go a long way in helping you here. And please don't tell me you've read it.

This even though there was no hard evidence that Iraq wasn't in compliance with UN sanctions.

Be serious, every intel agency in the world thought he was involved in WMDs,

key word "thought" that word has cost a lot of lives. Let me give you a better word "Know" And one last word "wrong" We were wrong. We thought they had WMDs. Now we "know" they didn't.

The fact remains every intel agency in the world thought he had them. Spinning it to suggest the administration KNEW he didn’t is just another in a long line of distortions you’re tossing out. BTW, dead, certain proof isn’t something intel agencies often produce. Bush had a choice, trust Saddam at the risk of many, many American lives POST 9/11, or remove all doubt. No matter what you think about how the war’s been conducted, claiming he didn’t have reason to go isn’t reasonable.

I'm not spinning anything here . I'm recounting what happened. You're all wrapped up in accusing me of putting Bush and company in some grand conspiracy to invade Iraq. my reading tells me quite the opposite. Bush did believe that there were WMDs and thus justified his decesion to invade. The problem is, and this is my point, is that he was hell bent on invading. nothing was going to stop this from happening. He wasn't listening to Powell or Tenet. we invaded on what we though was going on and it turned out we were wrong. The french and the germans don't look so stupid now.

his refusal to allow full, unimpeded inspections provided even more evidence.

Evidence of what? His ostinance?

Evidence that he wasn’t living up to the agreement he’d signed ending the Gulf War. Evidence that he had something to hide.

No hard, as in we've actually seen them, evidence of WMDs. just a lot circumstancial evidence that turned out ot be wrong

Like I said, Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to execute his Iraq plan.

Lunacy....Bush said repeatedly that there was no evidence to link Saddam and 9/11.

He says that now. However, per Clarke, and Woodward, plans to invade Iraq we started on 9/12/01. call that whatever you'd like.

Again, Woodward says nothing of the sort.

Well somehow it's in my copy of the book

This weaving of conspiracies, even in the face of the comments of every Democrat going back to 1998 saying the very same thing about Saddam and WMDs leaves many on the left looking like they should be wearing the tinfoil hats we hear about so often.

I don't get the conspiracy thing? What does the tinfoil hat comment mean?

You have to be joking…

I'm not joking. You keep putting the conpiracy thing on me and i don't understand that. Let me be clear, the iraq invasion, in my opinion, was not a conspiracy, just a misguided decesion.

At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan.

AQ members and other terrorists had been living the fat life in Saddam’s Iraq long before we went to Afghanistan.

As well as Saudi Arabia, Yeman, and a host of other middle eastern and North/Central Africian countries, not to mention Malaysia. Why not invade them too?

High profile AQ members, no some local affliates, and the point is your "in Afghanistan" comment over-simplified reality.

The fact is not one of the countries you mentioned not only had AQ members and other terrorists who had killed Americans in the past living large and openly,

15 of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia, where they lived openly. So I guess that's one country huh?

The 15 from S.A. didn’t live openly as a member of AQ, and you have to know that.

here's what i know. The Bush admin and the saudi govt want the American public to believe that we are well liked in Saudi Arabia when nothing could be further from the truth. The saudis, while moderate, hate us for our support of Israel. it is American guns and weapons that kill fellow arabs. Plus the little issue with us being on their sacred ground. So we are not we liked in that country. That aside, these terrorist did live openly in that country, as they were , mostly, not on anyones radar at the time. yes they moved around and yes, it is and was beyond the Saudi governments ability to control them

none of the ALSO were in violation of 12 years of inspections that came in an agreement that ended a war between that country and ours. Not one of those countries not only had the terrorist links, but had had WMD programs (and fears that they continued) had shot down US planes on patrol and was the subject of a law making regime change official US policy.

Saudi Arabia didn't have links?

The government? No. Some of their citizens? Yes. Were they living opening in the local branch office of AQ? No.

S.A. was also not the Club Med for retired terrorists that had killed Americans, as Iraq was.

We're talking individuals here not governments. Neither government was sponsoring the terrorist. Both governments allowed terrorist to live in their countries. Not one of the terrorist who attacked us was Iraqi. 15 were Saudi, yet we attack iraq.

IOW, apples and oranges.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims.

Let me guess, FEMA was following regs about how long they were to provide housing before state and local agencies were supposed to take over the job. FEMA can’t win. They made it easy to get funds and help to people and there was outrage a short time later when it turned out money flowed too quickly to be well accounted for. Now they get banged for not being lenient enough. I have news for you, I went through a hurricane and the resulting FEMA process, it’s never neat and tidy, it’s catch as catch can in a disaster area.

FEMA made it easy? Now that's a typo right?

Not at all. Right after FEMA finally made it to town they issued debit cards, remember? FEMA got in hot water when they didn't control them well enough and they ended up being used in strip clubs and the like. A GAO investigation months later said that ALL accounting controls were too loose and money was lost in a variety of ways, and it happened because they wanted to "cut the red tape" to assist.

Actually the way FEMA handed out the money to the republican faithful was easy and probably criminal.

Huh? Sounds like you forgot already what party the state and local governments in LA were made from...you're back in Lala land on this one.

“money to the Republican faithful”????

After completely bungling the clean up, not helping ....

Sorry, but given how you twisted the facts above that I'm very familiar with, I'm not much interested in your take on FEMA in the Gulf.

FEMA was 24-48 hours late in getting to downtown N.O.,

You're really Micheal Chertoff aren't you? Mike, try 96 hours.

Wrong, as usual. They were 24 to 48 hours later than they should have been. The Feds are NOT expected to be on the spot immediately, “poof”, with equipment that can’t even be positioned in front of the coming storm. That first day or two if need be is the locals to handle.

beyond that I see nothing that happened there that didn't happen in the post-hurricane environment I saw up-close and personally. The fact that FEMA regs called for them to hand off, after a certain amount of time the housing issue to state and local gov'ts doesn't sound like ineptitude, other than on the part of the locals, it sounds like the rules Congress wrote for them.

It's ineptitude if nothing gets done. Which in large part is the case.

You might not be aware of this, but the Feds don’t have the authority to commandeer the locals government and the National Guard. FEMA doesn’t have the power to simply ignore the rules Congress writes for it. You keep talking “accountability”, but you’re dead silent on “accountability” anywhere other than the Feds. Bush asked Blanco to get her N.G. units up and running, she said no. It wasn’t Bush who decided not to evacuate, it wasn’t Bush that reported that the storm had past and the levees were intact.

