Left-side Landslide

[Classact]

January 09 will see a Democratic President, Senate and House of Representatives unless. (This is where you explain how it could be otherwise) Democratic turnout is two to one across America.

For me, the following things are the only things that could stop the landslide:

A fight within the Democratic Party between Obama and Clinton that sees so unfair that half of the party refuses to turn out to vote. (still the congress would be Democratic majorities). This could happen if Clinton gained some votes in TX, PA and OH with the help of crossover Republican voters.

Or, someone could assassinate Obama and blame it on Clinton.

Please tell me how the Republican Party could gain seats in the House, Senate and take the White house.

[red states rule]

January 09 will see a Democratic President, Senate and House of Representatives unless. (This is where you explain how it could be otherwise) Democratic turnout is two to one across America.

For me, the following things are the only things that could stop the landslide:

A fight within the Democratic Party between Obama and Clinton that sees so unfair that half of the party refuses to turn out to vote. (still the congress would be Democratic majorities). This could happen if Clinton gained some votes in TX, PA and OH with the help of crossover Republican voters.

Or, someone could assassinate Obama and blame it on Clinton.

Please tell me how the Republican Party could gain seats in the House, Senate and take the White house.

Then the dark days of Pres Peanut Carter will return.

And terrorists around the world will be giddy over the party of appeasement and surrender running things

[theHawk]

January 09 will see a Democratic President, Senate and House of Representatives unless. (This is where you explain how it could be otherwise) Democratic turnout is two to one across America.

For me, the following things are the only things that could stop the landslide:

A fight within the Democratic Party between Obama and Clinton that sees so unfair that half of the party refuses to turn out to vote. (still the congress would be Democratic majorities). This could happen if Clinton gained some votes in TX, PA and OH with the help of crossover Republican voters.

Or, someone could assassinate Obama and blame it on Clinton.

Please tell me how the Republican Party could gain seats in the House, Senate and take the White house.

I don't know if I believe all the hype. If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm going to bet it will be by superdelegates and not from who won the overall popular vote. If that happens alot of Obama supporters(especially blacks) will be infuriated and probably won't turn out in the general election for Hillary.

If Obama wins, I have a hard time believing he'll be getting a majority of votes in a general election. It will depend on how the McCain campaign persues it. If they harp on his very short record, but very liberal record, McCain can expose him as all talk and having no record whatsoever of being the "uniter" he claims to be. Obama has never demonstrated an ability or will to break with the Democratic talking points version of events and actually work with Republicans on anything. His voting record is 100% liberal. He has voted only how the Democratic party and liberal base dictates, he is more of a sheep than a leader.

Although the conservative base is upset with McCain's past of working with Democrats, he can use that record to beat Obama over the head about who is really the one who can step across the isle and work with the opposition.

[krisy]

January 09 will see a Democratic President, Senate and House of Representatives unless. (This is where you explain how it could be otherwise) Democratic turnout is two to one across America.

For me, the following things are the only things that could stop the landslide:

A fight within the Democratic Party between Obama and Clinton that sees so unfair that half of the party refuses to turn out to vote. (still the congress would be Democratic majorities). This could happen if Clinton gained some votes in TX, PA and OH with the help of crossover Republican voters.

Or, someone could assassinate Obama and blame it on Clinton.

Please tell me how the Republican Party could gain seats in the House, Senate and take the White house.


I have to agree with your point. My husband and I were talking about this same thing last night while watching the primary results pour in. I pointed out how huge the Democratic turnout was compared to the Republican and that it wasn't looking good. He argued some point that I didn't agree with,trying to make it look good for the Republicans. I said look at the enormous difference in numbers. It's hard for me to believe that on election day those numbers will go up to the extreme they need too.

Am I wrong to be worried because of the low turnout? I know people don't always get to the primaries,but geese those numbers are low.

I'm not a big fan of John McCain,I actually like Huckabee better and I liked Mitt Romney too. I will vote for McCain when election day comes tho,even tho it doesn't really look like he can beat Obama. I can't believe how well someone so inexperienced is doing. I really thought Hillary would be taking it all right now.

[retiredman]

And terrorists around the world will be giddy over the party of appeasement and surrender running things

and you know this...how? are you in contact with them?:laugh2:

[krisy]

I heard on the radio last night something about a flag that Obama flies at one of his offices. I think it was on Michael Savage. Supposedly controversial. Does anyone know about this?

[Immanuel]

and you know this...how? are you in contact with them?:laugh2:

If he was, he wouldn't be on this forum with us. Our pResident ;) (that was for old times sake) would have him incarcerated in some hell hole somewhere in some foreign land waiting for the inevitable.

All this courtesy of FISA.

Immie

[Immanuel]

I heard on the radio last night something about a flag that Obama flies at one of his offices. I think it was on Michael Savage. Supposedly controversial. Does anyone know about this?

