Out of Iraq

[Harlan Huckleby]

Assume we can agree on some mimimum standards that are acceptable to us in Iraq. Say, "stability", meaning a government that is able to contain the insurgency, and the various parties cooperating enough to prevent a civil war.

[texaspackerbacker]

If there ever is a timetable of any sort, it better be at the highest level of top secret. What we really don't need to do is to motivate the enemy by letting them know that if they can only hold out until whatever time, we will cut and run, giving the enemy the success that our troops have fought and in 4,000 cases, died for. As simple and clear cut as this concept his, neither Obama nor Hillary seems to comprehend it.

The way things have been going lately, it seems highly probable that the bulk of our troops will be out in less than 4 years, maybe less than 2. However, the WORST thing we can do is to tip off the enemy to our intentions, as the politicians of the left seem intent to do.

[Deputy Nutz]

If there ever is a timetable of any sort, it better be at the highest level of top secret. What we really don't need to do is to motivate the enemy by letting them know that if they can only hold out until whatever time, we will cut and run, giving the enemy the success that our troops have fought and in 4,000 cases, died for. As simple and clear cut as this concept his, neither Obama nor Hillary seems to comprehend it.

The way things have been going lately, it seems highly probable that the bulk of our troops will be out in less than 4 years, maybe less than 2. However, the WORST thing we can do is to tip off the enemy to our intentions, as the politicians of the left seem intent to do.


I agree with this statement, although I wish at some level Americans knew an agenda with Iraq, and I don't want to hear about stability, because if troop withdrawls were based only on a 100% stable Iraq it is never going to happen unless another sadistic totalitarian ruler was brought back.

I wish it were the case that troops could be withdrawn in two years, I wish their wasn't terrorism, I wish college education was free, I wish I never had to spend another dime on health care.

[texaspackerbacker]

That's why McCain and even a military advisor of Obama (although Obama himself denies it) are talking about a residual force similar to what we have had in Germany and Korea for so long.

The bad guys jumped all over McCain's "hundred year" comment, but as he said, it's casualties that count. and if we get to the point where our troops are not the ones doing the dirty work, why oppose the idea of keeping some there?

We are getting very close to that minimum level of stability right now, and as you say, Nutz, we'll never reach 100%.

The whole Iraq issue WAS the primary thing the Democrats were demagoguing. Now with the degree of success there, they have switched to demagoguing the economy.

However, it was NEVER really about Iraq, just as it is not about the economy now. That is just a means to an end for the Democrats to get in power and to inflict a lot of things on the American people that they could never talk about and get elected--as well as to appoint another bunch of leftist judicial appointees that will ram through an even more sinister agenda against the will of the American people. If you don't think this is true, just think about the changes in our society in the last 50 years--mostly for the worst, and mostly against the wishes on an issue by issue basis, of the American people. Tell me that hasn't happened.

[Freak Out]

Troop levels need to start being reduced now. I'm not talking about pulling 140,000 soldiers out instantly but the Iraqi police and military need to start doing the job and now is the time. If they stumble so what. Large numbers of our troops are not the solution any longer.

[red]

i actually agree with tex and nuts

you definately can't give a definate timeline, or the iraqis are just going top wait for us to leave before all hell breaks loose

i also agree that things are never going to be "suitable" over there. so why prolong it?

we made a massive mistake by swatting the giants hornets nest, and opening pandoras box. we need to admit our mistakes and get the hell out of there asap. quit wasting american lives, and dollars we don't have.

pull all out troops out and send bush and his fucking asshole buddies over there with a case of beer and empty guns and tell them to fix their own fucking mess

[Deputy Nutz]

That's why McCain and even a military advisor of Obama (although Obama himself denies it) are talking about a residual force similar to what we have had in Germany and Korea for so long.

The bad guys jumped all over McCain's "hundred year" comment, but as he said, it's casualties that count. and if we get to the point where our troops are not the ones doing the dirty work, why oppose the idea of keeping some there?

We are getting very close to that minimum level of stability right now, and as you say, Nutz, we'll never reach 100%.

The whole Iraq issue WAS the primary thing the Democrats were demagoguing. Now with the degree of success there, they have switched to demagoguing the economy.

However, it was NEVER really about Iraq, just as it is not about the economy now. That is just a means to an end for the Democrats to get in power and to inflict a lot of things on the American people that they could never talk about and get elected--as well as to appoint another bunch of leftist judicial appointees that will ram through an even more sinister agenda against the will of the American people. If you don't think this is true, just think about the changes in our society in the last 50 years--mostly for the worst, and mostly against the wishes on an issue by issue basis, of the American people. Tell me that hasn't happened.

It is tough to compare the occupancy of Iraq to that of Japan, Korea, and Germany. We conquered and destroyed the oppressive governments in the case of Japan and Germany, We fought governments and military there was a sepration between the civilians and military, in Iraq and Vietnam the majority of the people are probably thankful to the US, but the select minority that have taken arms against us are the worst kind of enemy because they are undetectiable, we can't distiguish, it makes it tough on our soldiers.

[texaspackerbacker]

Troop levels need to start being reduced now. I'm not talking about pulling 140,000 soldiers out instantly but the Iraqi police and military need to start doing the job and now is the time. If they stumble so what. Large numbers of our troops are not the solution any longer.

WHY? For now, the new Iraqi military is still shaky, and the progress of the last year could easily be undone. Why risk that when our own casualties are down as it is? Why not just follow what the military professionals say about when and how to draw down the number of troops?

The comparison to Korea and Germany indeed IS valid, because after the first few years, our troops there were basically a "trip wire" preventing the enemy from messing up the whole situation. The presence of some American troops in that same role for an extended period of time in Iraq would serve the same purpose against a resurgence of al Qaeda or the Iranian-backed militias--or civil war started by any of several factions.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Interesting that nobody wants to draw-down over 4 years, which is probably the course we're on.

I was for withdrawing in 2006 and 2007. Now I see enough political progress that it looks more hopeful.

I don't blame people who want to completely withdraw as quickly as possible. But it's hard for me to beleive that we could just stand aside and watch if things unraveled as a result. The world will blame us for the consequences, and we might very well feel the consequences if the fighting spreads.

[LL2]

I think there will always be troops in Iraq. The gov't wanted a presence in the middle east and now they have it. It will be like Korea like an above poster stated, where the U.S. maintains a base. I would also like a reduction in troops, but it has to be a slow and rational reduction. Almost as if no one really notices it.

[texaspackerbacker]

The way you worded the poll, Harlan,--using the word timetable--you're only going to get the two extremes, the cut and run people--who will take the lowest time amount, and the sane and normal people, for lack of a more fair and balanced description, who can see that ANY timetable hurts America and helps the enemy.

LL2, I agree with you. I'm wondering whether you are say that like it's a good thing--which it is--or not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The way you worded the poll, Harlan,--using the word timetable--you're only going to get the two extremes

It seems to me these are the options available. How would you word it differently to draw out other responses? I have a hunch that people simply are bunched at the extremes.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think there will always be troops in Iraq. The gov't wanted a presence in the middle east and now they have it. It will be like Korea like an above poster stated, where the U.S. maintains a base. I would also like a reduction in troops, but it has to be a slow and rational reduction. Almost as if no one really notices it.

We already had a big presence in the Middle East. In fact, our presence in Saudi Arabia is something that Bin Laden has used as a partial excuse for his demented agenda.

[the_idle_threat]

The way you worded the poll, Harlan,--using the word timetable--you're only going to get the two extremes

It seems to me these are the options available. How would you word it differently to draw out other responses? I have a hunch that people simply are bunched at the extremes.

I think Tex is right, Harlan. He certainly is as far as I'm concerned. I voted for the last option because I oppose setting a timetable. But I'd support a draw down in troops without a timetable (or at least without an acknowledged timetable) and with the flexibilty to halt the draw down at times to quell uprisings. In other words---what we've been doing recently since the surge.

Maybe that's what you meant by the last option, but I read that option as withdraw no troops and establish a long-term presence in force. I think there's a difference between that and a gradual drawdown---almost unnoticable, as LL2 puts it.

These should be separate options in the poll: delay withdrawing and dig in for the long term vs. slowly draw down troops, but without a set timetable.

[3irty1]

I don't think much good could come from giving up now. Its possible we shouldn't even be there in the first place, but either way we gotta finish.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Tex is right, Harlan. He certainly is as far as I'm concerned. I voted for the last option because I oppose setting a timetable. But I'd support a draw down in troops without a timetable (or at least without an acknowledged timetable) and with the flexibilty to halt the draw down at times to quell uprisings. In other words---what we've been doing recently since the surge.

Maybe that's what you meant by the last option, but I read that option as withdraw no troops and establish a long-term presence in force. I think there's a difference between that and a gradual drawdown.

Everybody hopes to withdraw troops. What you described is condition-based withdrawal.


These should be separate options in the poll: delay withdrawing and dig in for the long term vs. slowly draw down troops, but without a set timetable.

I see what you're saying, but I assumed there was no support for the dig-in position. I don't hear anybody suggesting it would be desirable to tie-down 130K troops plus an equal number of contractors in Iraq.

It's possible we will keep smaller but significant troops there longterm if situation calms greatly, but that's really hard to predict and sort-of a seperate issue. Question on the table is whether we'll keep >100K troops there in coming years.

[MJZiggy]

I heard a talk on Iraq today by people doing humanitarian work there. Their work is impossible without the military's protection and ability to move supplies and equipment. I've always thought that since we went and took out their government, we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made and now I'm even more convinced that we need to be there at least a while longer.

[hurleyfan]

Oh crap... here we go..

A "political sensitive" poll / thread, and Tex.

This could get ugly :lol: :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

What is that supposed to mean, Hurley? I'm not familiar with your politics--left, right, whatever.

Harlan, I would have worded it something like this:

Do you favor:

A. Getting our troops out as soon as safely possible regardless of the consequences

B. Setting an artificial timetable to withdraw the troops without regard to the situation on the ground

C. Having an event-driven withdrawal in the negative sense--if the Iraqis don't perform, we give up on them

D. Having an event-driven withdrawal in the positive sense--when landmarks are met, we withdraw except for a residual force

E. Keeping all or most of the troops there indefinitely to prevent any backsliding in Iraq and be prepared to take on Iran if necessary to change the regime there

The last one is mainly the result of my just watching Dennis Miller on the O'Reilly show. That guy is an excellent pro-American commentator.

[Partial]

Pulling out is a necessary evil

[MJZiggy]

Leave your birth control methods out of this.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A. Getting our troops out as soon as safely possible regardless of the consequences

B. Setting an artificial timetable to withdraw the troops without regard to the situation on the ground

C. Having an event-driven withdrawal in the negative sense--if the Iraqis don't perform, we give up on them

D. Having an event-driven withdrawal in the positive sense--when landmarks are met, we withdraw except for a residual force

E. Keeping all or most of the troops there indefinitely to prevent any backsliding in Iraq and be prepared to take on Iran if necessary to change the regime there

A & B amount to the 2-year timetable. D is the conditional withdrawal I had in the poll.

C is more of a disaster case than a plan. If things spiral down significantly, we would withdraw ASAP, regardless of intentions.

E - that's an option outside of my liberal imagination, similar to what Idle_Threat suggested. I don't see any political support for such a policy, but perhaps it should have been in the poll.

[texaspackerbacker]

A. could be done in a month or two--the ONLY consideration would be guarding our own rear (save the jokes) as we withdrew.

B. yes, that probably would be your 2 year thing, although it is unspecific enough to be more or less time

C. is something a lot of liberals have actually talked about

D. yes, that would basically be your C.

E. throws a bone to good gung ho Americans who like the idea of pre-emptive war and asserting American dominance--something that would be a wonderful scenario for just about everybody IMO, but in the context of public opinion skewed by leftist mainstream media propaganda, probably not very popular

[hurleyfan]

What is that supposed to mean, Hurley? I'm not familiar with your politics--left, right, whatever.