The fact is all you have is an endless diatribe and a series of conspiracy theories. It’s really quite remarkable.

Again with the conspiracy theory thing. This is just plain ineptitude. or maybe it's apathy. No conspiracy. Your finger pointing to deflect the blame really brings it back. People at the Superdome pleading for help on CNN, while Chertoff tells NBC he's not aware of any problems at the Superdome. Yeah, that's a classic. But it wasn't his fault he didn't know. Afterall , you can't be giving an interview and be watching TV at the same time. Chertoff, the only person in the country who could help these poor people, coincidentally, was the ONLY person in the country who didn't know they were in trouble.

[/quote]

Will Rogers said it best "Thank God we're not getting all the government we're paying for."

Rumy, Cheney, & Dubya… The asses of evil!!

You're saying that her words aid the enemy? If so then you've got to be smarter than to believe that.

Of course her words assist the enemy. They, like Giap, know they can’t beat us on th battelfield, they have to wage a PR war, here AND there for support.

Just as they used Michael Moore’s movie as “proof” about Bush, they use Sheehan’s words. You can’t possibly believe otherwise. Having said that, and as I said before, that’s the price of our democracy and I wouldn’t stop her right to speak just because of the effect of helping the enemy. You knew that, that’s why you editied that comment out…

Pure fiction. Regime change was ALREADY US policy. Clinton had ALREADY attacked Saddam for not living up to his obligations on inspections. Saddam had ALREADY fired at US patrol aircraft. IOW, Saddam was a know problem. Spinning that into Bush was already committed to an invasion is sophistry.

Sophistry? OK mike i'm having trouble with dissent and throw this word?

What’s with the childish plea about dissent? No one’s silencing you, I’m just pointing out you’re making #$$^%^ up.

But it was a priority first term agenda item. That it was going to invovle the military was a forgone conclusion. No one expected Saddam to go quietly into the night.

Saddam was a US agenda item since before 1998 when Clinton attacked the guy (thus the military was ALREADY INVOLVED YEARS BEFORE BUSH CAME TO OFFICE) , talked about his WMDs and laid out the case for regime change. Cease the mind-reading gibberish that’s nothing but an attempt to say Bush twisted facts about 9/11 to do what he wanted to do all along.

No, he doesn’t, and nowhere does even Clarke say “Cheney told me to lie and provide bogus evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11”. Asking the guy to see if Saddam, among others, was involed is one thing, “creating evidence” is another.

Don't know where you're getting the Clarke lie info.

Clarke.

He's very credible despite the typical whistleblower …

Spare me. Clarke had an axe to grind since he lost his place at the president’s daily briefing. Here’s a known lie from Clarke, he claimed Condi had never heard about AQ until HE filled her in. Then that tape of Condi on a talk show, BEFORE THE ELECTION talking about the danger posed by AQ surfaced…

For every claim Clarke makes there are two people to say it ain’t so, including Bush critics like Micheal Scheuer who said Clarke ran an ineffective office and missed numerous opportunities to get OBL.

We no longer had a clear reason for attacking them. still, the wheels were turning and that was that, Invade iraq it was and nothing was going to stop it.

Here we go again. See 1998, See Clinton’s comments, SEE Saddam’s non-compliance with inspections. No one was trying to “invent” a reason to go after Saddam, they didn’t NEED TO.

As for Woodward, maybe try reading the book.

I have, you’re misrepresenting it.

“In the wind” oh what a load of horse pucky. You really need to let the endless conspiracy crap go…

Mike where are you reading conspiracy into what i'm saying. There was no conspiracy that i'm aware of. Just an admin taking a wrong course.

Bull#$%^. First you claim they were trying to frame Saddam, to create a reason to get him (despite the facts already in the public domain since 1998) and then you claim you'd said there was no conspiracy…

The fact remains every intel agency in the world thought he had them. Spinning it to suggest the administration KNEW he didn’t is just another in a long line of distortions you’re tossing out. BTW, dead, certain proof isn’t something intel agencies often produce. Bush had a choice, trust Saddam at the risk of many, many American lives POST 9/11, or remove all doubt. No matter what you think about how the war’s been conducted, claiming he didn’t have reason to go isn’t reasonable.

I'm not spinning anything here . I'm recounting what happened.

No, you’re inventing things. You’re claiming that the administration went out of their way to find a reason to go after Saddam, this innocent lamb, this victim of a Bush vendetta. You can’t even acknowledge that everyone, from Clinton in 1998 to Kerry in 2002, after reading the same reports Bush saw, said Saddam had to be stopped and he had WMDs.

The problem is, and this is my point, is that he was hell bent on invading. nothing was going to stop this from happening. He wasn't listening to Powell or Tenet.

Who knows where you get this fantasy. Perhaps you missed POWELL AT THE UN making the case for invasion or TENET QUOTED IN WOODWARD’S BOOK saying proving Saddam had WMDs was a “SLAM DUNK”…

The french and the germans don't look so stupid now.

While they opposed invading BOTH nation’s intel agencies thought Saddam had WMDs.

Evidence that he wasn’t living up to the agreement he’d signed ending the Gulf War. Evidence that he had something to hide.

No hard, as in we've actually seen them, evidence of WMDs. just a lot circumstancial evidence that turned out ot be wrong

I don’t know what planet you’re living on, but intel agencies can’t provide that level of certainty and Saddam was NOT ALLOWING the unimpeded inspections he was supposed to give.

Like I said, Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to execute his Iraq plan.

Lunacy....Bush said repeatedly that there was no evidence to link Saddam and 9/11.

He says that now. However, per Clarke, and Woodward, plans to invade Iraq we started on 9/12/01. call that whatever you'd like.

Again, Woodward says nothing of the sort.

Well somehow it's in my copy of the book

Uh, bull@#$% it is.

At the time the terrorist were consentrated in Afganistan.

AQ members and other terrorists had been living the fat life in Saddam’s Iraq long before we went to Afghanistan.

As well as Saudi Arabia, Yeman, and a host of other middle eastern and North/Central Africian countries, not to mention Malaysia. Why not invade them too?

Iraq had high profile AQ members, not some local affliates, and the point is your "in Afghanistan" comment over-simplified reality.

The fact is not one of the countries you mentioned not only had AQ members and other terrorists who had killed Americans in the past living large and openly,

15 of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia, where they lived openly. So I guess that's one country huh?