There is a thread somewhere on site that shows a video of it.

But, just because someone in Miami, I think, flies a flag in an office for Obama, doesn't mean that Obama knows anything about it, right?

Immie

[Gaffer]

I heard on the radio last night something about a flag that Obama flies at one of his offices. I think it was on Michael Savage. Supposedly controversial. Does anyone know about this?

It's a cuban flag with a picture of che guevere on it. The idol of the left.

[Dilloduck]

I have questions regarding the analysis of the democratic turnout and how this turnout can be projected onto the general election. Couldn't a large turnout show how many democrats reject the idea of having Hillary represent them and additionally how afraid Hillary's supporters are of an Obama victory ?

There is passion no doubt but how much of that represents a party split rather than party cohesion ?

[PostmodernProphet]

unless. (This is where you explain how it could be otherwise)

electoral college system.....let's say that all the people in the typically liberal states (blue states) decide to turn out and vote Democrat.....blue states stay blue states.....and all the red states the people turn out and because of the way things are the Republicans only win them by one vote instead of by one million votes.....red states stay red states......that means the electoral vote is the same as it was in 2004.....when a Republican won......

once we figure out who the two nominees are we have to look at a state by state analysis to see who is going to win which state......

for example, could a Romney nomination deliver Mass and Michigan?.....could Hillary lose Minnesota Iowa and Wisconsin?.....lots of issues.....

[krisy]

electoral college system.....let's say that all the people in the typically liberal states (blue states) decide to turn out and vote Democrat.....blue states stay blue states.....and all the red states the people turn out and because of the way things are the Republicans only win them by one vote instead of by one million votes.....red states stay red states......that means the electoral vote is the same as it was in 2004.....when a Republican won......

once we figure out who the two nominees are we have to look at a state by state analysis to see who is going to win which state......

for example, could a Romney nomination deliver Mass and Michigan?.....could Hillary lose Minnesota Iowa and Wisconsin?.....lots of issues.....


Great point. I'm a little worried about how many states will stay red tho. For example. Ohio,where I live,has always been a red state. Unfortunately tho,a Democratic governor was recently voted in. That of course makes me wonder how the state will go in the election. I was shocked at how poorly Ken Blackwell did in the governors race.

[Classact]

electoral college system.....let's say that all the people in the typically liberal states (blue states) decide to turn out and vote Democrat.....blue states stay blue states.....and all the red states the people turn out and because of the way things are the Republicans only win them by one vote instead of by one million votes.....red states stay red states......that means the electoral vote is the same as it was in 2004.....when a Republican won......

once we figure out who the two nominees are we have to look at a state by state analysis to see who is going to win which state......

for example, could a Romney nomination deliver Mass and Michigan?.....could Hillary lose Minnesota Iowa and Wisconsin?.....lots of issues.....But Obama and McCain have proven Red and Blue states don't matter if you can muster the independent vote. I firmly believe that someone in Washington DC has preselected McCain and Clinton as who the people will have to chose from. I can't prove it but it doesn't make sense that McCain is where he is if that were not true.

[Dilloduck]

But Obama and McCain have proven Red and Blue states don't matter if you can muster the independent vote. I firmly believe that someone in Washington DC has preselected McCain and Clinton as who the people will have to chose from. I can't prove it but it doesn't make sense that McCain is where he is if that were not true.

I'm not sure that it was someone from DC that made these selections and tend to learn more toward the party establishment ( maybe the same thing). I AM sure however that I had NO input what so ever in selecting them and I assume many other citizens feel the same way.

[red states rule]

and you know this...how? are you in contact with them?:laugh2:

Here is one example

Terrorists know Dems are their best allies


It's official: Terrorists endorse Hillary in '08
On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders say she's best hope for victory in Iraq

Posted: October 7, 2007
10:29 p.m. Eastern

WASHINGTON – With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008.

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Senakreh is one of dozens of terror leaders sounding off about American politics in the new book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!" by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

for the complete article

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57970

[Immanuel]

Here is one example

Terrorists know Dems are their best allies


It's official: Terrorists endorse Hillary in '08
On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders say she's best hope for victory in Iraq

Posted: October 7, 2007
10:29 p.m. Eastern

WASHINGTON – With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008.

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Senakreh is one of dozens of terror leaders sounding off about American politics in the new book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!" by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

for the complete article

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57970

Not to knock your source, but this just looks like too much opinion and slant to be taken with more than a grain of salt. I'm sure a few dozen terrorists can be found, by anyone except the Bush Administration, that will state that they want Hillary elected. I would not be surprised if I heard a few claim support for McCain as well.

Also, if they think Hillary will call for a withdrawal from Iraq if she wins the election, I've got some ocean front property in Riyadh, S.A. to sell them.