Tex, I was just remembering how passionate you were on some of the ol' JSO threads..

What was the thread that seemed to live forever :?:

[texaspackerbacker]

In the immortal words of Pee Wee Herman, "That's what I am, but what are you?" BTW, it was FYI.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think a big part of the Iraq debate is people wanting to be right. Many on both sides are emotionally committed to their position from back in 2002. Some who were against the war want the effort to end with a humbling withdrawal to vindicate their position. Some who supported the war are unwilling to fully digest the damage that has been done to Iraq and the U.S., and they aren't willing to consider costs going forward.

I didn't appreciate Barack Obama reminding everyone that he knew the war was a mistake in the first place when he was supposedly interviewing Patreaus & Crocker about our future choices.

It is by far better if we can make lemonade out of this lemon. It's really hard to evaluate what is going on over there. The recent fighting in Basra has been analysed and portrayed as a fiasco and a hopeful sign, and I honestly can't figure which is true. I can respect either point of view about the future, but the decision ought to be based on current trends. It really doesn't matter what we have invested in the past. I see political progress in Iraq in the past year, I can't see it being correct morally or strategically to give-up as long as that continues.

[Gunakor]

I always have and always will continue to support our troops. But I haven't supported the war since early March 2003.

If our government had kept the focus on bin Laden I'd be fully supportive of the war. When they switched the focus from bin Laden to Hussein they lost my support. Hussein may have been a horrible dictator responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, but he was not our problem until we made him our problem. Then they took it a step further and made Hussein not only our problem, but even moreso our PRIORITY. That was the last straw. Hussein didn't attack American soil. He didn't conspire with bin Laden - in fact, the two men had a sincere dislike for one another. He didn't kill several thousand American citizens. How on earth we could make him a priority over bin Laden, who was our problem and did attack American soil and did kill innocent American citizens, I'll never know.

What I do know is that they'll never find bin Laden in Iraq.

Now, in 2008, there have been more Americans that lost thier lives trying to capture Hussein and create stability in Iraq than that who've lost thier lives trying to capture bin Laden and bring him to justice. Even after Hussein's capture there are more troops in Iraq than there are following bin Laden. That tells me that our government has it's priorities mixed up. Have they forgotten why we are at war in the first place?

Here's why: If they kill/capture Osama bin Laden, how supportive would the average American citizen be of prolonging this war? If bin Laden were captured, how many more lost American lives would be tolerated before we said enough is enough? Not very, and not many.

Besides that, if not for this war, what would George W. Bush's presidency be about anyway? He hasn't done a great job with domestic issues, or foreign relations, or anything else not related to the war...

Now, 5 years later, we've reached a point where we really CAN'T pull out until we've achieved stability in the region. Though Al Queida didn't exist in Iraq until we got there, they are there now. If we leave before that problem is dealt with they'll find a way to get us again. On top of that I think we need to work on foreign relations again - and leaving Iraq prematurely only to watch it fall into civil war certainly would not look good to the international community. So while I do not support the principals of the war in Iraq, I concede that it isn't so simple as just packing up and leaving. Certain objectives must be met first. I support our troops in accomplishing those things, and hope they can do so quickly so they can all come home safely.

[texaspackerbacker]

I didn't mind at all the fact that Barak Obama pointed out his position back in '03 or whenever it was, because that just highlighted the fact that he was WRONG IN A GROSSLY ANTI-AMERICAN WAY THEN, JUST LIKE HE IS NOW!

The media can twist and spin things any damn way they want to twist and spin them, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the American people have a helluva lot more sense than to side with the rotten cut and run crowd--so let Obama spell exactly his position. Let him spell out his positions on all the issues, and it will only serve to put on display for everybody how extremely much out of the mainstream of American views and values he is.

Gunakor, exactly what good would it do to capture Bin Laden? Even killing him--which would be FAR SUPERIOR to capturing him--would do nothing except give us some feel good revenge. It's highly unlikely that Bin Laden has done much operationally with al Qaeda ever since he's been holed up wherever he is.

Committing major forces to hunt him down would be making the same mistake the Soviets did in Afghanistan--and would undoubtedly mean a lot more casualties than we have had in Iraq if we deployed a similar number of troops. And for what?

As for the comment about Bush's presidency without "the war", does that assume 9/11 happened, or not? If you are assuming it did--and Bush prevented any repeats--either with or without "the war", then THAT is a pretty monumental achievement, wouldn't you agree?

Furthermore, if you assume 9/11 did occur--with the horrendous economic hit it brought us, the magnificent comeback from it and economic boom which is only now subsiding, resulting from Bush's tax cuts, is another HUGE achievement. I shutter to think of how BAD things would have gotten if 9/11 had occurred in a Gore or Kerry presidency. Either almost certainly would have STUPIDLY raised taxes and driven the country rapidly toward third world status--which probably would have delighted the imbecile, Gore, as it would have transitioned perfectly into his horrible tearing down of America to feed the idiocy of his global warming crap.

[hoosier]

I didn't mind at all the fact that Barak Obama pointed out his position back in '03 or whenever it was, because that just highlighted the fact that he was WRONG IN A GROSSLY ANTI-AMERICAN WAY THEN, JUST LIKE HE IS NOW!

The media can twist and spin things any damn way they want to twist and spin them, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the American people have a helluva lot more sense than to side with the rotten cut and run crowd--so let Obama spell exactly his position. Let him spell out his positions on all the issues, and it will only serve to put on display for everybody how extremely much out of the mainstream of American views and values he is.


An April 2 CBS/NYT poll shows that over 60% of the American public feels that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Sounds to me like the "bulk of the American people" precisely agreeing with Obama's position.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I didn't mind at all the fact that Barak Obama pointed out his position back in '03 or whenever it was, because that just highlighted the fact that he was WRONG IN A GROSSLY ANTI-AMERICAN WAY THEN, JUST LIKE HE IS NOW!

The media can twist and spin things any damn way they want to twist and spin them, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the American people have a helluva lot more sense than to side with the rotten cut and run crowd--so let Obama spell exactly his position. Let him spell out his positions on all the issues, and it will only serve to put on display for everybody how extremely much out of the mainstream of American views and values he is.


An April 2 CBS/NYT poll shows that over 60% of the American public feels that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Sounds to me like the "bulk of the American people" precisely agreeing with Obama's position.

Those people have been duped by the duplicitous liberal media.

[texaspackerbacker]

I couldn't have said it better, Tyrone.

However, as the election approaches, things always turn around--when people get the unfiltered versions, and Democrats can't hide from their horrendously bad for America positions. That's what got Gore and Kerry beat, and Obama/Hillary are already behind where those guys were in 2000 and 2004.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Gunakor`s argument that Iraq was wrong priority is reasonable.

[hoosier]

I couldn't have said it better, Tyrone.

However, as the election approaches, things always turn around--when people get the unfiltered versions, and Democrats can't hide from their horrendously bad for America positions. That's what got Gore and Kerry beat, and Obama/Hillary are already behind where those guys were in 2000 and 2004.

I think I get it now. Things are the way you say they are. And if the facts should happen to get in the way, you'll just write them off as momentary glitches soon to be corrected. Something tells me you're a difficult man to reason with.

[Harlan Huckleby]

An April 2 CBS/NYT poll shows that over 60% of the American public feels that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Sounds to me like the "bulk of the American people" precisely agreeing with Obama's position.

I'm surprised that the result isn't higher, maybe some are being defensive.

But the question of the invasion is just a distraction from the real hard choices to be made. I know the Dems are solidly behind a withdrawal within two years, but I doubt the majority of Americans are so sure.

I am troubled when Hillary & Barack promise to "end the war" on the campaign trail. I know it is just words, but it`s an empty deception. I thought the lesson of Vietnam and Bush & Cheney was that our leaders should be honest. The only way to "end the war" would be to have a draft and send 2 million soldiers to Iraq and impose martial law.

BTW, an EXCELLENT insight into the state of Iraq comes from Burns & Filkins, two NY Times journalists with a long history in Iraq. John Burns in particular has been accurate and honest about the war from the start. Check out Charlie Rose interview online, it is worth your time:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/04/09/1/a-conversation-with-john-burns-and-dexter-filkins

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I couldn't have said it better, Tyrone.

However, as the election approaches, things always turn around--when people get the unfiltered versions, and Democrats can't hide from their horrendously bad for America positions. That's what got Gore and Kerry beat, and Obama/Hillary are already behind where those guys were in 2000 and 2004.

I think I get it now. Things are the way you say they are. And if the facts should happen to get in the way, you'll just write them off as momentary glitches soon to be corrected. Something tells me you're a difficult man to reason with.

Something tells me you are part of the evil cut and run, america hating left.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Things are the way you say they are. And if the facts should happen to get in the way, you'll just write them off as momentary glitches soon to be corrected.

:lol: I think you get Tex.

[texaspackerbacker]

Things are the way you say they are. And if the facts should happen to get in the way, you'll just write them off as momentary glitches soon to be corrected.

:lol: I think you get Tex.

The point is, Hoosier (and Harlan), the facts NEVER DO GET IN THE WAY--if they did, I wouldn't say the things I say.

Tyrone, much as my heart is trying to convince me you are for real, my mind has this sarcasm alert going off. I love your words, just the same.

[Gunakor]

I didn't mind at all the fact that Barak Obama pointed out his position back in '03 or whenever it was, because that just highlighted the fact that he was WRONG IN A GROSSLY ANTI-AMERICAN WAY THEN, JUST LIKE HE IS NOW!

The media can twist and spin things any damn way they want to twist and spin them, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the American people have a helluva lot more sense than to side with the rotten cut and run crowd--so let Obama spell exactly his position. Let him spell out his positions on all the issues, and it will only serve to put on display for everybody how extremely much out of the mainstream of American views and values he is.

Gunakor, exactly what good would it do to capture Bin Laden? Even killing him--which would be FAR SUPERIOR to capturing him--would do nothing except give us some feel good revenge. It's highly unlikely that Bin Laden has done much operationally with al Qaeda ever since he's been holed up wherever he is.

Committing major forces to hunt him down would be making the same mistake the Soviets did in Afghanistan--and would undoubtedly mean a lot more casualties than we have had in Iraq if we deployed a similar number of troops. And for what?

As for the comment about Bush's presidency without "the war", does that assume 9/11 happened, or not? If you are assuming it did--and Bush prevented any repeats--either with or without "the war", then THAT is a pretty monumental achievement, wouldn't you agree?

Furthermore, if you assume 9/11 did occur--with the horrendous economic hit it brought us, the magnificent comeback from it and economic boom which is only now subsiding, resulting from Bush's tax cuts, is another HUGE achievement. I shutter to think of how BAD things would have gotten if 9/11 had occurred in a Gore or Kerry presidency. Either almost certainly would have STUPIDLY raised taxes and driven the country rapidly toward third world status--which probably would have delighted the imbecile, Gore, as it would have transitioned perfectly into his horrible tearing down of America to feed the idiocy of his global warming crap.



9/11 obviously did occur. Osama bin Laden was responsible, not Saddam Hussein. There was no conspiracy between the two - they were not partners in any capacity. The fault was not in reacting to 9/11. The fault was with the shift in focus from bin Laden to Hussein.

You could be right that trying to hunt down bin Laden is pointless at this point, but go back 5 years. That's when the focus shifted to Iraq. Why? It was bin Laden that was the mastermind behind 9/11 and it was Al Queida that carried it out. Neither were in Iraq in March 2003. That's how they lost my support for the war - they forgot the reason they went to war in the first place. In effect, they started a second war. True enough, the two are connected now. But regardless how the media and the government tried to spin it, there was no connection back then. Other than the fact that Hussein and bin Laden were muslims of Arab descent anyway. Assuming he's telling the truth that he's not at war with Islam, what was his purpose of going to Iraq in the first place? Oil? Revenge? Maybe, but IMO whatever it was it wasn't worth 3500+ American lives.