The 15 from S.A. didn’t live openly as a member of AQ, and you have to know that.

here's what i know. The Bush admin and the saudi govt …

Nice change of subject. Now, back to the discussion. Comparing the involvement of some citizens of SA in 9/11 with Iraq’s retirement home for American killing terrorists is as foolish as claiming the US government was involved in the OK City bombing because McVeigh was a US citizen. Furthermore, no other nation fit all the other criteria that Iraq fit that you continue to chose to ignore.

That aside, these terrorist did live openly in that country,

Again, bull@#$%. No one lives in SA as an open member of AQ and never has. In case you’re unfamiliar with the facts, AQ has conducted attacks in SA and has sworn to replace the monarchy there.

none of the ALSO were in violation of 12 years of inspections that came in an agreement that ended a war between that country and ours. Not one of those countries not only had the terrorist links, but had had WMD programs (and fears that they continued) had shot down US planes on patrol and was the subject of a law making regime change official US policy.

Saudi Arabia didn't have links?

The government? No. Some of their citizens? Yes. Were they living opening in the local branch office of AQ? No.

S.A. was also not the Club Med for retired terrorists that had killed Americans, as Iraq was.

We're talking individuals here not governments.

No, YOU have changed the subject to individuals. When you first brought up “if we invaded Iraq for this, why not (fill in the nation). Well, we went after Iraq’s GOVERNMENT, not a few citizens.

Neither government was sponsoring the terrorist.

Wrong, Saddam was in fact funding terrorism and in the country that he ruled with an iron fist that no one entered or left without his permission, there were terrorists living opening after having killed US citizens. Even your hero, Richard Clarke once remarked that if OBL slipped away from him, he would “boogey off to Baghdad”. Even Clarke realized he would be welcomed there, like other American killing terrorist were.

IOW, apples and oranges.

It took a lawsuit and a court order to get FEMA to reinstate housing, which was taken away, to Katrina victims.

Let me guess, FEMA was following regs about how long they were to provide housing before state and local agencies were supposed to take over the job. FEMA can’t win. They made it easy to get funds and help to people and there was outrage a short time later when it turned out money flowed too quickly to be well accounted for. Now they get banged for not being lenient enough. I have news for you, I went through a hurricane and the resulting FEMA process, it’s never neat and tidy, it’s catch as catch can in a disaster area.

FEMA made it easy? Now that's a typo right?

Not at all. Right after FEMA finally made it to town they issued debit cards, remember? FEMA got in hot water when they didn't control them well enough and they ended up being used in strip clubs and the like. A GAO investigation months later said that ALL accounting controls were too loose and money was lost in a variety of ways, and it happened because they wanted to "cut the red tape" to assist.

Actually the way FEMA handed out the money to the republican faithful was easy and probably criminal.

Huh? Sounds like you forgot already what party the state and local governments in LA were made from...you're back in Lala land on this one.

“money to the Republican faithful”????

After completely bungling the clean up, not helping ....

Sorry, but given how you twisted the facts above that I'm very familiar with, I'm not much interested in your take on FEMA in the Gulf.

FEMA was 24-48 hours late in getting to downtown N.O.,

You're really Micheal Chertoff aren't you? Mike, try 96 hours.

You might not be aware of this, but the Feds don’t have the authority to commandeer the locals government and the National Guard. FEMA doesn’t have the power to simply ignore the rules Congress writes for it. You keep talking “accountability”, but you’re dead silent on “accountability” anywhere other than the Feds. Bush asked Blanco to get her N.G. units up and running, she said no. It wasn’t Bush who decided not to evacuate, it wasn’t Bush that reported that the storm had past and the levees were intact.

The fact is all you have is an endless diatribe and a series of conspiracy theories. It’s really quite remarkable.

Again with the conspiracy theory thing.

That was referring to your total approach to all things Bush, as with the conspiracy stuff above.

. People at the Superdome pleading for help on CNN, while Chertoff tells NBC he's not aware of any problems at the Superdome.

Because Chertoff wasn’t getting his info from CNN (I bet every FEMA tent in the future will have that TV going in the future) he was taking it from local gov’t. The same local gov’t caught on tape (Blanco) telling FEMA and the Whitehouse that the levees hadn’t been breached HOURS after they’d collapsed and the flooding started, long after the storm had passed.

Yeah, that's a classic. But it wasn't his fault he didn't know.

Neither did the Mayor (he says) and the Gov. of course, you’re not interested with “accountability” at those levels. For all you’ve said, they don’t even exist.

I see the multiple screen names are coming out…

[quote=Starka]Thank Heaven that the coice of fonts is limited![/quote]

Yah but now they are also underlining and using italics, which creates more potential permutations…

As always this repeat of the wack-a-mole debate is stale. Rather than continue the cycle, let me sum up. Anyone who wants the last word is welcome to it, and perhaps we can then end the repeated hijacking of a financial services professional’s bulletin board towards hyperventilating politician discussions.

For reasons that perhaps some psychologists should study, many of the critics of Bush’s decision of going into Iraq aren’t satisfied simply reviewing the facts and weighing in on the decisions made, they have to couch it all in “that’s what they SAID was the reason for going, but they wanted to do it from day one were just looking for a cover story and their REAL reason was…(fill in favorite conspiracy theory)”. This is what makes it hard to take them seriously.

That approach allows them to side-step all the uncomfortable details like;

the fact that the previous administration (Democrat at that) had made regime change in Iraq official US policy

that the previous administration (Democrat at that) had reluctantly used military force to get Saddam to live up to the inspections he had agreed to at the end of the Gulf War

that they had warned about Saddam’s desire to attain WMDs (again) and how he’d eventually use them if we allowed him to escape sanctions and inspections and how grave a danger he was to the US and the world at large

how most everyone from both parties that had access to the intelligence report came to the same conclusion that given Saddam’s refusal to allow full inspections his history with WMDs his links with terror organizations, that fact we welcomed active and retired terrorists (killers of Americans) that he we simply, in a post 9/11 couldn’t take the risk that he’d slip the noose, produce WMDs (if he wasn’t already) given them to terrorist pals (the enemy of my enemy and all that) and have them surface here in an attack.

None of the countries they mention in their “Oh yeah? Then why didn’t we invade (insert nation here)” arguments fit anywhere near the criteria that Saddam’s Iraq fit in the quinella of the threat to the US, the region and the world.