I can guarantee you that there are "illegal immigrants" who would like to see McCain elected.

WND's opinion is as valid as everyone else's, but I just think this is much more opinion than cold hard facts.

Immie

[red states rule]

Not to knock your source, but this just looks like too much opinion and slant to be taken with more than a grain of salt. I'm sure a few dozen terrorists can be found, by anyone except the Bush Administration, that will state that they want Hillary elected. I would not be surprised if I heard a few claim support for McCain as well.

Also, if they think Hillary will call for a withdrawal from Iraq if she wins the election, I've got some ocean front property in Riyadh, S.A. to sell them.

I can guarantee you that there are "illegal immigrants" who would like to see McCain elected.

WND's opinion is as valid as everyone else's, but I just think this is much more opinion than cold hard facts.

Immie


No the include quotes from terrorists hoping Dems win

[retiredman]

and what will you DO, RSR, when the democrats take over the white house and strengthen their hold on congress? will you just become apoplectic? Will you have a conniption?

Me? I'll be dancin'!!!!:dance:

[red states rule]

and what will you DO, RSR, when the democrats take over the white house and strengthen their hold on congress? will you just become apoplectic? Will you have a conniption?

Me? I'll be dancin'!!!!:dance:

It will be like during the Carter years - as the economy tanks, terrorists become bolder, and the voters see the country going into the toilet - we will rebound and a conservative will come in and clean up the mess

Hillary/Obama will do all I posted above - and libs like you are only comcerned with politcal power - not what is best for the country

[Immanuel]

No the include quotes from terrorists hoping Dems win


Not sure I understand this reply. The sentence doesn't make sense. It has to be typos.

I realize there were included quotes from terrorists and that they were what you were trying to display. I'm not disputing them at all. However, as I said, the article is WND's opinion. How many (if any) quotes did they have to wade through to find those? Are those quotes taken in context? How many (if any) other quotes did they discard because they contradicted what the author wanted to say?

Again, I'm not faulting you, but that article reads heavily slanted to me. So, what I am saying is... if it is so slanted, can it be trusted? That is a question, not a statement.

Immie

[red states rule]

Not sure I understand this reply. The sentence doesn't make sense. It has to be typos.

I realize there were included quotes from terrorists and that they were what you were trying to display. I'm not disputing them at all. However, as I said, the article is WND's opinion. How many (if any) quotes did they have to wade through to find those? Are those quotes taken in context? How many (if any) other quotes did they discard because they contradicted what the author wanted to say?

Again, I'm not faulting you, but that article reads heavily slanted to me. So, what I am saying is... if it is so slanted, can it be trusted? That is a question, not a statement.

Immie

The terrorists were hoping for Kerry to win - and they are now hoping for a Hillary win

I am sure they would be ahappy with Obama winning

The terrorists know full well Dems will surrender in Iraq, and do not have the guts to stand up to them

Right now Dems are more worried about the comfort of terrorists then stoping their attacks.

Clinton did nothing for 8 years even though the terrorists attacks US interests at least 5 times - each one killing Americans

[avatar4321]

I agree. The left, particularly Obama, should win in a landslide victory. That doesn't necessarily mean he will.

I bet it turns out closer than you think. Because the democrats are enthusiastic about this campaign. and who do you think is less likely to show up? Republicans who didnt get very passionate about their potential nominees who arent happy with the nominee or Democrats who were very passionate in coming out to support their nominee who arent happy with the nominee?

[Trigg]

Then the dark days of Pres Peanut Carter will return.

And terrorists around the world will be giddy over the party of appeasement and surrender running things

God, that's just scary. I'm sure there are people here who remember when WE owned the Panama Canal.

I wonder what Hillary will give back, maybe she'll cave into La Raza and give back New Mexico.

[nevadamedic]

January 09 will see a Democratic President, Senate and House of Representatives unless. (This is where you explain how it could be otherwise) Democratic turnout is two to one across America.

For me, the following things are the only things that could stop the landslide:

A fight within the Democratic Party between Obama and Clinton that sees so unfair that half of the party refuses to turn out to vote. (still the congress would be Democratic majorities). This could happen if Clinton gained some votes in TX, PA and OH with the help of crossover Republican voters.

Or, someone could assassinate Obama and blame it on Clinton.

Please tell me how the Republican Party could gain seats in the House, Senate and take the White house.

It wouldn't have to be blamed on Clinton as it would definatly be her giving the orders to have him killed. Either way that works for me.

[retiredman]

It will be like during the Carter years - as the economy tanks, terrorists become bolder, and the voters see the country going into the toilet - we will rebound and a conservative will come in and clean up the mess

Hillary/Obama will do all I posted above - and libs like you are only comcerned with politcal power - not what is best for the country

I happen to fervently believe that a democrat in the white house after eight years of the chimp is indeed what is best for this country.