As I said, however, we can't just pull out now. There's too much at stake. Although there was no imminent threat from Iraq 6 years ago, there certainly is now. If we were to leave before acheiving stability and with Iraq having a well trained and equipped police force to enforce law it would most certainly come back to bite us later.

My point was that it shouldn't have had to come to this in the first place.

[hoosier]

BTW, an EXCELLENT insight into the state of Iraq comes from Burns & Filkins, two NY Times journalists with a long history in Iraq. John Burns in particular has been accurate and honest about the war from the start. Check out Charlie Rose interview online, it is worth your time:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/04/09/1/a-conversation-with-john-burns-and-dexter-filkins

Damned link is either broken or takes forever to load.

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, you were the one who seemingly relegated to nothingness the fact that Bush prevented any repeats of 9/11, as well as bringing the country back so wonderfully in an economic sense. And he did so with INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY--the war, SECURITY--the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of terrorists, etc., and TAX CUTTING--All things that Gore/Kerry/Obama/Hillary, basically any Democrat you can name BLATANTLY OPPOSED. Those are the FACTS. How do you get around those FACTS when you thoughtlessly echo the rotten leftist mainstream media and disparage the Bush presidency?

I ask again, what good do you think it would have done to go on some wild goose chase for Bin Laden--even if we caught him? Is REVENGE somehow more important to you than PREVENTION of the repeated mass murder of Americans?

[hoosier]

I am troubled when Hillary & Barack promise to "end the war" on the campaign trail. I know it is just words, but it`s an empty deception. I thought the lesson of Vietnam and Bush & Cheney was that our leaders should be honest. The only way to "end the war" would be to have a draft and send 2 million soldiers to Iraq and impose martial law.


I think the Dem candidates have been reduced to this strategy in the wake of the last two presidential elections. Put yourself in their shoes. You've seen what happens when your party tries to stake out reasoned positions on the war on terror: you get branded flip-flopper, anti-american, you get swift boated, and so on. The turn to image and sound bite politics strikes me as a survival technique. It doesn't bode well for the future of political debate in this country, but I certainly understand why both Dem candidates would take this approach.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, an EXCELLENT insight into the state of Iraq comes from Burns & Filkins, two NY Times journalists with a long history in Iraq. John Burns in particular has been accurate and honest about the war from the start. Check out Charlie Rose interview online, it is worth your time:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/04/09/1/a-conversation-with-john-burns-and-dexter-filkins

Damned link is either broken or takes forever to load.

works ok for me. probably your wife is picking up the phone & breaking your dial-up connection. :D

[texaspackerbacker]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am troubled when Hillary & Barack promise to "end the war" on the campaign trail. I know it is just words, but it`s an empty deception. I thought the lesson of Vietnam and Bush & Cheney was that our leaders should be honest. The only way to "end the war" would be to have a draft and send 2 million soldiers to Iraq and impose martial law.


I think the Dem candidates have been reduced to this strategy in the wake of the last two presidential elections. Put yourself in their shoes. You've seen what happens when your party tries to stake out reasoned positions on the war on terror: you get branded flip-flopper, anti-american, you get swift boated, and so on. The turn to image and sound bite politics strikes me as a survival technique. It doesn't bode well for the future of political debate in this country, but I certainly understand why both Dem candidates would take this approach.

that's a good point, especially on the flip flop. Sometimes it is necessary to flip-flop, the world isn't static. I wish either HC or BO would say what they REALLY expect to do. BO has drpped some hints recently about a residual force. He did ask some good questions about specific conditions for withdrawal. Well, maybe BO should state HIS conditions if he indeed has some. After all, it's his judgement that will count in 9 months, not Patraeus.

the way we choose leaders is nuts. those fuckers should be cross-examined and expected to answer hard questions.

[Joemailman]

The truth is the next President will have to reduce troop levels in Iraq or risk losing Afghanistan, which could be worse than losing Iraq. Petraeus has agreed that Al-Qaeda is more dangerous in Afghanistan than in Iraq. The administration is predicting a doomsday scenario if we start withdrawing from Iraq "too early". Of course, these are the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would finance the war, etc. I am not convinced of their wisdom.

[BallHawk]

Bush's speech today was laughable. It was one of those few moments when you realize what a whole mess the situation is. How the history books teach this one will be interesting.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The administration is predicting a doomsday scenario if we start withdrawing from Iraq "too early". Of course, these are the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would finance the war, etc. I am not convinced of their wisdom.

the administration is no longer relevant.

[Freak Out]

The administration is predicting a doomsday scenario if we start withdrawing from Iraq "too early". Of course, these are the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would finance the war, etc. I am not convinced of their wisdom.

the administration is no longer relevant.

Unfortunately they still have time to fuck things up even worse.

[Joemailman]

The administration is predicting a doomsday scenario if we start withdrawing from Iraq "too early". Of course, these are the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would finance the war, etc. I am not convinced of their wisdom.

the administration is no longer relevant.

I disagree. They may be incredibly ineffective, but they are still relevant. I think there's a real chance that this war will be expanded to include airstrikes against Iran. Bush will do things after the election, but before his terms ends to remind everyone of his relevancy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I disagree. They may be incredibly ineffective, but they are still relevant.

except they have not been ineffective since petraeus & crocker took over. and I'm not just talking about the relative decrease in violence, which is hopeful. they have finessed kurdish problems w/ turkey & kirkuk. they have pressed shia gov to integrate sunni local militia, and pressed-ahead w/ that project despite shia stupidity. i doubt prov. elections would be coming without u.s. nudge. the success of the u.s. military in integrating closer w/ population is astonishing. the polls show rising morale in iraqi population. (well, among the uneducated, hillary clinton type voters who were unable to flee the country. :) )

(btw, i am not being edgy w/ all lower case, i sprained left shoulder, can't reach shift key. i'm playing hurt.)

you make valid point that bush could yet go wild. maybe, but i really doubt it. gates as defense minister and rice as sec. of state is a new era. they'd stand up to W. yes, i suppose W could always drop the big one in december.

my main point in mentioning the irrelevance of bush & company is that it is time to look to future and stop blaming the old bogey man. it won't help president obama that he was first to be against the war. we need to keep a clear head looking at choices today.

at the charlie rose website, the comments about the burns-filkins interview were mostly from anti-war people claiming that burns is a pro-war shill. total nonsense, one can view old interviews w/ him thru every stage of the war and see he was a realist & skeptic.

some anti-war folks are so set in their ways & rightous fury that they are unwilling to consider new developments. good news is no news. "The war was a bad idea so we have to get out. " I agree there is a case to be made for leaving, but that isn't it.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, sorry to hear about your injury.

However, it appears that the injury reduced your ability to go as far to the left as usual--and that's a very good thing.

Nice fair and balanced post.

It is idiotic of these lefties to parrot the media and condemn the administration which has prevented mass murder of huge numbers of Americans by repeats of 9/11 and which brought the economy back from the abyss of 9/11 to the wonderful boom we have seen--and in both cases, did so using methods strenuously opposed by liberal candidates and other politicians. THAT is the reason the media has promoted so much irrational hate for Bush--he succeeded, and he did it completely counter to their way of doing things.

[Joemailman]

The case to be made for leaving (gradually) is that we will have to over time. We do nor have the troop levels needed to maintain 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely until "the job is done" if we are going to deal with other problem areas. Colin Powell said as much this week. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLBkzdVupoA9_e7D2-5tjiN8xzTAD8VV8UFO0

Bush and McCain know the next President will be forced to withdraw troops from Iraq, unless we are going to have a draft. They just won't say it. Leveling with the American people about what resources we have, what obstacles we face, and what we can do about it would be a good policy. Bush and McCain are not doing that.

[falco]

too bad Colin Powell wasn't our president the last 8 years and not Bush.

[falco]

I was listening to the Diane Rehm show yesterday and they said all the decision makers in the military are against taking any action against Iran - they know our military needs time to regroup, rebuild, etc, before we could ever conceive doing such a thing.

[hoosier]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

[falco]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:

http://www.hi-rezdesigns.com/posters/death_wish_black.jpg

ps - I have this original poster, autographed by the man himself... only mine is white, not black

[oregonpackfan]

too bad Colin Powell wasn't our president the last 8 years and not Bush.

I strongly disagree about Colin Powell. He has proved himself to be as much a distorter and a denier of the truth than George W. Bush.

When he was Secretary of State, Powell acted as Bush's spokesman and appeared before the United Nations. He reported on alleged irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussain had massive weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to the security of the United States.

Powell knew full well there was no credible evidence of these weapons yet he made this report to the UN. He was aware that UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and his team of 800 inspectors had found no weapons. He was also aware that 600 American inspectors were in the process of searching the country and were not finding any weapons of mass destruction.

We have to remember another damaging aspect of Powell. When he was a Major in the Vietnam War, he was one of the officers who tried to cover up the My Lai massacre where American soldiers rounded up 500 Vietnamese women, children, and elderly men, lined them in a ditch, and shot them all. Only Lt. William Calley was held responsible for that massacre--he served several years of house arrest.

Colin Powell did not have the integrity to tell the American people the truth about Hussain's alleged weapons and the falsehood about invading Iraq. He was just a company "Yes-Man" for Bush.

[Gunakor]

Gunakor, you were the one who seemingly relegated to nothingness the fact that Bush prevented any repeats of 9/11, as well as bringing the country back so wonderfully in an economic sense. And he did so with INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY--the war, SECURITY--the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of terrorists, etc., and TAX CUTTING--All things that Gore/Kerry/Obama/Hillary, basically any Democrat you can name BLATANTLY OPPOSED. Those are the FACTS. How do you get around those FACTS when you thoughtlessly echo the rotten leftist mainstream media and disparage the Bush presidency?

I ask again, what good do you think it would have done to go on some wild goose chase for Bin Laden--even if we caught him? Is REVENGE somehow more important to you than PREVENTION of the repeated mass murder of Americans?


Are you suggesting that the only way to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil was to go to war with a country that, at the time, posed little to no terrorist threat to America? Iraq was not the problem. That's the point. They could have accomplished the same sense of security without starting a second war. I don't see why they had to go to Iraq to prevent another 9/11.

I am not opposed to the reason this war started. In fact, I fully supported going to war in the first place. But the war I supported was the one against those who were responsible for 9/11. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi dictatorship were not the ones responsible. They were responsible for a great number of injustices, but 9/11 was not one of them. I had thought that this war was about 9/11. Please tell me what Iraq had to do with 9/11. I don't see a connection.

I suppose in order to see where I'm coming from you have to separate the war in Afghanistan from the war in Iraq. I cannot make this any more clear - they are two seperate wars. Or at least they were when America invaded Iraq.

You ask me if revenge is more imortant than the prevention of another mass murder on American soil. The answer is obviously no, but catching bin Laden wouldn't be revenge - it would be justice. Would you say that the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't worth killing or capturing? That we should just let him go? Not worry about it anymore? Was capturing Saddam Huseein more important than capturing Osama bin Laden?

As far as your comment on the interrogation methods of suspected terrorists... I've seen the pictures of Arabs in hoods, wired to car batteries. I've read the reports of waterboarding and other abuse. I know about the courts-martial of MP's for inhumane treatment of prisoners. The violations of the Geneva Convention. Holding people for years without charge or proof of guilt, and with no possibility of legal representation. People who have been PROVEN guilty of murder here in America get far better treatment. The prisoners at Guantanamo will likely never be tried, will never have a chance to prove thier innocence (something nobody should ever have to do in the first place), and probably will never see freedom again whether they were guilty of anything or not. If you pride yourself on American values and the humane treatement of others, it's blatantly obvious what is wrong with this picture.