"...the fact that HE welcomed..."   "....that WE simply, in a POST..."   "...GIVE them..."

For reasons that perhaps some psychologists should study

Dr Sanity http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

[quote=mikebutler222]

As always this repeat of the wack-a-mole debate is stale. Rather than continue the cycle, let me sum up. Anyone who wants the last word is welcome to it, and perhaps we can then end the repeated hijacking of a financial services professional’s bulletin board towards hyperventilating politician discussions.

For reasons that perhaps some psychologists should study, many of the critics of Bush’s decision of going into Iraq aren’t satisfied simply reviewing the facts and weighing in on the decisions made, they have to couch it all in “that’s what they SAID was the reason for going, but they wanted to do it from day one were just looking for a cover story and their REAL reason was…(fill in favorite conspiracy theory)”. This is what makes it hard to take them seriously.

That approach allows them to side-step all the uncomfortable details like;

the fact that the previous administration (Democrat at that) had made regime change in Iraq official US policy

that the previous administration (Democrat at that) had reluctantly used military force to get Saddam to live up to the inspections he had agreed to at the end of the Gulf War

that they had warned about Saddam’s desire to attain WMDs (again) and how he’d eventually use them if we allowed him to escape sanctions and inspections and how grave a danger he was to the US and the world at large

how most everyone from both parties that had access to the intelligence report came to the same conclusion that given Saddam’s refusal to allow full inspections his history with WMDs his links with terror organizations, that fact we welcomed active and retired terrorists (killers of Americans) that he we simply, in a post 9/11 couldn’t take the risk that he’d slip the noose, produce WMDs (if he wasn’t already) given them to terrorist pals (the enemy of my enemy and all that) and have them surface here in an attack.

None of the countries they mention in their “Oh yeah? Then why didn’t we invade (insert nation here)” arguments fit anywhere near the criteria that Saddam’s Iraq fit in the quinella of the threat to the US, the region and the world.

[/quote]

I'll give this mike: You are the master of the disingenuous backhanded insult. Other than that, you can spout on all you'd like twisting the words of those with whom you do not agree. At least I own up to my malapropic tendencies. For example, malapropic isn't a word. You, on the other hand see words that aren't there. I write the word inept, you see the word conspiracy. And you totally don't get sarcasm.

As colorful as our debates are, it's frustrating when the other side gets hung up on non points, deconstructs the written words, and then uses that out of context rewrite to twist what was written.  However, you are good at it.

You've got to be the only person in the country who pats FEMA on the back and tells them "Job well done" Sounds like you are an ex government hack.

And, you didn't read the book. Stop embarrassing yourself.

"As always this repeat of the wack-a-mole debate is stale. Rather than continue the cycle, let me sum up. Anyone who wants the last word is welcome to it,"

What do you want to bet that he says something else on this thread?

Mr. A

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

Yet another "Fact filled" blue underlined thingy!

The problem with the internet is that no matter how wackie your ideas are, you can find people that will agree with you and you will find even wackier wack jobs wacking away!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

Yet another "Fact filled" blue underlined thingy!

The problem with the internet is that no matter how wackie your ideas are, you can find people that will agree with you and you will find even wackier wack jobs wacking away!

Mr. A

[/quote]

You mental midget, that was a link in response to MikeB asking if any psychiatrists have analyzed the left.  If you hadn't deleted the relevant parts, that would be obvious, but then again that is a tactic of the LEFT..... deleting and twisting.  And yes that is a pejorative LEFT.

What moron you are.  Hope Santa brings you a new tinfoil hat for Christmas.

[quote=babbling looney]

For reasons that perhaps some psychologists should study

Dr Sanity http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

[/quote]

You are right again I left off SO much of the post and only included the part that fit my own uses.

You never fail to give me a crinkley mouth!

Mr. A

Here's another example of the media left bias trying to show how bad off our military is:

From the Hartford Courant:

Nothing was stranger for Mary Jane Fernandez than the events of last Christmas, which had her 24-year-old son, newly returned from the war in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq, downing sedatives, ranting about how rich people were allowed to sit in recliners in church, and summoning the Waterbury police to come arrest him.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This Christmas may top that.

Despite being diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and rated 70 percent disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Damian Fernandez has been called back to duty and told to prepare for another deployment to Iraq.

Two weeks ago, Fernandez, who was discharged from active duty in the Army last year and was working to settle back into civilian life, abruptly received orders to report to Fort Benning, Ga., on Jan. 14.

When the FedEx letter from the Army arrived Nov. 28, he calmly told his mother and girlfriend, "I got my orders," staring hard at them with vacant eyes.

That night, he snapped. He told his girlfriend, Riella Darko, that he wanted to die and asked her to take him to the emergency room of St. Mary's Hospital, where he was placed on a suicide watch. He has since been transferred to a locked ward in the Northampton VA Medical Center in Massachusetts.

His callback orders have not yet been rescinded. Even if they are, his mother said, simply being told he must go back into combat has set back his recovery.

"I don't understand why the military would put him through this," Mary Jane Fernandez said. "He was just starting to come back to reality a little, and now he's lost again."

Fernandez is one of 8,262 soldiers who have left active duty but have been ordered back under a policy that allows the military to recall troops who have completed their service but have time remaining on their contracts. About 5,700 of those called up have already been mobilized, with Fernandez among about 2,500 ordered to report in the coming weeks.

The practice of recalling inactive soldiers involuntarily is itself controversial, with some members of Congress and veterans' advocates calling it a backdoor draft.

All soldiers have an eight-year military service obligation, but typically are released from duty after two to six years. The Army, strained by the war, announced in mid-2004 that it would begin tapping a pool of about 100,000 soldiers who had time left on their service obligations, to fill vacancies in Reserve and National Guard units.

The fact that some of those being summoned have been ruled disabled by the VA or the military, with service-connected PTSD and other medical problems, is raising alarm among veterans' advocates and families. In Fernandez's case, the 70 percent disability rating indicated the serious degree to which doctors had judged his mental state to be impaired.

Steve Robinson, director of government relations for Veterans of America, said he knew of a number of other war veterans with PTSD who had been called back to Iraq.

"If you have a war-related injury that you're being compensated for," he said, "to be sent back into a situation that might exacerbate the problem just doesn't make sense."