I love my country.

[Immanuel]

Or, someone could assassinate Obama and blame it on Clinton.



It wouldn't have to be blamed on Clinton as it would definatly be her giving the orders to have him killed. Either way that works for me.

I'm no fan of Obama's but for the sake of this country, I pray nothing like that ever happens.

Immie

[avatar4321]

I happen to fervently believe that a democrat in the white house after eight years of the chimp is indeed what is best for this country.

I love my country.

I happen to fervently believe that someone who calls their leader whom they disagree with a chimp, lacks the maturity to accurately determine what's best for this country.

[red states rule]

I happen to fervently believe that a democrat in the white house after eight years of the chimp is indeed what is best for this country.

I love my country.

Well, it is nice to know you are for over $2 trillion in new taxes; $600 billion in new spending (and keep the book open of both) government run health care; surrender and appeasement to terrorists; open war on America corporations; and expanding handouts to the nonproducers

Marx would be proud of your party MM

[red states rule]

I happen to fervently believe that someone who calls their leader whom they disagree with a chimp, lacks the maturity to accurately determine what's best for this country.

Being a liberal, MM does not consider Pres Bush HIS President

Heck, he probably believes Pres Bush stole both elections in 2000 and 2004

[PostmodernProphet]

But Obama and McCain have proven Red and Blue states don't matter if you can muster the independent vote. I firmly believe that someone in Washington DC has preselected McCain and Clinton as who the people will have to chose from. I can't prove it but it doesn't make sense that McCain is where he is if that were not true.

?????....I'm sorry, but that makes no sense....every "red state/blue state" battle is a battle FOR the independent vote and it always has been.....about a third of the population is Dem, about a third is Repub.....the rest are independents, and they way they swing determines which way the state goes......

[Sitarro]

I happen to fervently believe that a democrat in the white house after eight years of the chimp is indeed what is best for this country.

Ya know, when I read that you too have decided to be "Oh So Creative" and refer to President Bush as a chimp, I was angered, so angered that just to get back at you I started to write how incredibly hypocritical for you to refer to the President that way when you are backing a NIGGER for President and everyone knows that niggers are just a hair below chimps on the evolutionary scale........ but then I thought, why should I let this asshole piss me off so much that I would stoop to his level and refer to anyone that way? So I decided against it.

You're still an asshole, literally, for referring to the President of my Country that way, but you know that. Besides, that man you call a chimp can out think you, out run you, out bike you, out read you and probably out drive you on a golf course...... he certainly could kick your ass and is in infinitely better health than you and he is the President of The United States....... who are you..... who's the chimp really?


I love my country.

What country is that, Russia?

[Black Lance]

?????....I'm sorry, but that makes no sense....every "red state/blue state" battle is a battle FOR the independent vote and it always has been.....about a third of the population is Dem, about a third is Repub.....the rest are independents, and they way they swing determines which way the state goes......

That's true at the national level, but not at the state level Classact was discussing. Much more than a third of voters in Kansas are Republicans, much as far more more than a third of voters in Massachuttes are liberal Democrats.

[Classact]

I'm no fan of Obama's but for the sake of this country, I pray nothing like that ever happens.

ImmieI agree it would be a terrible way to decide an election.

The way the election is going I see no winners for either party's voters. If Obama wins he will bring a Democratic congress with him. If he lives up to his claim to withdraw troops from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground there will be a Mid East war and the price of energy will go through the roof causing the American people to throw the inexperienced rat out just like they demanded of Carter.

If McCain wins he will bring a Democratic congress congress with him meaning nothing will get done other than amnesty for the illegal Mexicans... hell both parties will give them amnesty and allow them to invite a dozen relatives to move here too. There is no wining... The best would be for Hillary to win if she would guarantee no amnesty since she will not leave Iraq before it is stable.

[JohnDoe]

I agree it would be a terrible way to decide an election.

The way the election is going I see no winners for either party's voters. If Obama wins he will bring a Democratic congress with him. If he lives up to his claim to withdraw troops from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground there will be a Mid East war and the price of energy will go through the roof causing the American people to throw the inexperienced rat out just like they demanded of Carter.

If McCain wins he will bring a Democratic congress congress with him meaning nothing will get done other than amnesty for the illegal Mexicans... hell both parties will give them amnesty and allow them to invite a dozen relatives to move here too. There is no wining... The best would be for Hillary to win if she would guarantee no amnesty since she will not leave Iraq before it is stable.
I agree with your analysis Classy dude....:laugh2:!

except, i don't believe obama ever said that he would leave iraq regardless of conditions on the ground, i am not certain he stated the "regardless" part, i don't think he addressed every scenario, i think he left it ''vague'' enough to have circumstances that could alter his stance....