I don't know where you are from, but my taxes aren't any lower than they were during the Clinton administration. Taxes will go up now, but only because they have to. We have to somehow pay for the deficit that your boy GW let ballon out of control due to this war. If they don't raise taxes then they have to cut spending. If you support this war then you obviously don't want them cutting spending on the war budget. So the cuts would have to come from somewhere else. Would you support cutting spending on real domestic issues such as education and health care so that our taxes won't go up? Maybe you are just fine with the deficit being so high, and have no interest in paying it off? Being TRILLIONS of dollars in debt is sure great for our economy, don't you think? C'mon now. Don't try to tout Bush's domestic or economic record.

Here's a number for you. Our national deficit is currently over 9.4 trillion dollars. It continues to increase at an average rate of 1.67 billion dollars a day, and has since September 2006. If you are okay with this, I assure you that you are in the minority. This ISN'T good for America. Yet Bush has no plan for dealing with that. Neither does McCain. Dems have bit into that deficit while in office only to let the Reps wipe away all thier progress - and in the case of Bush, make the problem bigger than it ever was in history. Does this not matter to you?

[texaspackerbacker]

[quote=texaspackerbacker]You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:

I am merely one of the Advocates for good sense and what's good for America. The American people are the judge and jury, and the election is the process of execution. The leftists, in particular, the leftists of the mainstream media are the Advocates for lunacy and what's bad for America, and it's plain to see, they have some of you completely snowed to their wrongheaded points of view.

Hoosier, it's pretty lame when you are seemingly incapable of arguing the issues--only making a few sarcastic comments. I guess you have to be forgiven, though, because there simply ARE NO effective arguments in favor of liberal positions--they are just plain WRONG, BAD FOR AMERICA, AND USUALLY JUDGED THAT WAY IN ELECTIONS. When I get around to it, I may start a thread about that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote=texaspackerbacker]You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:

I am merely one of the Advocates for good sense and what's good for America. The American people are the judge and jury, and the election is the process of execution. The leftists, in particular, the leftists of the mainstream media are the Advocates for lunacy and what's bad for America, and it's plain to see, they have some of you completely snowed to their wrongheaded points of view.

Hoosier, it's pretty lame when you are seemingly incapable of arguing the issues--only making a few sarcastic comments. I guess you have to be forgiven, though, because there simply ARE NO effective arguments in favor of liberal positions--they are just plain WRONG, BAD FOR AMERICA, AND USUALLY JUDGED THAT WAY IN ELECTIONS. When I get around to it, I may start a thread about that.

Oh, good. I know the rest of the forum awaits that thread like Jesus returning.

[hoosier]

[quote=texaspackerbacker]You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:

I am merely one of the Advocates for good sense and what's good for America. The American people are the judge and jury, and the election is the process of execution. The leftists, in particular, the leftists of the mainstream media are the Advocates for lunacy and what's bad for America, and it's plain to see, they have some of you completely snowed to their wrongheaded points of view.

Hoosier, it's pretty lame when you are seemingly incapable of arguing the issues--only making a few sarcastic comments. I guess you have to be forgiven, though, because there simply ARE NO effective arguments in favor of liberal positions--they are just plain WRONG, BAD FOR AMERICA, AND USUALLY JUDGED THAT WAY IN ELECTIONS. When I get around to it, I may start a thread about that.

I tried arguing the issues, Tex, I really tried. To your comment about the "bulk of the American public" opposing Obama's position on Iraq, I responded by citing a recent poll showing over 60% of American public viewing the invasion as a big mistake. The only reply you could muster to that was, that 60+% has been duped by the "left-wing media." I can only conclude that you cherry pick the "facts" that support your position and ignore those that don't. What you hear isn't sarcasm speaking, it's resignation in the face of the futility of arguing with someone who apparently deals in dogma, not facts.

[hoosier]

BTW, an EXCELLENT insight into the state of Iraq comes from Burns & Filkins, two NY Times journalists with a long history in Iraq. John Burns in particular has been accurate and honest about the war from the start. Check out Charlie Rose interview online, it is worth your time:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/04/09/1/a-conversation-with-john-burns-and-dexter-filkins

Damned link is either broken or takes forever to load.

works ok for me. probably your wife is picking up the phone & breaking your dial-up connection. :D

You laugh, but actually our cordless phone interferes with our wireless, and I haven't bothered to switch the wireless to a different frequency, so that may well be the problem. Will have to try it at work.

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, you were the one who seemingly relegated to nothingness the fact that Bush prevented any repeats of 9/11, as well as bringing the country back so wonderfully in an economic sense. And he did so with INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY--the war, SECURITY--the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of terrorists, etc., and TAX CUTTING--All things that Gore/Kerry/Obama/Hillary, basically any Democrat you can name BLATANTLY OPPOSED. Those are the FACTS. How do you get around those FACTS when you thoughtlessly echo the rotten leftist mainstream media and disparage the Bush presidency?

I ask again, what good do you think it would have done to go on some wild goose chase for Bin Laden--even if we caught him? Is REVENGE somehow more important to you than PREVENTION of the repeated mass murder of Americans?


Are you suggesting that the only way to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil was to go to war with a country that, at the time, posed little to no terrorist threat to America? Iraq was not the problem. That's the point. They could have accomplished the same sense of security without starting a second war. I don't see why they had to go to Iraq to prevent another 9/11.

I am not opposed to the reason this war started. In fact, I fully supported going to war in the first place. But the war I supported was the one against those who were responsible for 9/11. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi dictatorship were not the ones responsible. They were responsible for a great number of injustices, but 9/11 was not one of them. I had thought that this war was about 9/11. Please tell me what Iraq had to do with 9/11. I don't see a connection.

I suppose in order to see where I'm coming from you have to separate the war in Afghanistan from the war in Iraq. I cannot make this any more clear - they are two seperate wars. Or at least they were when America invaded Iraq.

You ask me if revenge is more imortant than the prevention of another mass murder on American soil. The answer is obviously no, but catching bin Laden wouldn't be revenge - it would be justice. Would you say that the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't worth killing or capturing? That we should just let him go? Not worry about it anymore? Was capturing Saddam Huseein more important than capturing Osama bin Laden?

As far as your comment on the interrogation methods of suspected terrorists... I've seen the pictures of Arabs in hoods, wired to car batteries. I've read the reports of waterboarding and other abuse. I know about the courts-martial of MP's for inhumane treatment of prisoners. The violations of the Geneva Convention. Holding people for years without charge or proof of guilt, and with no possibility of legal representation. People who have been PROVEN guilty of murder here in America get far better treatment. The prisoners at Guantanamo will likely never be tried, will never have a chance to prove thier innocence (something nobody should ever have to do in the first place), and probably will never see freedom again whether they were guilty of anything or not. If you pride yourself on American values and the humane treatement of others, it's blatantly obvious what is wrong with this picture.

I don't know where you are from, but my taxes aren't any lower than they were during the Clinton administration. Taxes will go up now, but only because they have to. We have to somehow pay for the deficit that your boy GW let ballon out of control due to this war. If they don't raise taxes then they have to cut spending. If you support this war then you obviously don't want them cutting spending on the war budget. So the cuts would have to come from somewhere else. Would you support cutting spending on real domestic issues such as education and health care so that our taxes won't go up? Maybe you are just fine with the deficit being so high, and have no interest in paying it off? Being TRILLIONS of dollars in debt is sure great for our economy, don't you think? C'mon now. Don't try to tout Bush's domestic or economic record.

Here's a number for you. Our national deficit is currently over 9.4 trillion dollars. It continues to increase at an average rate of 1.67 billion dollars a day, and has since September 2006. If you are okay with this, I assure you that you are in the minority. This ISN'T good for America. Yet Bush has no plan for dealing with that. Neither does McCain. Dems have bit into that deficit while in office only to let the Reps wipe away all thier progress - and in the case of Bush, make the problem bigger than it ever was in history. Does this not matter to you?

What I am suggesting--in fact, stating unequivocally--is that we have not had any repeats of the 9/11 mass murder of Americans or worse. I am, further, making the logical connection of that prevention of acts of terror to the Bush Administration policies--ALL of which were strongly opposed by Obama, Hillary, and all the other big name Democrats.

What were those policies? Interventionist foreign policy, pre-emptive war, and enhanced security at home. Could any of you lefties possibly disagree that your pet Dem/lib candidates opposed these things? Could you possibly deny the LINK between these and preventing terrorism at home? I suppose some of you might be in denial of that link, but you would be wrong.

Did Saddam have WMDs? Probably, but it's no big deal one way or the other in hindsight. Did Saddam support terrorism? Clearly yes, but that also is not high up among the relevant factors in preventing terrorism. Was Saddam complicit with Bin Laden? Maybe--no proof one way or the other--but this also is not a key factor.

In hindsight, the key factor--the LINK between the war in Iraq and the prevention of mass murder of Americans by terrorism--pay attention now; Even though this is well known and not even controversial among our troops as well as the vast majority of Americans, it somehow escapes most of you liberals, the LINK is the fact that al Qaeda, as stated by Bin Laden himself, PRIORITIZED MESSING UP IRAQ AHEAD OF PERPETRATING ACTS OF TERROR IN AMERICA. That along with enhanced security is the HOW to the FACT that Bush and company have prevented repeats of 9/11 type terrorism in America.

And you leftists whine about mistreatment of terrorist prisoners. Would you honestly consider THAT more important than saving lives of Americans? You can put those mistreatment instances in two categories: piddling little low level incidences done by frustrated American troops AND effective measures to get vital information out of high level prisoners. The former represents minor crap demagogued by the anti-American mainstream media. The latter represents doing what provably worked to save American lives. Tell me you don't oppose that.

Obama, Hillary, also Kerry and a lot of other Dems, in their own words, would NOT have used those policies--including the war in Iraq. Can we, therefore, assume we WOULD HAVE had repeats of 9/11 if there was a Democrat president? I suppose that's a slight stretch, but it is no stretch at all to say none of those Dems supported what worked, and they had NO RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE to prevent terrorism. The closest they to a policy any of those Democrats has ever expressed is John Kerry's idiotic "police approach"--basically wait for them to hit us, and then track them down like cops.

So you forum lefties who are so prone to piss all over Bush's achievements and deny the importance of saving American lives, do you have any better way?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The case to be made for leaving (gradually) is that we will have to over time. We do nor have the troop levels needed to maintain 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely

right. my guess is the next pres has limited latitude, so the iraq war question is not so critical as all the huffing & puffing would make it seem. altho there might be some minor differences in rate of withdrawal, we still prefer a pres with the right touch. (rather than one who is touched?)


Bush and McCain know the next President will be forced to withdraw troops from Iraq, unless we are going to have a draft. They just won't say it. Leveling with the American people

i don't know if this 100% true. we could probably keep 110K troops there indefinitely.

the point is, we are in the end game of being so extended iraq. there isn't any point in staying unless the iraqi army is gradually taking over, and politics continue in right direction. i can't imagine obama would interfere with situation that is healing steadily. and the american patience is OVER (ouch -my shoulder) if situation looks like a house of cards.

[Gunakor]

Tex, you haven't really explained why you think invading Iraq was essential to preventing another 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The two are absoutely NOT connected. How is a pre-emptive war waged on a country of little to no threat to America going to prevent terrorism? The same goal could be accomplished by limiting the war to those who DO threaten America, don't you think?

Bin Laden threatened Iraq... they could have simply crushed bin Laden and his Al Queida before they ever had a chance to do so. If they were worried about Al Queida messing up Iraq, why would they go to war with Hussein - who HATED bin Laden and vice versa?

[Partial]

We gotta start doing the necessary evil (pulling out) because Iraq is expensive.

[Deputy Nutz]

We gotta start doing the necessary evil (pulling out) because Iraq is expensive.

So are diamonds.

[Partial]

Yeah but once you buy a diamond you no longer have to pull out.

[Deputy Nutz]

The expense is an issue but it might cost this country more in terms of viewing Iraq as an investment if the military would just "pull out".