Mary Jane Fernandez said she already has notified the Army about Damian's chronic PTSD, and is stunned that he has not been excused. She said a friend of Damian's, who also has severe PTSD, has opted to go back to Iraq because "he misses killing people," the friend told her. A veterans' counselor familiar with the case confirmed that account.

Mary Jane said she cannot picture Damian, whose symptoms include paranoia and hallucinations, back in a war zone.

"I don't trust him taking out the garbage, let alone watching someone's back on the battlefield," she said.

Army and Defense Department officials acknowledged to The Courant earlier this year that they were redeploying soldiers with PTSD -- even though medical standards for enlistment in the armed forces disqualify recruits who suffer from PTSD. The practice of recycling troops with PTSD into war has drawn criticism from some combat- stress experts, who say that re-exposure to trauma increases the risk of serious psychiatric problems.

Last month, Assistant Secretary of Defense William Winkenwerder Jr. issued a new policy that steps up psychological screening of troops, after a Courant series detailing gaps in mental health care brought pressure from Congress for improvements. Among other things, the policy deems PTSD a "treatable" condition, but directs that troops with psychiatric disorders should be sent to war only if they are stable and "without significant symptoms" for at least three months prior to deployment.

"I used to have to track him down on his cell all the time," said Mary Jane, who shares a two-family house with her son. "Now, I never have to call him because I know where he is -- upstairs."

Damian had spent most of the last 18 months upstairs, playing video games or drinking himself to sleep, Mary Jane and Riella said. He attended community college classes for a few weeks, but abruptly quit after an incident in which he mistook a noise outside for a gunshot and flew into a panic because he could not find his gun, they said.

A simple "What do you want for dinner?" can ignite his temper.

"He throws things a lot. We have holes in just about every wall," Riella said.

Mary Jane, who is widowed, said she worries that the war has "broken" her only child. When he first came home from Iraq, his car stereo -- a prized possession -- was stolen. He was despondent for weeks, she said.

"He asked me, `These are the people I fought for?'" she recounted, choking up.

Although Damian has not spoken much about his experiences in Iraq, he told Mary Jane and Riella about a day a school bus exploded on a bridge, and children's body parts fell from the sky.

"He said he accidentally stepped on a kid's insides -- the liver or something," Riella said.

After Damian fell apart last Christmas, Mary Jane said she convinced him to go to the VA to get help. He was diagnosed with PTSD and placed on an antidepressant. This September, he was admitted to a three-week inpatient program at the Northampton VA. His discharge records say: "Suicidal ruminations resolved. Otherwise unchanged from admission."

The recall orders drove him back to the same facility.

Mary Jane and Riella said that while Damian had worried about being sent back to Iraq someday, he had begun to relax in recent months. That changed when the letter arrived.

"He feels guilty that if doesn't go back, he'll be deserting his buddies," Mary Jane said of her son, who received commendations for prior tours in Korea and Africa. "But if he does go back, he's afraid he won't be able to do his part.

"He's all torn up now."

Non-Assurances

Because the Army has no policy exempting soldiers with PTSD from returning to war, counselors at the New Haven Vet Center have been unable to offer Damian assurances he will be excused. Mary Jane said one counselor suggested that Damian's best bet might be to stay "locked up" in the hospital through January.

Still, Donna Hryb, team leader at the Hartford Vet Center, said she would be surprised if the Army deploys a soldier as severely impaired as Damian.

"It would be counterproductive for the unit and for him," she said.

Hilferty, the Army spokesman, acknowledged that redeploying soldiers with "severe" psychological problems could jeopardize other troops' safety. He noted that the Army is not calling back soldiers who have served in combat within the last 12 months, to allow them time between deployments. Hilferty also said officials are working to better monitor soldiers' "readiness."

And it's only going to get worse if they don't institute some sort of draft (as if there is more than one type).

Thanks for the article.

BTW, the Courant endorsed GWB both times.

Mr. A

And it's only going to get worse if they don't institute some sort of draft (as if there is more than one type).

Sure there is.  They could also draft women as well as men.  The could also draft older people to do support jobs and free up the younger draftees for the more strenuous and dangerous occupations.

By the way the guys and gals that I know who are in the military are adamantly opposed to a draft because they don't want to have to work and fight side by side with unwilling and undertrained draftees.

"Sure there is.  They could also draft women as well as men.  The could also draft older people to do support jobs and free up the younger draftees for the more strenuous and dangerous occupations."

Good points.

"By the way the guys and gals that I know who are in the military are adamantly opposed to a draft because they don't want to have to work and fight side by side with unwilling and undertrained draftees."

You know what they say, "... the Army you have, not the Army you want!"

Mr. A

[quote=csmelnix]

Here's another example of the media left bias trying to show how bad off our military is:

From the Hartford Courant:

Nothing was stranger for Mary Jane Fernandez than the events of last Christmas, which had her 24-year-old son, newly returned from the war in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq, downing sedatives, ranting about how rich people were allowed to sit in recliners in church, and summoning the Waterbury police to come arrest him.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This Christmas may top that.

Despite being diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and rated 70 percent disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Damian Fernandez has been called back to duty and told to prepare for another deployment to Iraq.

Two weeks ago, Fernandez, who was discharged from active duty in the Army last year and was working to settle back into civilian life, abruptly received orders to report to Fort Benning, Ga., on Jan. 14.

When the FedEx letter from the Army arrived Nov. 28, he calmly told his mother and girlfriend, "I got my orders," staring hard at them with vacant eyes.

That night, he snapped. He told his girlfriend, Riella Darko, that he wanted to die and asked her to take him to the emergency room of St. Mary's Hospital, where he was placed on a suicide watch. He has since been transferred to a locked ward in the Northampton VA Medical Center in Massachusetts.

His callback orders have not yet been rescinded. Even if they are, his mother said, simply being told he must go back into combat has set back his recovery.

"I don't understand why the military would put him through this," Mary Jane Fernandez said. "He was just starting to come back to reality a little, and now he's lost again."

Fernandez is one of 8,262 soldiers who have left active duty but have been ordered back under a policy that allows the military to recall troops who have completed their service but have time remaining on their contracts. About 5,700 of those called up have already been mobilized, with Fernandez among about 2,500 ordered to report in the coming weeks.

The practice of recalling inactive soldiers involuntarily is itself controversial, with some members of Congress and veterans' advocates calling it a backdoor draft.