And i have been saying for years that Hillary is a Hawk....she is NOT as liberal as people make her out to be, at least not in the Defense arena imo.

jd

[Classact]

I agree with your analysis Classy dude....:laugh2:!

except, i don't believe obama ever said that he would leave iraq regardless of conditions on the ground, i am not certain he stated the "regardless" part, i don't think he addressed every scenario, i think he left it ''vague'' enough to have circumstances that could alter his stance....

And i have been saying for years that Hillary is a Hawk....she is NOT as liberal as people make her out to be, at least not in the Defense arena imo.

jdJohn here is his position:

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
This does not address a civil war that will occur if we leave within that time frame, a civil war that will involve all countries in the ME.

[Little-Acorn]

But, just because someone in Miami, I think, flies a flag in an office for Obama, doesn't mean that Obama knows anything about it, right?

Correct.

It merely shows how nutty and ignorant people are who support the current crop of Democrat candidates.

[Immanuel]

Correct.

It merely shows how nutty and ignorant people are who support the current crop of Democrat candidates.

:lol: I'd have changed that a little bit. Allow me to revise that for you.

It merely shows how nutty and ignorant people are who support the current crop of candidates.

I don't think there is a distinction between the two parties. ;)

Immie

[Black Lance]

John here is his position:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
This does not address a civil war that will occur if we leave within that time frame, a civil war that will involve all countries in the ME.

And we should care... because? We can only keep the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other for so long, and I would rather not have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of US troops in Iraq fo decades just so that we can force democracy on a population that doesn't seem to want it.

[red states rule]

I wonder if Obama and Hillary have seen this article

ABC Uniquely Lists 'Crucial' New Laws Passed by Iraq's Parliament
By Brent Baker | February 13, 2008 - 21:03 ET
Unlike the Wednesday CBS and NBC evening newscasts, ABC's World News highlighted a favorable development in Iraqi political progress as anchor Charles Gibson gave 20 seconds to:

Overseas, in Iraq, a breakthrough for the country's government that has been so often criticized. Iraq's parliament approved three contentious, but crucial, new laws long sought by Washington. The laws set a budget for 2008, grant amnesty to thousands of detainees and define the relationship between the central government and the provinces.

A month ago, on January 14, Gibson was also the only broadcast network evening newscast anchor to cite how “Iraqi lawmakers have put their differences aside and agreed to allow some members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to take government jobs. It's a key benchmark sought by the United States.”

The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News on Wednesday night both found time to report on how Secretary of Defense Robert Gates broke his arm in a fall on ice and how, for the first time, a Beagle (named “Uno”) won “Best in Show” at the Westminster Dog Show. Gibson, who broadcast from Philadelphia, the site of the dog show, managed to note the development in Iraq as well as Uno's win.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/02/13/abc-uniquely-lists-crucial-new-laws-passed-iraqs-parliament

[Classact]

And we should care... because?We should care because a stable Mid East is in our interests. If a civil war ensues it will involve Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Israel to list only a few. Iran will most likely block oil shipment from the ME resulting in fuel prices going through the roof. We, the US economy cannot replace that missing oil and as a result airplanes will sit, trucks will sit due to no, or too expensive fuel. When things that have smoke coming out of the back end sit still millions of people can lose their jobs. This fuel cannot be replaced with solar panels or windmills or ethanol made from any crop so we will be up in arms at the government for allowing this to happen.

We will have created a situation where failure was snatched from victory... the nearly 4,000 soldiers that have given their lives will have given them for nothing! The problem will still be there when the ME goes up in flames and the only nation to sort it out will be the US.


We can only keep the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other for so long, and I would rather not have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of US troops in Iraq fo decades just so that we can force democracy on a population that doesn't seem to want it.You need to pay attention to reality... A stable Iraqi government will be able to secure its self with its own army and police force. Several sectors of the nation are already in full control of the local army/police force without civil war... There is no plan to keep hundreds of thousands of US troops in Iraq for decades...
When their army/police is in place our army will draw down and return to America. Several large forces of US troops will need to stay in Iraq to assure Iran or Syria do not attempt to overpower or shift the balance of the Iraqi government causing a civil war.

A year from now we may have 100,000 US troops there and two years from now 40,000 and five years from now 20,000 troops there supporting the Iraqi government not fighting and dieing. The alternative is no smoke coming out... the no smoke coming out will cause a return of our entire military to the region... be real.

[red states rule]

Great post Classact

The terrorists are getting desperate to win this war - while the left are getting desperate to lose it

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080215/COMMENTARY/709555975/1012

[Classact]

Great post Classact

The terrorists are getting desperate to win this war - while the left are getting desperate to lose it

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080215/COMMENTARY/709555975/1012If Obama wins and carries out his troop withdraw as stated on his website an equal or greater force from Iran, Syria will replace them. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will send millions of dollars and weapons to the Sunnis to fight them and all hell will break loose! Our last troops will leave Iraq from the roof of the US Embassy as the terrorists, Iran and Sunni backed oil money fight who will have the nation and the embassy.