[Harlan Huckleby]

the scary thing is we aren't even paying for war now, it is borrowed money.

that means the war is STIMULATING our economy now. so how bad is the economy now really? :shock:

the only comfort you can take is i don't know shit about this stuff, maybe i misunderstand. but i fear we are digging hole. vietnam era was boom, post vietnam bust.

[Deputy Nutz]

the scary thing is we aren't even paying for war now, it is borrowed money.

that means the war is STIMULATING our economy now. so how bad is the economy now really? :shock:

the only comfort you can take is i don't know shit about this stuff, maybe i misunderstand. but i fear we are digging hole. vietnam era was boom, post vietnam bust.

In wars in the past, our gross national product would be stimulated. Now we borrow and increase the gross national product of other countries.

We used to build our own weapons and such, not anymore

[GoPackGo]

In wars in the past, our gross national product would be stimulated. Now we borrow and increase the gross national product of other countries.

We used to build our own weapons and such, not anymore

Borrowing money to go to war seems pretty irresponsible doesn't it?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

In wars in the past, our gross national product would be stimulated. Now we borrow and increase the gross national product of other countries.

We used to build our own weapons and such, not anymore

Borrowing money to go to war seems pretty irresponsible doesn't it?

Questioning our president and the way he determines to save us from the barbarous hordes of foaming at the mouth islamo-fascists seems pretty irresponsible, if not treasonous.

[Deputy Nutz]

In wars in the past, our gross national product would be stimulated. Now we borrow and increase the gross national product of other countries.

We used to build our own weapons and such, not anymore

Borrowing money to go to war seems pretty irresponsible doesn't it?

Questioning our president and the way he determines to save us from the barbarous hordes of foaming at the mouth islamo-fascists seems pretty irresponsible, if not treasonous.

Its a free country :?:

[GoPackGo]

Questioning our president and the way he determines to save us from the barbarous hordes of foaming at the mouth islamo-fascists seems pretty irresponsible, if not treasonous.

Thats funny-
I was raised to be a republican by default, but after witnessing the last 2 terms-I'm switching to Libertarian

[Tyrone Bigguns]

In wars in the past, our gross national product would be stimulated. Now we borrow and increase the gross national product of other countries.

We used to build our own weapons and such, not anymore

Borrowing money to go to war seems pretty irresponsible doesn't it?

Questioning our president and the way he determines to save us from the barbarous hordes of foaming at the mouth islamo-fascists seems pretty irresponsible, if not treasonous.

Its a free country :?:

No it's not. Pure myth. That is just a more liberal media duping you. Anyone who questions the president hates our country.

[Deputy Nutz]

Hate monger.

[hoosier]

Hate monger.

Who's Monger??

[Deputy Nutz]

Hate monger.

Who's Monger??

Monger Lewis

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, you haven't really explained why you think invading Iraq was essential to preventing another 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The two are absoutely NOT connected. How is a pre-emptive war waged on a country of little to no threat to America going to prevent terrorism? The same goal could be accomplished by limiting the war to those who DO threaten America, don't you think?

Bin Laden threatened Iraq... they could have simply crushed bin Laden and his Al Queida before they ever had a chance to do so. If they were worried about Al Queida messing up Iraq, why would they go to war with Hussein - who HATED bin Laden and vice versa?

Gunakor, I thought I did that when I talked about the LINK.

Whatever the original reason, actually reasons, for invading Iraq--and there were several valid ones, the RESULT, in hindsight, which indeed IS valid in this case, as we are discussing the HOW of preventing repeats of 9/11--is that al Qaeda decided that screwing up the new government which we set up as an example of freedom and representative government was MORE IMPORTANT to them than hitting us at home. Possibly the fact that America had become a harder target--with the Patriot Act, enhanced security, and all--had something to do with that decision. Anyway, al Qaeda's decision--as articulated by Bin Laden himself--was greatly responsible for their inability to hit us at home.

And the Dem/libs--YOUR Dem/libs--opposed both the war, the Patriot Act, the enhanced security, the harsh interrogation, the imprisonment without trials at Guantanamo--the whole shibang. They--Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc. opposed ALL ASPECTS of what successfully saved thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of Americans from being murdered by terrorists--and they have the sick gall to brag about it.

[texaspackerbacker]

[quote=texaspackerbacker]You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:

I am merely one of the Advocates for good sense and what's good for America. The American people are the judge and jury, and the election is the process of execution. The leftists, in particular, the leftists of the mainstream media are the Advocates for lunacy and what's bad for America, and it's plain to see, they have some of you completely snowed to their wrongheaded points of view.

Hoosier, it's pretty lame when you are seemingly incapable of arguing the issues--only making a few sarcastic comments. I guess you have to be forgiven, though, because there simply ARE NO effective arguments in favor of liberal positions--they are just plain WRONG, BAD FOR AMERICA, AND USUALLY JUDGED THAT WAY IN ELECTIONS. When I get around to it, I may start a thread about that.

I tried arguing the issues, Tex, I really tried. To your comment about the "bulk of the American public" opposing Obama's position on Iraq, I responded by citing a recent poll showing over 60% of American public viewing the invasion as a big mistake. The only reply you could muster to that was, that 60+% has been duped by the "left-wing media." I can only conclude that you cherry pick the "facts" that support your position and ignore those that don't. What you hear isn't sarcasm speaking, it's resignation in the face of the futility of arguing with someone who apparently deals in dogma, not facts.

Hoosier, I gave you a whole long laundary list above of issues which I state unequivocally that YOUR Dem/libs are squarely on the WRONG SIDE of--the side that is harmful to America, as well as the side that is grossly out of tune with the views and values of the American people.

Instead of discussing those, you run and hide, and talk about how a majority of Americans in a poll have the same position on the war as Obama, and how somehow that ISN'T a result of media bias hoodwinking that majority of people. You didn't even have the courage to discuss WHY you think Obama's cut and run position is good for America. So who is "cherry picking"?

Grow a pair, and state your positions of some of those issues.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the side that is grossly out of tune with the views and values of the American people .... talk about how a majority of Americans in a poll have the same position on the war as Obama, and how somehow that ISN'T a result of media bias hoodwinking that majority of people

you state that Libs are out of tune with American views/values. Yet when confronted with evidence to contray, you claim Americans have been hoodwinked. :?: which is it?


Obama's cut and run position
Any intelligent discussion of Iraq has to ban several phrases: "cut and run", "precipitous withdrawal", "endless war", and "end the war" for starters.

We're in our 6th year in Iraq, have invested a HUGE amount. When we leave, it will be insane and disrespectful to those who sacrificed to say we cut and ran, or left precipitously. We're a couple years past the statute of limitations on those allegations.

"End the war" is empty propaganda, all we have power to do is leave.
"endless war" or "open ended commitment" are exaggerations, republicans know we have to draw down substantially. And already shaky public support requires progress, reducing casualties for us to stay at all.

You won't hear those phrases uttered by journalists or analysts. that's all just fodder for talk radio, politicians & demagogues.

[oregonpackfan]

]


We're in our 6th year in Iraq, have invested a HUGE amount. When we leave, it will be insane and disrespectful to those who sacrificed to say we cut and ran, or left precipitously.
.[/quote]

For years and years during the Vietnam War, the supporters of that war used this argument that it would be disrespectful to those soldiers to die to pull out of Vietnam now.

That war went on for 12 years and cost the lives of over 58,000 American soldiers.

How many more years of fighting must we have and how many more American soldiers lives must we squander before it is "honorable" to leave Iraq?

[texaspackerbacker]

You too, Harlan, conveniently fail to discuss the merits of the issues.


texaspackerbacker wrote:
the side that is grossly out of tune with the views and values of the American people .... talk about how a majority of Americans in a poll have the same position on the war as Obama, and how somehow that ISN'T a result of media bias hoodwinking that majority of people


you state that Libs are out of tune with American views/values. Yet when confronted with evidence to contrary, you claim Americans have been hoodwinked. Question which is it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It obviously is both. You put solace in polls--mainly done by liberal media outlets--which ask flawed questions and reflect skewing of people's views by the leftist media. My contention is that if you get right down to core values and views, the Dem/libs indeed ARE out of tune--grossly.


And what's wrong with using those terms? Are you claiming they aren't very descriptive of Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, etc.'s positions?

Would you be equally concerned about equally inflammatory and much less accurate terms like "civil war" in Iraq and "Bush's failed policies" and "an unwinnable war", etc.?

[Harlan Huckleby]

How many more years of fighting must we have and how many more American soldiers lives must we squander before it is "honorable" to leave Iraq?

i don't think many people are arquing to stay for honor, that's a straw man. Most people who want to stay are being pragmatic, and their support is highly conditional on developments. It's not at all clear which decision will cause more death.

[Harlan Huckleby]

And what's wrong with using those terms? Are you claiming they aren't very descriptive of Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, etc.'s positions?

first of all, there are no proposals on the table for quick withdrawal. Yet any proposal for a timetable is called "cut and run" by demagogues. The choice is uncertain. YOU MAY BE WRONG. It is entirely possible that Iraq will not coalesce. In the end, if the people decide to keep primary loyalty with militias, nothing we can do will prevent long civil war.


Would you be equally concerned about equally inflammatory and much less accurate terms like "civil war" in Iraq and "Bush's failed policies" and "an unwinnable war", etc.?

"civil war" is accurate if incomplete description. "unwinnable war" is matter of opinion. I'm supporting war because of encouraging signs.

[Gunakor]

Tex is just a war monger. If we accomplish our objectives in Iraq and leave, he'll just say we should invade some other third world country who poses no threat to America so that would be terrorists would be too scared to attack us. And when we level that country, we should just move on to the next one. And so on and so forth, because as long as we are flexing our military might there's nobody who will bring thier murderous acts to American soil. It doesn't matter the country, as long as they've never attacked America and couldn't if they wanted to - but is an Islamic nation, justifying our invasion. Because the day that America isn't at war with SOMEBODY is the day that all the worlds terrorists come to America. Isn't that right Tex?

Anyone who feels differently is obviously opposed to Bush and his polocies, and therefore hates America. Meaning anyone who dares to form thier own opinion hates America. Wait a minute... anyone who excersises thier American right to free choice and free speech is ANTI-American???

That's the gist of what I've gotten from all of his rants anyway. That GW should be commended for remaining at war because that and that alone is the sole reason nobody has carried out another mass murder the likes of 9/11. There is absolutely no way that beefed up security at airports and seaports, not to mention much more thorough customs checks, no there's no way that any of these non-violent security measures could have had anything to do with the fact that there hasn't been another 9/11. We had to remain at war to protect ourselves. And anyone who feels differently about it HATES America.

Certainly the number of American GI's who die on the front lines in an endless war could never dwarf the number of American civilians who died on 9/11.

Oh wait...

[Joemailman]

Of all the rationalizations made to justify this war, the one Tex makes is the most morally bankrupt. The idea we should start a war In Iraq so that we can fight Al-Qaeda there, so that the ones dying are innocent Iraqis, can only be justified if you believe that Iraqi lives are disposable. Perhaps Tex feels that as long as we're killing Muslims, it's all good.

[oregonpackfan]

How many more years of fighting must we have and how many more American soldiers lives must we squander before it is "honorable" to leave Iraq?

i don't think many people are arquing to stay for honor, that's a straw man. Most people who want to stay are being pragmatic, and their support is highly conditional on developments. It's not at all clear which decision will cause more death.

I'm sorry, Harlan, but "honor" is an argument we heard in Vietnam as well as hearing it from some pro-Iraq War advocates.

While some of the advocates assume a "pragmatic" position by waiting for conditional developments. We need to look at the time factor. This war has lasted for over 5 years. Even WWII took less than 4 years.

During the Vietnam War, we kept hearing the term "Vietnamization" from pro-war advocates. That phrase meant Americans just needed to be patient while South Vietnam strengthened its military and political forces to stand up for itself. After 12 years, that "Vietnamization" never took place.