All soldiers have an eight-year military service obligation, but typically are released from duty after two to six years. The Army, strained by the war, announced in mid-2004 that it would begin tapping a pool of about 100,000 soldiers who had time left on their service obligations, to fill vacancies in Reserve and National Guard units.

The fact that some of those being summoned have been ruled disabled by the VA or the military, with service-connected PTSD and other medical problems, is raising alarm among veterans' advocates and families. In Fernandez's case, the 70 percent disability rating indicated the serious degree to which doctors had judged his mental state to be impaired.

Steve Robinson, director of government relations for Veterans of America, said he knew of a number of other war veterans with PTSD who had been called back to Iraq.

"If you have a war-related injury that you're being compensated for," he said, "to be sent back into a situation that might exacerbate the problem just doesn't make sense."

Mary Jane Fernandez said she already has notified the Army about Damian's chronic PTSD, and is stunned that he has not been excused. She said a friend of Damian's, who also has severe PTSD, has opted to go back to Iraq because "he misses killing people," the friend told her. A veterans' counselor familiar with the case confirmed that account.

Mary Jane said she cannot picture Damian, whose symptoms include paranoia and hallucinations, back in a war zone.

"I don't trust him taking out the garbage, let alone watching someone's back on the battlefield," she said.

Army and Defense Department officials acknowledged to The Courant earlier this year that they were redeploying soldiers with PTSD -- even though medical standards for enlistment in the armed forces disqualify recruits who suffer from PTSD. The practice of recycling troops with PTSD into war has drawn criticism from some combat- stress experts, who say that re-exposure to trauma increases the risk of serious psychiatric problems.

Last month, Assistant Secretary of Defense William Winkenwerder Jr. issued a new policy that steps up psychological screening of troops, after a Courant series detailing gaps in mental health care brought pressure from Congress for improvements. Among other things, the policy deems PTSD a "treatable" condition, but directs that troops with psychiatric disorders should be sent to war only if they are stable and "without significant symptoms" for at least three months prior to deployment.

"I used to have to track him down on his cell all the time," said Mary Jane, who shares a two-family house with her son. "Now, I never have to call him because I know where he is -- upstairs."

Damian had spent most of the last 18 months upstairs, playing video games or drinking himself to sleep, Mary Jane and Riella said. He attended community college classes for a few weeks, but abruptly quit after an incident in which he mistook a noise outside for a gunshot and flew into a panic because he could not find his gun, they said.

A simple "What do you want for dinner?" can ignite his temper.

"He throws things a lot. We have holes in just about every wall," Riella said.

Mary Jane, who is widowed, said she worries that the war has "broken" her only child. When he first came home from Iraq, his car stereo -- a prized possession -- was stolen. He was despondent for weeks, she said.

"He asked me, `These are the people I fought for?'" she recounted, choking up.

Although Damian has not spoken much about his experiences in Iraq, he told Mary Jane and Riella about a day a school bus exploded on a bridge, and children's body parts fell from the sky.

"He said he accidentally stepped on a kid's insides -- the liver or something," Riella said.

After Damian fell apart last Christmas, Mary Jane said she convinced him to go to the VA to get help. He was diagnosed with PTSD and placed on an antidepressant. This September, he was admitted to a three-week inpatient program at the Northampton VA. His discharge records say: "Suicidal ruminations resolved. Otherwise unchanged from admission."

The recall orders drove him back to the same facility.

Mary Jane and Riella said that while Damian had worried about being sent back to Iraq someday, he had begun to relax in recent months. That changed when the letter arrived.

"He feels guilty that if doesn't go back, he'll be deserting his buddies," Mary Jane said of her son, who received commendations for prior tours in Korea and Africa. "But if he does go back, he's afraid he won't be able to do his part.

"He's all torn up now."

Non-Assurances

Because the Army has no policy exempting soldiers with PTSD from returning to war, counselors at the New Haven Vet Center have been unable to offer Damian assurances he will be excused. Mary Jane said one counselor suggested that Damian's best bet might be to stay "locked up" in the hospital through January.

Still, Donna Hryb, team leader at the Hartford Vet Center, said she would be surprised if the Army deploys a soldier as severely impaired as Damian.

"It would be counterproductive for the unit and for him," she said.

Hilferty, the Army spokesman, acknowledged that redeploying soldiers with "severe" psychological problems could jeopardize other troops' safety. He noted that the Army is not calling back soldiers who have served in combat within the last 12 months, to allow them time between deployments. Hilferty also said officials are working to better monitor soldiers' "readiness."[/quote]

How is this an example of a biased left media? Or am I missing your sarcasm?

I have to assume that he is being sarcastic.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Mr. A 

[quote=mranonymous2u]

“Sure there is.  They could also draft women as well as men.  The could also draft older people to do support jobs and free up the younger draftees for the more strenuous and dangerous occupations.”

Good points.

"By the way the guys and gals that I know who are in the military are adamantly opposed to a draft because they don't want to have to work and fight side by side with unwilling and undertrained draftees."

You know what they say, "... the Army you have, not the Army you want!"

Mr. A

Joe

& BG you did miss it.

Joe,

We are on the same page, my brother!

I knew you had it in you!

Mr. A

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=mranonymous2u]

"Sure there is.  They could also draft women as well as men.  The could also draft older people to do support jobs and free up the younger draftees for the more strenuous and dangerous occupations."

Good points.

"By the way the guys and gals that I know who are in the military are adamantly opposed to a draft because they don't want to have to work and fight side by side with unwilling and undertrained draftees."

You know what they say, "... the Army you have, not the Army you want!"

Mr. A

[/quote]

Even though that goes against traditional ideas of military service, it sounds like a good idea to me!

It might cause folks to really think about what foreign engagements are important and which are not.  And...when we do take them on we will commit our fullest effort to winning.

That, IMHO, is why Iraq is a mess now.  (Yes I do agree it's a mess, I don't agree with those who say we are losing and should pull out.)  We clearly had the right troops and technology to take the country and depose Hussein.  Where we've fallen short is in having sufficient personnel and the right strategies to help get the civil unrest under control and the new government on its feet.
[/quote]

Reason being: There was no plan for post Victiory Iraq.

We should take Clinton’s lead and just eliminate the military all together.  With the UN in charge - who needs defence?

Just when the party was almost over, Apprentice brings in a new bag of potatoe chips!

Apprentice, the military elimination plan was laid out by none other than Dick Cheney. He figured that smart bombs could replace stupid infantry men (their idea, not mine)!