[red states rule]

If Obama wins and carries out his troop withdraw as stated on his website an equal or greater force from Iran, Syria will replace them. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will send millions of dollars and weapons to the Sunnis to fight them and all hell will break loose! Our last troops will leave Iraq from the roof of the US Embassy as the terrorists, Iran and Sunni backed oil money fight who will have the nation and the embassy.

Libs like Obama has no desire to fight the war on terror - they are to busy fighting their war on Bush

Terrorits know full well the Dems are the best friends they have in the US, and the Dems will hand Iraq over to them on a silver platter

[Classact]

Libs like Obama has no desire to fight the war on terror - they are to busy fighting their war on Bush

Terrorits know full well the Dems are the best friends they have in the US, and the Dems will hand Iraq over to them on a silver platterI don't think Hillary is stupid enough to withdraw troops resulting in defeat... Obama, yes but Hillary knows enough about foreign policy to "get it"... listen to the generals.

[red states rule]

I don't think Hillary is stupid enough to withdraw troops resulting in defeat... Obama, yes but Hillary knows enough about foreign policy to "get it"... listen to the generals.

No way. Hillary will be happy to sign the surrender documents ASAP

She will have to appease her kook base or risk being attacked by the very people she needs

[Classact]

And we should care... because? We can only keep the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other for so long, and I would rather not have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of US troops in Iraq fo decades just so that we can force democracy on a population that doesn't seem to want it.Go to this link and click and read every link and you will see clearly what I said earlier is in fact fact! http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_topics&task=select&obj=Publications&id=6

[red states rule]

Go to this link and click and read every link and you will see clearly what I said earlier is in fact fact! http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_topics&task=select&obj=Publications&id=6

Here is a good link that shows the terrorists are worried

Of course if Obama wins in November, all their fears will disappear in an instant

http://wasteofmyoxygen.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/al-qaeda-in-iraq-diary-reveals-desperation/

[gabosaurus]

I imagine the radical right blogs will be going into overdrive once Obama gains the nomination. They will be shoveling dirt left and right.

The Cuban flag was displayed the headquarters of some Obama volunteers in Houston. It was not an official Obama campaign office.

[Black Lance]

We should care because a stable Mid East is in our interests. If a civil war ensues it will involve Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Israel to list only a few. Iran will most likely block oil shipment from the ME resulting in fuel prices going through the roof. We, the US economy cannot replace that missing oil and as a result airplanes will sit, trucks will sit due to no, or too expensive fuel. When things that have smoke coming out of the back end sit still millions of people can lose their jobs. This fuel cannot be replaced with solar panels or windmills or ethanol made from any crop so we will be up in arms at the government for allowing this to happen.

So if there is a civil war in Iraq, Iran will block oil shipments from the ME... because? I don't see how the Iranians refusing to sell their only major national export would help the shiite faction win in Iraq. Much the contrary, it would simply hamstring Irans economy and risk drawing the US military back into the conflict.



We will have created a situation where failure was snatched from victory... the nearly 4,000 soldiers that have given their lives will have given them for nothing! The problem will still be there when the ME goes up in flames and the only nation to sort it out will be the US.

How many people gave their lives for nothing because we didn't pull out of Vietnam sooner?

Very few people seem to share your conviction that we are on the verge of winning the peace in Iraq, and once our military is out of that country, we have little incentive to care what happens there. The war in Iraq has gotten the United States wedged between two sides in a civil war, and I see no reason why we shouldn't simply let the Iraqi people decide their own national destiny.



You need to pay attention to reality... A stable Iraqi government will be able to secure its self with its own army and police force. Several sectors of the nation are already in full control of the local army/police force without civil war... There is no plan to keep hundreds of thousands of US troops in Iraq for decades...

You mean the Kurdish part of the country? That area has been doing well long before we came along, and does not account for the blood and treasure we have wasted on Iraq.



When their army/police is in place our army will draw down and return to America.


When will that be occuring? It takes the US only a few months to make a civilian into a competent professional soldier, why have the Iraqis not accomplished the same, despite our help, in five years?



Several large forces of US troops will need to stay in Iraq to assure Iran or Syria do not attempt to overpower or shift the balance of the Iraqi government causing a civil war.

Indeed. Hello permanent military commitment, goodbye tax revenues.



A year from now we may have 100,000 US troops there and two years from now 40,000 and five years from now 20,000 troops there supporting the Iraqi government not fighting and dieing. The alternative is no smoke coming out... the no smoke coming out will cause a return of our entire military to the region... be real.