Now in Iraq, we are told that if we just "stay the course" we will have some form of "Iraqization" so that "Iraq can stand up while America stands down" as W likes to quote. I doubt that will ever happen. Most people in Iraq identify themselves first with the local neighborhood militia, then their religious sect of Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd. Coming in a distant last, they identify themselves as Iraqi.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you hear alot less of the "honor" talk with this latest guagmire, altho it still comes out in Republican speeches. I think people are more... not sure if word is sophisticated or cynical ... since Vietnam era.

Oregon, it is entirely possible that you are correct about this being a hopeless cause for the reasons that you cite.

Its a complex and mixed picture. I am encouraged by the recent year, yet nervous about Sadr's apparent growing strength. It is quite an achiement that the Sunni-Shia divide is appearing more bridgable. I think getting cleansed from Baghdad has a way of focusing minds. Even educated Sunnis had been under the false impression that they were the numerical majority, when recent estimates are that they might only be 15%. I see the sunni ready to settle, that is huge.

[texaspackerbacker]

Of all the rationalizations made to justify this war, the one Tex makes is the most morally bankrupt. The idea we should start a war In Iraq so that we can fight Al-Qaeda there, so that the ones dying are innocent Iraqis, can only be justified if you believe that Iraqi lives are disposable. Perhaps Tex feels that as long as we're killing Muslims, it's all good.

Joe, you aren't listening. Do you know what HINDSIGHT means? Did I say we went to war for the reasons you claim I said? HELL NO! I said, IN HINDSIGHT, al Qaeda made Iraq in the words of Bin Laden, the "central front" in his jihad against America. Thanks to that al Qaeda decision, they de-prioritized hitting us at home, saving huge numbers of American lives--which seems to be very UNIMPORTANT to you leftists.

Harlan, you said there are currently no proposals out their for rapid withdrawal of troops. It depends on what you mean by "rapid" and "currently". If you recall, in the early Democrat debates--when they had 9 or 10 candidates, they were literally falling all over each other--including Obama and Hillary--as to who could get the troops out quickest--never mind any concept of defeat, surrender, or consequences. Now, you STILL have a consistent Dem theme of a timetable--which, of course, is STILL clearly deleterious to America and Americans--not that they care.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex is just a war monger. If we accomplish our objectives in Iraq and leave, he'll just say we should invade some other third world country who poses no threat to America so that would be terrorists would be too scared to attack us. And when we level that country, we should just move on to the next one. And so on and so forth, because as long as we are flexing our military might there's nobody who will bring thier murderous acts to American soil. It doesn't matter the country, as long as they've never attacked America and couldn't if they wanted to - but is an Islamic nation, justifying our invasion. Because the day that America isn't at war with SOMEBODY is the day that all the worlds terrorists come to America. Isn't that right Tex?

Anyone who feels differently is obviously opposed to Bush and his polocies, and therefore hates America. Meaning anyone who dares to form thier own opinion hates America. Wait a minute... anyone who excersises thier American right to free choice and free speech is ANTI-American???

That's the gist of what I've gotten from all of his rants anyway. That GW should be commended for remaining at war because that and that alone is the sole reason nobody has carried out another mass murder the likes of 9/11. There is absolutely no way that beefed up security at airports and seaports, not to mention much more thorough customs checks, no there's no way that any of these non-violent security measures could have had anything to do with the fact that there hasn't been another 9/11. We had to remain at war to protect ourselves. And anyone who feels differently about it HATES America.

Certainly the number of American GI's who die on the front lines in an endless war could never dwarf the number of American civilians who died on 9/11.

Oh wait...

I'm tempted to just agree with everything you claimed and say the hell with it.

While the LINK, as I have patiently explained several times, between the war in Iraq and preventing terrorism indeed is al Qaeda's decision to disrupt things there rather than hit us here, it's an interesting question as to whether or not acts of terror would be imminent. The other parts of the formula--which YOUR leftist asshole politicians also OPPOSED, and which, of course were planned and carried out by the Bush Administration--were enhanced security domestically, including surveillance of terrorist communications, AND harsh interrogation and secure warehousing of terrorists at Guantanamo. With those factors still in place, as well as the extreme damage done to al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere, hopefully we would be safe without another war. Thus, I would NOT favor war just for the sake of going to war. On the other hand, if there were a good reason, maybe even just a good excuse, I sure wouldn't be opposed to it.

Unlike you leftists, I care a helluva lot more about preventing the murdering of Americans than I do avoiding killing Muslims.

And regarding your last line, Gunakor, yeah, after about 6 years or so, the number of troops killed--volunteer troops who knew what they were getting into for the sake of their families and country--finally exceeded the number of innocent Americans MURDERED one morning in September 2001. How many more innocent Americans would have been murdered if we had done things the Democrat way? Oh yeah, you don't care about that, do you?

[Freak Out]

Our troop levels in Iraq are unsustainable and HAVE damaged our readiness to meet other threats. That's what is deleterious to America.

[texaspackerbacker]

Our troop levels in Iraq are unsustainable and HAVE damaged our readiness to meet other threats. That's what is deleterious to America.

That's absolutely UNTRUE. It's just the latest sick demagogic mantra of the anti-war leftists--who really couldn't care less about the "readiness" of our military.

We have a corps plus another division in Germany and another division in Korea that could easily be redeployed elsewhere. We have 3 to 4 times the regular army troops stationed in the U.S. than are in Iraq. Fully 2/3 of the Marines are elsewhere. And our navy and air force probably would be capable by themselves of decimating any other potential enemy in a conventional war. And that's not even mentioning nukes.

Don't believe all the CRAP the leftists spew.

[oregonpackfan]

Our troop levels in Iraq are unsustainable and HAVE damaged our readiness to meet other threats.

About 3 days ago, I saw a TV interview with Colin Powell. He used almost exactly the same quote to describe the American troop levels in Iraq.

Texas, I would hardly describe Colin Powell as a "leftist liberal." He is a former general and a former Secretary of State under George W. Bush.

[Joemailman]

Obviously Colin Powell has been brainwashed by the left-wing, hate America media.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Al - Sadr: Troops Should Get Jobs Back
Published: April 14, 2008

NAJAF, Iraq (AP) -- Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is demanding the Iraqi government reinstate all security forces fired for deserting during fighting in Basra.

Monday's statement comes a day after more than 1,300 soldiers and policemen were sacked for abandoning their posts or refusing to fight when clashes broke out.

The anti-U.S. cleric says those who gave up their arms ''were only obeying their grand religious leaders'' and ''were driven by their religious duties.''

He says in a statement issued by his office in holy city of Najaf that they should be reinstated and even rewarded for their loyalty.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obviously Colin Powell has been brainwashed by the left-wing, hate America media.

Fuck. They got to him as well. Is no one safe from the left-wing, america hating media?

How can I, a normal, pro-american crackhead resist the wiley and pernicious left wing, 'merica hatin media.

[texaspackerbacker]

Have you guys not heard the rumors that Powell is likely to endorse Obama?

Yes, Colin Powell indeed has been sounding like a leftist lately--after a career as a good loyal American, but he's threatening to undue all that now.

Basixally, though, what you guys are doing is what you always do: AVOIDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISCUSSION--the availability and readiness of our troops--and trying to divert things.

If Powell has that take on things for any reason at all other than demagoguery, it is the idea that we can't pull troops out of Germany--which, of course, we did during the Gulf War--when, by the way, we had over 700,000 troops committed to the middle east. Now you guys are whining that we can "sustain 140,000"? Come on!

[texaspackerbacker]

Al - Sadr: Troops Should Get Jobs Back
Published: April 14, 2008

NAJAF, Iraq (AP) -- Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is demanding the Iraqi government reinstate all security forces fired for deserting during fighting in Basra.

Monday's statement comes a day after more than 1,300 soldiers and policemen were sacked for abandoning their posts or refusing to fight when clashes broke out.

The anti-U.S. cleric says those who gave up their arms ''were only obeying their grand religious leaders'' and ''were driven by their religious duties.''

He says in a statement issued by his office in holy city of Najaf that they should be reinstated and even rewarded for their loyalty.

If I was al Maliki--or the Americans advising him, I would throw a bone to al Sadr and give in on this. Al Sadr has done more than his share of compromising lately, after all. And it's not a bad idea to keep 1,300 police whose training was invested in, and who may well have had religious objections to fighting fellow Shi'ites. It's all about unity and inclusiveness, right?

[Freak Out]

Have you guys not heard the rumors that Powell is likely to endorse Obama?

Yes, Colin Powell indeed has been sounding like a leftist lately--after a career as a good loyal American, but he's threatening to undue all that now.

Basixally, though, what you guys are doing is what you always do: AVOIDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISCUSSION--the availability and readiness of our troops--and trying to divert things.

If Powell has that take on things for any reason at all other than demagoguery, it is the idea that we can't pull troops out of Germany--which, of course, we did during the Gulf War--when, by the way, we had over 700,000 troops committed to the middle east. Now you guys are whining that we can "sustain 140,000"? Come on!

How long was the first gulf war and what country did we occupy? How many tours of duty did the National Guard do?

[texaspackerbacker]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

[GoPackGo]

I normally don't get involved in political discussions online but what the hey

It is my opinion that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible-
these are my 7 reasons
1.We waged a war based on false intelligence
2.We don't have the leadership to run our country and rebuild Iraq simultaneously
3.We can't afford to borrow money to wage a war and rebuild a country
4.We had very little world support before we decided to invade and occupy
5. Our country was founded on the premise that America would be free. why do many think we had to make the rest of the world free too?
6. the war in Iraq isn't making america safer, The new laws and increased national security budget is
7.We have more important issues to deal with on the homeland(energy crisis, healthcare crisis, what to do with all of the illegals)

If I'm wrong please tell me why

[Deputy Nutz]

I normally don't get involved in political discussions online but what the hey

It is my opinion that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible-
these are my 7 reasons
1.We waged a war based on false intelligence
2.We don't have the leadership to run our country and rebuild Iraq simultaneously
3.We can't afford to borrow money to wage a war and rebuild a country
4.We had very little world support before we decided to invade and occupy
5. Our country was founded on the premise that America would be free. why do many think we had to make the rest of the world free too?
6. the war in Iraq isn't making america safer, The new laws and increased national security budget is
7.We have more important issues to deal with on the homeland(energy crisis, healthcare crisis, what to do with all of the illegals)

If I'm wrong please tell me why

You are sooo wrong, definitely brainwashed, yes brainwashed, turn on Charlie Sykes pronto![/code]

[GoPackGo]

You are sooo wrong, definitely brainwashed, yes brainwashed, turn on Charlie Sykes pronto!

Are you agreeing with me ?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I normally don't get involved in political discussions online but what the hey

It is my opinion that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible-
these are my 7 reasons
1.We waged a war based on false intelligence
2.We don't have the leadership to run our country and rebuild Iraq simultaneously
3.We can't afford to borrow money to wage a war and rebuild a country
4.We had very little world support before we decided to invade and occupy
5. Our country was founded on the premise that America would be free. why do many think we had to make the rest of the world free too?
6. the war in Iraq isn't making america safer, The new laws and increased national security budget is
7.We have more important issues to deal with on the homeland(energy crisis, healthcare crisis, what to do with all of the illegals)

If I'm wrong please tell me why

You are sooo wrong, definitely brainwashed, yes brainwashed, turn on Charlie Sykes pronto![/code]

OMG. The liberal media got to GoPackGo. Good, normal americans are being swayed by those evil media bastards.

I ask again, what can I do to protect myself from the media. I am worried that one day i too will be brainwashed by them.

I feel that one day I will awake and be like Brooke Adams in Invasion of the Body Snatchers...i will be talking to a good normal american and he will start screaming at me like Donald Sutherland.

Clearly Tex and the rest of the republicans have managed to avoid being brainwashed...what is the secret? Don't hold out. Save me!!!

[GoPackGo]

you guys are killing me

[Gunakor]

Have you guys not heard the rumors that Powell is likely to endorse Obama?