What cheesed the miltary off at Clinton was:

1. He wasn't Ronald Reagan.

2. He wanted the military to stop being juvenile about gays.

3. He was handed Somalia (complete with news crews PLACED on the beach as the soldiers arrived) while he was President Elect, and it turned out that people really do die in wars, things really do go wrong when there are bullets flying around the place. Why that became Clinton's fault, I'm not entirely clear on.

4. The military has a high percentage of knuckleheads in it! Face it! The idea of military training is to overcome the "common sense" reaction and instill a borg mentality in it's place.

5. (sim to above) Put on top of this the fact that the military had long been the "employer of last resort" and Clinton came on board with Dick Cheney's plan in place to excize those people who were 5 to 19 years into a 20 year hitch and to make it much harder to get INTO the military. Cheney did the deed and Clinton took the heat.

Mr. A

Sorry - I should have kept my thoughts to myself.  This has been a long and exhausting string on the message board.

Merry Christmas - and I wish you a successful 2007!!!!!

[/quote]

Even though that goes against traditional ideas of military service, it sounds like a good idea to me!

It might cause folks to really think about what foreign engagements are important and which are not.  And...when we do take them on we will commit our fullest effort to winning.

Agree. This is the way it should be. Draft without deferment. Hopefully it would give pause before engagement.

That, IMHO, is why Iraq is a mess now.  (Yes I do agree it's a mess, I don't agree with those who say we are losing and should pull out.) 

I'm not an alcoholic, I'm a drunk. Alcoholics have to go to meetings.

The first step to getting on the right path here is acknowledgement of where were we now stand. That an alcoholic fails to see his condition for what it is doesn't change his condition, but definately affects the outcome of his situation. Acknowledging that we are losing in Iraq is step one of a 12 step program to better our situation. We are losing in Iraq, we're now caught in their civl war.

As for pulling out? Maybe. Let the Iraqi people vote on it. It's their country. We wanted democracy, we've got democracy. Let's put it to the test.

Vietnam was lost in the 68-69 time frame. Yet we stayed until 75. All staying did was double our KIA count. With regard to Iraq, if staying does not affect the outcome what's the point?

As for losing wars, the war on terror is a war of heats and minds. it's not a war that can be won with military action. In the middle east we are taking a serious ass whoopin in the hearts and minds department. Want to keep this country safe from terrorist, fix that first.

We clearly had the right troops and technology to take the country and depose Hussein.  Where we've fallen short is in having sufficient personnel and the right strategies to help get the civil unrest under control and the new government on its feet.

The problem wasn't taking down Saddam. Our leadership acknowledged it would only take weeks to achieve that goal. The problem was there was no plan on how to run the country after we gained control. The plan was to keep Iraqi govt workers in place to run the day to day operations of the government. Analysts who said that wouldn't work were blown off. As were military leaders who said it would take 100,000 troops to take Iraq but 300,000 to hold it. Bush was convinced that there were WMDs. Rummy micromanaged every aspect of the invasion and Cheney was Ok with whoever we put into power to lead the country post war as long as it was his hand picked choice.  And so it goes. Inept is as inept does.
[/quote]

WAIT! WAIT!

We have dip!

That guy from the Chicago thread said he was going to bring ove some of the almondy tasting fruit juice they're swill at his firm...

AW Shucks! Darnit!

yer no fun....

Mr. A

As for pulling out?

War interruptus.  Not satisfactory for anyone.

Bondguy and Dude and csmelnix,

Let me first say that I think you guys have done an awsome job here. You've been first rate, period, end of sentence.

"As for losing wars, the war on terror is a war of heats and minds. it's not a war that can be won with military action. In the middle east we are taking a serious ass whoopin in the hearts and minds department. Want to keep this country safe from terrorist, fix that first."

From the book  This Is Why Liberals Never Maintain Control, 'Cause They Don't Agree With Each Other.

I'd like to put a refinement on your point.

When the Taliban ran Afghanistan, and it allowed Ossama to headquarter and train his army there, they thought that they would be victorious, and there would be no price to pay. (Perhaps they watched The Mouse That Roared once too many times).

When Al Queda took it's best shot and took down the Twin Towers with a couple of pocket knives, Retribution had to be swift and painful.

At the same moment that Terrorist groups were applauding the actions of 9/11, they also knew that it was dumb dumb dumb! You don't poke a sleeping bear with a stick when your backup is armed with little stones!

Pre 9/11 the entire world was afraid of the US Military. We had won the Desert Storm, we had ended the Bosnia genocide, we had shut down Haiti, and we did all of this with minimal casualties. We had bombs that could knock on the door and ask if you were there, if you weren't it'd ask where you had gone and when you were expected to be back.

Post invasion Iraq... the world is much less afraid of the US military. That's not because of Cindy Sheehan, it's because they don't seem so invincible as they did. It's the Buster Douglas effect. Before BD, people practically fainted when they faced Mike Tyson! He knocked people out in the first 18(?) seconds of the first round! He was invincible! Then came Buster Douglas. He knocked Tyson down! Figuratively speaking, Tyson never got all the way back up.

Hearts and minds, yeah... We have to win the cooperation of those with a heart and mind to cooperate and we have to HAVE TO HAVE TO instill the image of invincibility and swift certain retribution into the minds and hearts of those who would do us and our friends harm.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Joe,

We are on the same page, my brother!

I knew you had it in you!

Mr. A

" when folks are contemptuous of the President and judge his decisions harshly with the benefit of hindsight."

Well it's hindsight to you, it's confirmation of our warnings to us.

All along there were many of us who said that Iraq had no WMD's the Yellowcake story was a fake that was circulated before, that the guy was being impetuous, petulant , deceitful and so on and so on. We were the minority at the time. I was getting the living snot beat out of me for saying such things in the NYTs forums (In the liberal sections no less). Some of us are not Johnny come Lately s to this understanding.

As to those who are, how can you blame them?

It's like when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman." I didn't believe him for a nanosecond, but my father-in-law (who still has the medals that he was given by the Japs during WWI in his arm, apropos of he's a Democrat and a patriot) did. When he found out that he had been lied to (even though I had been letting him know right along) he was sorely disappointed.

People believed in Bush, against their better judgement. They shut down their critical facilities in no small part because the propoganda machine was running at full tilt and the administration was able to fool "all" of the people for some of the time. But when Katrina hit, it blew the scales from the public's eyes (and the media FINALLY reported the shame) and they saw that the emperor was, indeed, with out clothes. Then they realized that they had been lied to all along, that they had been willing to believe and this administration took advantage of that willingness. They are sorely disappointed.