A year from now the Iraqi government will still be too busy with sectional in-fighting to resolve the nations security problems, as has been the case for the last five years.

[red states rule]

I imagine the radical right blogs will be going into overdrive once Obama gains the nomination. They will be shoveling dirt left and right.

The Cuban flag was displayed the headquarters of some Obama volunteers in Houston. It was not an official Obama campaign office.

By dirt if you mean his tax and spend policies, and appeasement and surrender to terrorists - your are correct

The flag is an excellect indicator of the type of economic policies he has in mind for the US

[Classact]

So if there is a civil war in Iraq, Iran will block oil shipments from the ME... because? I don't see how the Iranians refusing to sell their only major national export would help the shiite faction win in Iraq. Much the contrary, it would simply hamstring Irans economy and risk drawing the US military back into the conflict.Do you see Commander in Chief Obama sending US troops back to the ME after tucking his tail (I hope that isn't a bigoted statement) and leaving in a hurry? Iran will use its access to the oil route to control its neighbors when it comes to conflict. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have Sunni majorities and will not allow Iran to take over Iraq because if Iran becomes Iran then Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be the next border of Iran. If you think OPEC now controls world oil prices then who do you think would take their place when Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran became part of Iran? Why the hell do you think we involved ourselves in the Gulf War? It was to keep Iraq from doing the same damned thing!




How many people gave their lives for nothing because we didn't pull out of Vietnam sooner?A separate debate but the US won the Vietnam War and then failed to fund the victory allowing the North to overthrow the South, read history their own generals said the same as I said.


Very few people seem to share your conviction that we are on the verge of winning the peace in Iraq, and once our military is out of that country, we have little incentive to care what happens there. The war in Iraq has gotten the United States wedged between two sides in a civil war, and I see no reason why we shouldn't simply let the Iraqi people decide their own national destiny.There is no civil war going on now is there? There will be a civil war if we cause a power vacuum.




You mean the Kurdish part of the country? That area has been doing well long before we came along, and does not account for the blood and treasure we have wasted on Iraq.No, I mean that a majority of the country is under Iraqi authority right now. By summer they will be capable to allow many of our combat troops back off.




When will that be occuring? It takes the US only a few months to make a civilian into a competent professional soldier, why have the Iraqis not accomplished the same, despite our help, in five years?We have Sergeants, Platoon Sergeants, First Sergeants, Command Sergeants Majors, Generals, Colonels, Lt. Colonels, Majors, Captains, Lieutenants and we have vehicles, aircraft, ships and supply systems to allow them to function including funding and structures that support quality of life. They have only Privates and no leaders to organize subordinates nor do they have the vehicles, quarters, or supply system of an organized military.




Indeed. Hello permanent military commitment, goodbye tax revenues. I worked on the DMZ of Korea and no one in the US bitched about me wasting tax dollars. Do you suppose if the N. Koreans moved south and then on to Japan it would cause Americans problems... the same is true of problems in the ME.




A year from now the Iraqi government will still be too busy with sectional in-fighting to resolve the nations security problems, as has been the case for the last five years.We shall see and we possibly shall see the alternatives. We do not need another granite wall in Washington DC without a nation that supports our efforts as a result.

[red states rule]

More on what is going on in Iraq

Libs will not not lit however

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4292435&page=1

[Black Lance]

Do you see Commander in Chief Obama sending US troops back to the ME after tucking his tail (I hope that isn't a bigoted statement) and leaving in a hurry? Iran will use its access to the oil route to control its neighbors when it comes to conflict. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have Sunni majorities and will not allow Iran to take over Iraq because if Iran becomes Iran then Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be the next border of Iran. If you think OPEC now controls world oil prices then who do you think would take their place when Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran became part of Iran? Why the hell do you think we involved ourselves in the Gulf War? It was to keep Iraq from doing the same damned thing!

So your argument is that a shiite dominated Iraq will be used by Iran as a staging ground for an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Don't you suspect that the the rest of the Arab world (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Israel, ect.) might have a problem with that? As you yourself have said, Saddam Hussein tried to do so the same thing, and look at the results. No, I don't see Barack Obama leading a re-invasion of Iraq, but I can see him applying US air power to invasion of the entire Middle East launched by Iran, especially if we had wide-spread international support for a change.



A separate debate but the US won the Vietnam War and then failed to fund the victory allowing the North to overthrow the South, read history their own generals said the same as I said.

So long as there were enemy soldiers coming from the North, that war would not be over.



There is no civil war going on now is there? There will be a civil war if we cause a power vacuum.

So you are acknowledging that the presence of the US military on the ground is the only factor preventing the Sunnis and Shiites from fighting a civil war against each other? If so, doesn't that suggest that they don't really want a democratic government that requires them to cooperate with each other?