Yes, Colin Powell indeed has been sounding like a leftist lately--after a career as a good loyal American, but he's threatening to undue all that now.

Basixally, though, what you guys are doing is what you always do: AVOIDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISCUSSION--the availability and readiness of our troops--and trying to divert things.

If Powell has that take on things for any reason at all other than demagoguery, it is the idea that we can't pull troops out of Germany--which, of course, we did during the Gulf War--when, by the way, we had over 700,000 troops committed to the middle east. Now you guys are whining that we can "sustain 140,000"? Come on!

How long was the first gulf war and what country did we occupy? How many tours of duty did the National Guard do?


Great point. However, as you should have come to understand by now, Tex is not concerned at all with the fact that we have been at war for over 6 years. As a point of reference, World War 2 was over in 6 years (1939-1945). He would drag this war out twice as long as that one as long as the Republican party suggested we do so.

He blasts at all of us for listening to the media, calling us anti-American for forming our own opinions about this war. He simply does not have the ability to think for himself, so he calls anyone who DOES have this ability a cowardly leftist prick who hates America. To me, he simply sounds like one of GW's puppets.



Tex, I am not a left-wing extremist. I don't wholeheartedly believe in ALL of the Dems' policies or suggestions. I'm not suggesting everything is going to be perfect either way - it never is. What I am suggesting is that we need a leader who will be more concerned with AMERICA than IRAQ. A leader who will spend more time and money on DOMESTIC issues than foreign ones. Things like the housing/mortgage situation, unemployment, education, things that will help OUR economy. And these things must be tended to RIGHT AWAY, not first thing AFTER Iraq. No right-wing war monger like yourself or GW has ever had their priorities in order, so how could we expect anything different in this years election?

I am all for the security of America. But we have to maintain that security AND the economical health of our country at the same time. I have agreed with you about how Bush has ensured the security of our country, BUT HE HAS DONE IT AT THE COST OF OUR ECONOMICAL HEALTH. We are entering into economic recession right now. Mortgage rates are way up, consumer spending is way down, and nothing has been done recently to combat unemployment. The war movement has not hit the average American working man. We are buying foreign fuel and foreign supplies to fight this war, so for all the money we are spending, the American working class citizens sure aren't reaping any kind of benefits.

We are borrowing money at a mind boggling rate, something our children and grandchildren will end up paying for. Maybe you will never have children or a family of your own, but for those of us who do this is VERY worrisome. I wonder how our grandkids would feel about GW dragging this war out for so long, knowing that the costs of this war would fall upon them as well? I'm sure you don't care.

[Freak Out]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

The first Gulf War was a relatively short affair with most of the action consisting of us bombing the piss out of the Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait/Iraq, the Iraqi air defenses and anything else we could find to blow up. We did not occupy a hostile country for an extended period of time like we are doing now.

[texaspackerbacker]

I salute you, GPG, for having the balls to do what others leftist or anti-war types or whatever you would label yourself fail to have the courage to do--that being DISCUSSING THE ISSUES.

As for your points:

1. Who says the intelligence was flawed? Are you talking about WMDs and Saddam supporting terrorism? There's is just as much proof that WMDs existed as that they didn't--probably more. If OUR intel was flawed in that area, then so was that of Britain, Russia, Israel, and a few others. As for Saddam and terrorism, his support for Hamas and Hezbollah--bounties for suicide bombers, etc. is indisputable. But I suppose you are thinking of al Qaeda. Two items there: Zarqawi, the famous al Qaeda leader, was in Iraq long before we invaded; There was an al Qaeda training camp at Ansar al Islam within Iraq which our troops overran in the early days of the invasion.

2. That's too ridiculous to reply to, except to ask, what are your grounds for even making such an assertion?

3. Again, you're just parrotting false leftist mantras about the economy being harmed by the war. The economy is NOT in recession. We do NOT have a crisis over mortages any more than we have had 5 or 6 times since 1970. Unemployment is still at near record lows. Interest rates and inflation both are at very low levels. Essentially, any economic problems, even if assumed to be caused by the war, are very mild, and are trumped up by the leftist media in a desperate attempt to prop up leftist politicians--something which forum leftists, incredibly, seem to be in denial of.

4. You may be right about that, but so what? Do you want Eurowimps or whoever you might be referring to, to determine American security policy? I guess that wouldn't be surprising, considering such is the stated position of Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, virtually all of the politicians of the left.

5. Don't you think the better question should be why do some/most on the left think the rest of the world SHOULDN'T be free? GPG, don't you realize that the key to a peaceful stable prosperous educated healthy world--which obviously is in our own best interest too--is the spreading of American-style freedom and representative democracy. Would you actually disagree with that?

6. No disputing that enhanced security, surveillance of terrorist communications, and harsh treatment of prisoners, etc. are also large parts of the formula, but we have the words of Bin Laden himself that Iraq is his central front--prioritized over hitting America at home. You really don't think that is a factor? The huge percentage of our troops certainly think their service and sacrifice is a factor in preventing terrorism here.

7. How can these issues NOT be dealt with effectively regardless of the war? The truth is, the same leftist politicians whining about the war are the ones obstructing effective action and/or pushing wrongheaded and irresponsible action on these issues. Energy: who is preventing drilling in ANWAR, building new refineries and nuclear power plants, drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts? Healthcare: There is no crisis. Everybody who needs lifesaving treatment now gets it. With the all out disaster of a single-payer Canada-style plan pushed by the Dems, many would not. Illegals: no way the war is preventing a fence; No way even if our troops were all withdrawn that they would or should be put on the Mexican border; And the worst way to go, amnesty, is being pushed by whom? Right, mostly your guys, the left--although admittedly, you've got Bush and McCain with you on this one.

So have I responded satisfactorily to your points, GPG? Unlike that gutless leftists who are so ASHAMED of leftist positions that they are AFRAID to express them, I'm always happy to make perfectly clear the differences between OUR positions and THEIRS.

[texaspackerbacker]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

The first Gulf War was a relatively short affair with most of the action consisting of us bombing the piss out of the Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait/Iraq, the Iraqi air defenses and anything else we could find to blow up. We did not occupy a hostile country for an extended period of time like we are doing now.

Didn't I just cover that point--with the 140,000 compared to 700,000 thing?

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, I have taken great pains since being in this forum to AVOID calling any other posters "America-haters" or "anti-Americans". If people are referring to my labeling of posters that way in other forums, yeah, I won't deny it--and rest assured, anybody I labelled that way deserved it. The fact is, though, I haven't seen anybody in this forum so far gone that I would ascribe anti-American motives to them--horrible wrongheadedness, yes, but anti-Americanism, no. Others in other forums, I wouldn't give that benefit of the doubt too. Many in the mainstream media I wouldn't give that benefit of the doubt too. And definitely with several of the leading politicians of the left, I wouldn't conclude that they are NOT haters of all things American.

You mentioned WWII. If you want to compare apples to apples, VE Day was the equivalent to the fall of Baghdad and Saddam. The rest of the time we have been in Iraq? You could make a case by that standard for saying WWII is STILL going on--at least until the point where Europe was stabilized and our troops were no longer needed. You could also make a case for comparing the troops left in Germany due to the Soviet Union to leaving troops in Iraq due to the threat from Iran.

[GoPackGo]

I salute you, GPG, for having the balls to do what others leftist or anti-war types or whatever you would label yourself fail to have the courage to do--that being DISCUSSING THE ISSUES.

As for your points:

1. Who says the intelligence was flawed? Are you talking about WMDs and Saddam supporting terrorism? There's is just as much proof that WMDs existed as that they didn't--probably more. If OUR intel was flawed in that area, then so was that of Britain, Russia, Israel, and a few others. As for Saddam and terrorism, his support for Hamas and Hezbollah--bounties for suicide bombers, etc. is indisputable. But I suppose you are thinking of al Qaeda. Two items there: Zarqawi, the famous al Qaeda leader, was in Iraq long before we invaded; There was an al Qaeda training camp at Ansar al Islam within Iraq which our troops overran in the early days of the invasion.

2. That's too ridiculous to reply to, except to ask, what are your grounds for even making such an assertion?

3. Again, you're just parrotting false leftist mantras about the economy being harmed by the war. The economy is NOT in recession. We do NOT have a crisis over mortages any more than we have had 5 or 6 times since 1970. Unemployment is still at near record lows. Interest rates and inflation both are at very low levels. Essentially, any economic problems, even if assumed to be caused by the war, are very mild, and are trumped up by the leftist media in a desperate attempt to prop up leftist politicians--something which forum leftists, incredibly, seem to be in denial of.

4. You may be right about that, but so what? Do you want Eurowimps or whoever you might be referring to, to determine American security policy? I guess that wouldn't be surprising, considering such is the stated position of Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, virtually all of the politicians of the left.

5. Don't you think the better question should be why do some/most on the left think the rest of the world SHOULDN'T be free? GPG, don't you realize that the key to a peaceful stable prosperous educated healthy world--which obviously is in our own best interest too--is the spreading of American-style freedom and representative democracy. Would you actually disagree with that?

6. No disputing that enhanced security, surveillance of terrorist communications, and harsh treatment of prisoners, etc. are also large parts of the formula, but we have the words of Bin Laden himself that Iraq is his central front--prioritized over hitting America at home. You really don't think that is a factor? The huge percentage of our troops certainly think their service and sacrifice is a factor in preventing terrorism here.

7. How can these issues NOT be dealt with effectively regardless of the war? The truth is, the same leftist politicians whining about the war are the ones obstructing effective action and/or pushing wrongheaded and irresponsible action on these issues. Energy: who is preventing drilling in ANWAR, building new refineries and nuclear power plants, drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts? Healthcare: There is no crisis. Everybody who needs lifesaving treatment now gets it. With the all out disaster of a single-payer Canada-style plan pushed by the Dems, many would not. Illegals: no way the war is preventing a fence; No way even if our troops were all withdrawn that they would or should be put on the Mexican border; And the worst way to go, amnesty, is being pushed by whom? Right, mostly your guys, the left--although admittedly, you've got Bush and McCain with you on this one.

So have I responded satisfactorily to your points, GPG? Unlike that gutless leftists who are so ASHAMED of leftist positions that they are AFRAID to express them, I'm always happy to make perfectly clear the differences between OUR positions and THEIRS.

thanks for answering my post texas,
I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 by the way....
1. Saddam Hussein stuck his middle finger up to the UN for years and they didn't do enough. rather that invade the guy ourselves, we should have threatened to leave the UN or at least cut them off from our money. The intel is flawed because he didn't have WMD's and thats what Bush used to sell the invasion to Americans.
2.What rediculous about it? I truly don't believe in McCain, Obama, or Hillary to run our country and rebuild another simultaneously
3.I'm not an economist and I don't claim to be. I can't ignore what is in front of my face though. The national deficit is huge, Gas prices are triple what they were 8 years ago, the influx of illegals puts a strain on everyone financially: Schools, hospitals, law enforcment, etc. our taxes pay for that.
4.I thought this is what the UN was for? So nobody gets bullied? Why do we have to fight the fight alone?
5.Its not our job to make the rest of the world free. Let them have their own revolution and look to us for inspiration and help. Right now it like we are doing their revolution for them.
6.i don't believe our military should have bases all over the world. bring the troops home and have them do something more useful to us. Like rebuilding New Orleans and securing the north and south borders.
7.My power company just agreed to raise my rates by 3.9%, gas is triple what it was in 2000, your average truck driver spends $9000 a month for diesel fuel, airlines are claiming to be going bankrupt. Healthcare costs are outrageous right now. Those of us who have company assisted healthcare don't really feel the crunch right now but there are millions of people in this country, legal and illegal who don't have insurance. When they get sick or hurt they go to the hospital, they get care, and we all pay for them anyway. I do not want universal healthcare for all but something has to be done.