It's not just the administration they judge harshly with the benefit of hindsight, it's themselves.

"I also have a hard time swallowing this whole 'the Neo-Cons were planning to invade Iraq from before Inauguration Day' story. 

Paul Wolfowitz and the Defense Planning Guidance text of 1992

Tracing the history of the doctrine back through the Department of Defense it appears the first full explication of the doctrine was the initial "final draft" version of the internal Defense Planning Guidance guidelines written by Paul Wolfowitz, then in the role of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in 1992. When the guidelines, commonly termed the Wolfowitz Doctrine, were leaked to the press and a controversy arose, the George H. W. Bush White House ordered it re-written. The revised version did not mention pre-emption or unilateralism.

From Wikipedia (which is very good but NOT the definitive source) (BTW, I don't seem to be able to stop the centering madness)

Iraq was the test case all along. We knew this too.

Mr. A

Another Republican heard from,

Gerry Ford (MTGLHMOHS) said that he was against the use of war force in Iraq and that Cheney had become pugnacious in his later years.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372929/

Mr. A

BTW, love the choice of picture in that article!

Ford must have just heard about another Earl Butz joke when he got his picture snapped there.

Ole' Earl was one smooth operator!

I also found it pretty funny that NBC was dancing all around themselves trying not to say... "You know, when he pardoned Nixon, I was really pizzed at him! " and "If it weren't for Gerry Ford, nobody would have laughed at Chevy Chase, and if nobody laughed at Chevy Chase Saturday Night Live would have been shot at Sunday Morning Surnise!"

And there is balance in this universe in that The whitest man in America (Ford) and the blackest man (James Brown) both passed within days of each other.

Mr. A

Mr A, Bond Guy, csmelnix,

I thank you for bringing a maturity (I'm assuming y'all are a wee bit older than my meager 29 years) of insight to this discussion.  I am learning a lot here.  My thoughts are born less from a command of all the fine print and details and more from the 'heart'.  I have always believed that if it looks and smells like sh*t, you don't have to taste it to be 'sure enough' that it's sh*t.

If I believed that this was all about making our country safer and really fighting terrorists, I might have been persuaded to put down my peace loving, Gandhi inspired 'be the change you wish to see' attitude and pick up an M-16, battle fatigues and a few grenades on my way to Afghanistan to fight for all of us.  Unfortunately, I am, like the majority of my peers, very jaded about the state our our country.  It feels like the worst kind of despondence to be handed the reigns to a horse which is so off course and running so hard that you'll have to put the horse down and walk all the way home, bruises, broken bones and all.  Thank you for giving me hope that there are wise and cognizant individuals in your generation.

MikeB, babbling looney, starka,

Thanks for your spirited participation and sincere care about our country.  Even though in many of these areas we disagree, I appreciate that we can have this discussion and at the end of the day still laugh together.  That is the beauty of America and a reality I would gladly fight for if I truly believed America was in jeopardy...actually I do believe that in some ways our country is in jeopardy, but it is more at risk from collapsing in on itself rather than from outside forces. 

I often hear of America being a beacon for the world.  I like this idea, but I believe that it we are misguided on how to be that beacon. 

I am not a Christian in the traditional sense, but I esteem Jesus Christ as a man that I'd like to be like above all else (and not just revere in words, dogma and tradition).  He solved problems by being a 'beacon' of light.  When the pharisees and sadducees were going to stone the prostitute, he stepped in and pointed out the prostitute in us.  He was crucified sybolically (for some literally, both equally powerful in my mind) for the sins of others.  Man has distorted the message (which ultimately was Christs' actions, not his words) Christ offered (key word here) us.  Christ did not try to change others by coercing, forcing or beating them into changing...he offered a solution and that solution was to love those in pain....even though as a symptom of that pain we may be persecuted.  You can not REALLY heal by treating symptoms but by going to the heart of the problem and weeding out the deep root of the problem.  People are feeling unloved (or substitute with another word) by our country and we keep on trying to treat the symptoms...which only postpones and potentially amplify's the consequences of the disease.  I believe the wars we have been fighting have been symptoms of a deeper disease that we are in denial about.

All of the greatest men in my world (Ghandi, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Buddah etc...) treated disease not symptoms.  They accepted responsibility and persecution for the disease of others, helping them heal when they were reviled by their own actions. 

I'm not claiming that the best solution is to let terrorists or our enemies hurt us by any means.  I'm just saying that there is wisdom in treating disease not symptoms.  Treating symptoms can be really deceptive since it 'numbs' or 'makes dissapear' the percieved problem, but we'll have to pay the debt eventually and it will be much harder to resolve.  I believe that America has evidence of this problem all over...Social Security, Wellfare, Medical System issues...on and on.

Works great for politicians to treat symptoms because treating disease is far less popular.  It's in their best interests to keep the disease hidden and to slap some duct tape over it.  Now it's my generations issue to solve and I think we are confused.

So, in honoring Christ's message this Christmas season, I uphold his example of being a beacon.  A beacon draws those seeking illumination, it doesn't force...it quietly, humbly suggests a direction for those who would seek it's benefits.  I say let's be an example for others.

God Bless everyone, no exceptions.

All of the greatest men in my world (Ghandi, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Buddah etc...) treated disease not symptoms.  They accepted responsibility and persecution for the disease of others, helping them heal when they (the persecutors) were reviled by their own actions-causing harm to those who were loving them by turning their cheek.

Wow, George Bush is great…



North Korea has been cured. Although I don’t agree rewarding for bad behavior it is one lest thing for the dems and others to bitch about. Also this was backed by China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and others.



Well you now say IRAN? Well Irans oil revenue (95% of their income) is down 30%. At the same time US sanctions have put pressure on the leadership.



Somolia is now led by a government with support from Ethopia. Leaders who blew up US targets there are dead.



Iraq… Al Sadr is on the run and like rats we have laid the poison to remove the cancers that walk among the free. Top internal and external terrorists have been killed and captured over the past two months.



Palestine is working towards a unified government… Of course Hezbollah is a terrorist organiztaion so that is not going to be an end all solution, but a positive step for the Palestiniens.



All of this must really disapoint DUDE. Kerry would have been a great president for you… Remember his great quote we should be more sensative. That is more your style.