[Freak Out]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

The first Gulf War was a relatively short affair with most of the action consisting of us bombing the piss out of the Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait/Iraq, the Iraqi air defenses and anything else we could find to blow up. We did not occupy a hostile country for an extended period of time like we are doing now.

Didn't I just cover that point--with the 140,000 compared to 700,000 thing?

We had OVER 700,000 troops when we liberated Kuwait...I think over all we had 2.5 million troops with our allies. Of course many were non-combat troops but we won't worry about that. Now we invade and occupy with far less and people are surprised things are rough? The Military brass that wanted much higher troop numbers before the invasion were ran out of town or muzzled.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

The first Gulf War was a relatively short affair with most of the action consisting of us bombing the piss out of the Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait/Iraq, the Iraqi air defenses and anything else we could find to blow up. We did not occupy a hostile country for an extended period of time like we are doing now.

Didn't I just cover that point--with the 140,000 compared to 700,000 thing?

We had OVER 700,000 troops when we liberated Kuwait...I think over all we had 2.5 million troops with our allies. Of course many were non-combat troops but we won't worry about that. Now we invade and occupy with far less and people are surprised things are rough? The Military brass that wanted much higher troop numbers before the invasion were ran out of town or muzzled.

I dont' recall the Kuwaitis involved in a civil war/sectarian strife/terrorist activities.

Seems like we had way to many troops there. :roll:

[texaspackerbacker]

Exactly, Tyrone. That's what the people who wanted to do it with less said this time--and we are succeeding, albeit with delays.

Freakout, I still don't see your point. You seemed to be echoing the stupid leftist line that we can't sustain or whatever enough troops to finish the job in Iraq, when we easily put together such a hugely larger number for the Gulf War.

Sure, there is sectarian violence now. What stirred it up? Al Qaeda--by blowing up the mosque at Samarra, and subsequently killing large numbers on both sides--as I have said in several threads, prioritizing the screwing up of Iraq. Still, the leadership of the three Iraqi factions have steered clear of civil war. Civil war in Iraq exists only one place: IN THE SICK MINDS OF AMERICAN LIBERALS. Let forum leftists deny that, if they have the balls--which, of course, they can't and don't.

[Freak Out]

Exactly, Tyrone. That's what the people who wanted to do it with less said this time--and we are succeeding, albeit with delays.

Freakout, I still don't see your point. You seemed to be echoing the stupid leftist line that we can't sustain or whatever enough troops to finish the job in Iraq, when we easily put together such a hugely larger number for the Gulf War.

Sure, there is sectarian violence now. What stirred it up? Al Qaeda--by blowing up the mosque at Samarra, and subsequently killing large numbers on both sides--as I have said in several threads, prioritizing the screwing up of Iraq. Still, the leadership of the three Iraqi factions have steered clear of civil war. Civil war in Iraq exists only one place: IN THE SICK MINDS OF AMERICAN LIBERALS. Let forum leftists deny that, if they have the balls--which, of course, they can't and don't.

I think we should slowly start to reduce the number now because no matter what we try and do with force in the end the Iraqis are going to work things out amongst themselves with guns, knives and explosives. The Iranians will have their say,we'll have ours with our Embassy and bases and eventually things will work themselves out. We may not like the final outcome but should that be a big factor? It's a liberated Iraq and we tipped that first domino. Sadr keeps saying he wants no part of a government that allows it's country to be occupied by American forces so until he is killed or comes around that battle still has to be fought. I say let the Iraqis fight it. They can show how bad they want the vision we think they want.

[texaspackerbacker]

I say again, GPG, you are be applauded and respected for stating your positions, even if I don't agree with much of it.

1. How can you say, "The intel is flawed because he didn't have WMD's and thats what Bush used to sell the invasion to Americans"? There's no more proof that he DIDN'T have WMDs than that he did.

2. I'd say our military is doing a damn good job of rebuilding Iraq. You disagree with that? History will tell one way or the other.

3. What exactly do you see right in front of your eyes? Sure, gas prices are way up. That's undeniable, but do you really see people suffering? Or do you see the huge majority of people living better than ever before? And sure, there are whatever number of illegals. but do you really see anybody suffering because of it? I sure don't, and I'm down here in Texas, where the problem is undoubtedly worse than up there. I WISH people would judge things by what they actually see and experience instead of what they read/see in the left-biased media.

4 Get their help, maybe, but sure as hell don't let them have command and control or policy making power. For that matter, none of those other countries are anywhere near as competent as our own troops. The recent problems in Afghanistan with NATO flunkies is evidence of that.

5. It IS, however, distinctly to our advantage to have thriving free representative democracies like we see in most of Latin America. Leftists whine and rant about how they want peace and care about people, etc., yet they, incredibly, OPPOSE spreading American style freedom and representative government. I'm not in favor of doing it out of do-gooderism; I'm in favor because it's good for America.

6. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but what does that have to do with what I said? Isolationism went out with the 1930s. The best way to keep war from coming here is to go there and deal with things wherever "there" might be. That's my opinion.

7. Your original point was that the war was somehow preventing these things from being dealt with--just not true. The healthcare scenario you describe sounds very much like the Republican suggestions. The other problems are being obstructed from solution by the anti-war liberals.

[texaspackerbacker]

Glad to see you are participating in some serious discussion, Tyrone. I can respect that.

You make some valid points about what is gonna happen is gonna happen there, but success is a lot more likely now than a year or so ago, and just a little more patience will raise the chances for a good conclusion even more. And that isn't just good for Iraqis, it is good for America too.

[Freak Out]

Glad to see you are participating in some serious discussion, Tyrone. I can respect that.

You make some valid points about what is gonna happen is gonna happen there, but success is a lot more likely now than a year or so ago, and just a little more patience will raise the chances for a good conclusion even more. And that isn't just good for Iraqis, it is good for America too.

What you been smokin?

[texaspackerbacker]

Glad to see you are participating in some serious discussion, Tyrone. I can respect that.

You make some valid points about what is gonna happen is gonna happen there, but success is a lot more likely now than a year or so ago, and just a little more patience will raise the chances for a good conclusion even more. And that isn't just good for Iraqis, it is good for America too.

What you been smokin?

So much for the semblance of rational discussion. I see I falsely attributed the brief lapse into discussion of issues to Tyrone rather than Freakout. However, now, it appears, he's back to being his old self.

[Deputy Nutz]

I say again, GPG, you are be applauded and respected for stating your positions, even if I don't agree with much of it.

1. How can you say, "The intel is flawed because he didn't have WMD's and thats what Bush used to sell the invasion to Americans"? There's no more proof that he DIDN'T have WMDs than that he did.

2. I'd say our military is doing a damn good job of rebuilding Iraq. You disagree with that? History will tell one way or the other.

3. What exactly do you see right in front of your eyes? Sure, gas prices are way up. That's undeniable, but do you really see people suffering? Or do you see the huge majority of people living better than ever before? And sure, there are whatever number of illegals. but do you really see anybody suffering because of it? I sure don't, and I'm down here in Texas, where the problem is undoubtedly worse than up there. I WISH people would judge things by what they actually see and experience instead of what they read/see in the left-biased media.

4 Get their help, maybe, but sure as hell don't let them have command and control or policy making power. For that matter, none of those other countries are anywhere near as competent as our own troops. The recent problems in Afghanistan with NATO flunkies is evidence of that.

5. It IS, however, distinctly to our advantage to have thriving free representative democracies like we see in most of Latin America. Leftists whine and rant about how they want peace and care about people, etc., yet they, incredibly, OPPOSE spreading American style freedom and representative government. I'm not in favor of doing it out of do-gooderism; I'm in favor because it's good for America.

6. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but what does that have to do with what I said? Isolationism went out with the 1930s. The best way to keep war from coming here is to go there and deal with things wherever "there" might be. That's my opinion.

7. Your original point was that the war was somehow preventing these things from being dealt with--just not true. The healthcare scenario you describe sounds very much like the Republican suggestions. The other problems are being obstructed from solution by the anti-war liberals.

1. We can claim no WMD because we sure didn't find any. You can claim that he sent them packing to Syria, or he buried them in a really big hole. Then Sadam out smarted our wonderful President. I am of the belief that there were nasty weapons that a person like Saddam should not have had. He was a bad person.

2. I wouldn't say we have or not have the Leadership to rebuild Iraq. The problem with Iraq is that it has a population full of people that have lived in fear for most of their lives and they want to be left alone. They may have wanted change, but these people didn't fight for change, they weren't willing to die for it. It takes a little more to help people that couldn't help themselves. It will take longer because not all people in Iraq want democracy, understand democracy. It will take longer because certain people in Iraq still want power, and are willing to fight for power. It will take longer because not all people trust the United States, it will take longer because people just want to go back to their daily lives, back to normalcy even if that normalcy was under a person like Saddam. They are confused after not being allowed to help or think for themselves. They come from a culture ruled by totalitarianism. It will take time to rebuild Iraq into a democracy, in an area where democracy is as uncommon as oak trees.

3. The war has not helped this economy. We are in debt to other countries because of this war. People are living off money they don't have, personal debt is threw the roof, sure it is personal responsibility big screen televisions are important, new cars and trucks are important, unneeded items for sure, but the price of food has gone up, the price of gas has gone up, the cost to heat and cool your house has gone up. The cost of living has gone up, but the dollar has shrunk. We just got a nice little chunk of money from the Feds to boost the economy. Now why would they have done that if everything was peachy? It wasn't a gift, it was a loan from next year's federal tax return.

4. I felt that NATO and other Countries had no problem turning their backs to us when it was time to go to war. Even if it was a mistake it would have been nice that the countries that were supposed to be on our team have back our mistake, instead they turned their backs and let us do it on our own even though if the tables were turned we would have complied to NATO. It was my opinion that this war was on the Bush Administration's agenda from day one. They were going to find a way to attack and invade and finish Saddam. 9-11 was that reason, the connection still hasn't been made other than the fact that Iraq was in the middle east and mostly a Muslim country.

5. It is very difficult to force change. We have tried to force change and it is a slow process. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Provoking democracy in a Muslim country will be a very long and slow process that isn't near completed.

6. Isolationism doesn't work, closing ourselves off to the world doesn't work. We become one of the strongest countries in the world by lending our hands and ears to others, that shouldn't stop, but at some point and I think this is a cycle our government needs to wrap their arms around America, and open up their ears to American people.

7. The War is just a section of the pie graph, it's cost is not limiting now, but eventual monies will have to be paid back.

[texaspackerbacker]

Generally good comments, Nutz.

1. He sure looked smart with that noose around his neck.

2. Good points. It is succeeding, though.

3. Debt, both on a national level and on a personal level, is not necessarily a bad thing--like the old movie, Other People's Money. The dollar dropping in value is a good thing, not bad. We have no significant inflation; We have very low unemployment; Interest is super low; Even though some elements of the cost of living are up, many economic factors really are "peachy". I've heard that rumor about the "rebate" too, but I think it is false.

4. Very true about old Europe not being very supportive and not helpful at all. The time is coming for dealing with Iran. Part of me says do what needs to be done; Part of me says let the damn Europeans handle Iran--which will have a missile to deliver its nukes to Europe, but not America.

5. I say again, we are almost there, and it is distinctly in our interest to get there.

6. I wholeheartedly agree.

7. Just like I said.

[Freak Out]

Glad to see you are participating in some serious discussion, Tyrone. I can respect that.

You make some valid points about what is gonna happen is gonna happen there, but success is a lot more likely now than a year or so ago, and just a little more patience will raise the chances for a good conclusion even more. And that isn't just good for Iraqis, it is good for America too.

What you been smokin?

So much for the semblance of rational discussion. I see I falsely attributed the brief lapse into discussion of issues to Tyrone rather than Freakout. However, now, it appears, he's back to being his old self.

First you confuse a hip, crack smoking young black man with a white middle aged freak....then you claim there has been almost no inflation.

You've been smoking some of that Texas devil weed.