No, I mean that a majority of the country is under Iraqi authority right now. By summer they will be capable to allow many of our combat troops back off.


I have yet to see any evidence that the war is almost won. Most of the evidence I see comes out like this story on CNN yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/18/alqaeda.sunnis/index.html?iref=newssearch

If Al-Qaeda has the weapons and manpower to spend on killing its own former allies, I doubt they are on the verge of being driven from the country as you suggest.



We have Sergeants, Platoon Sergeants, First Sergeants, Command Sergeants Majors, Generals, Colonels, Lt. Colonels, Majors, Captains, Lieutenants and we have vehicles, aircraft, ships and supply systems to allow them to function including funding and structures that support quality of life. They have only Privates and no leaders to organize subordinates nor do they have the vehicles, quarters, or supply system of an organized military.


That excuse only works for so long. They've had five years to re-train these personnel, and have had plenty of US assistance in doing so. What's causing the hold-up if not internal fighting among the Iraqis?



I worked on the DMZ of Korea and no one in the US bitched about me wasting tax dollars.

You were alot less expensive than the war in Iraq. ;)



Do you suppose if the N. Koreans moved south and then on to Japan it would cause Americans problems... the same is true of problems in the ME.


Well, I thank you for your service on the peninsula, but if I were the commander in chief I would remove all US ground presence from Korea. Given the sheer size of the Korean military, I think our nuclear arsenal and air power are the real deterents. Our ground forces are really only there now as a kind of massive symbolic gesture, and that's a bad reason to spend money and deploy thousands of soldiers, in my opinion.

The same solution to the Korean situation would apply to your Iranian scenario: The threat of nuclear/conventional weapons delivered by air power would contain the Iranians, much as it now contains Korea. The only real danger this scenario holds is the danger of the Iranian government handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, but that's a danger that the war in Iraq will do nothing to address.



We shall see and we possibly shall see the alternatives. We do not need another granite wall in Washington DC without a nation that supports our efforts as a result.

The sad reality is that we already have another granite wall. The question now is how many names we want etched on it. And then there's the more hidden cost, the human impact of spending all these trillions of dollars on wars rather than education, health care, economic stimulus packages, ect.

[Black Lance]

More on what is going on in Iraq

Libs will not not lit however

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4292435&page=1

That's one neighborhood among thousands in Baghdad alone. Even if all of Iraq were in the same condition as Jihad (pun not intended), it would take vastly more troops than we currently have on the ground to maintain the situation. And given that the surge was supposed to be a temporary arrangement to get the situation in Iraq back under control, it looks unlikely that we will see a second or third surge later in the year, or ever.

[Gaffer]

That's one neighborhood among thousands in Baghdad alone. Even if all of Iraq were in the same condition as Jihad (pun not intended), it would take vastly more troops than we currently have on the ground to maintain the situation. And given that the surge was supposed to be a temporary arrangement to get the situation in Iraq back under control, it looks unlikely that we will see a second or third surge later in the year, or ever.

I see your grasping at every loser straw you can find. We are winning there now, in spite of the lefts efforts. There are additional troops moving into the contested areas all the time. They are called the iraqi army. The US is gradually standing down while the iraqi's take over.

[Classact]

So your argument is that a shiite dominated Iraq will be used by Iran as a staging ground for an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Don't you suspect that the the rest of the Arab world (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Israel, ect.) might have a problem with that? As you yourself have said, Saddam Hussein tried to do so the same thing, and look at the results. No, I don't see Barack Obama leading a re-invasion of Iraq, but I can see him applying US air power to invasion of the entire Middle East launched by Iran, especially if we had wide-spread international support for a change.Well Iran will not send in invading Iranian armies nor will any of the other neighbors. Look at Syria and Lebanon... Iran, with the help of Syria is invading and overtaking Lebanon using the "political group" Hezbollah... With a power vacuum Iran will send in weapons to Syria because Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will send in money and weapons to the Sunnis. There is no army to bomb... the only civil war is that which is created by absence of security.




So long as there were enemy soldiers coming from the North, that war would not be over.



So you are acknowledging that the presence of the US military on the ground is the only factor preventing the Sunnis and Shiites from fighting a civil war against each other? If so, doesn't that suggest that they don't really want a democratic government that requires them to cooperate with each other? No, you really don't get it do you? Now there is security, mostly provided by the Iraq government... most of the casualties are Iraqis now that are providing security. The force is new as is the government of Iraq, a balance of security between two tribes with a common goal of security to raise their families in peace. It all is based on security... in months they will be able to provide their own security and will function with only a US force to prevent an outside army invasion as a non active force... a stand off force to allow them to do their thing of police and army on their own.

Let me put it like this, if in CA there was no federal government or Army National Guard could you start a war. Lets say you favor neither side but want the land where the war will take place... You go into a Spanish neighborhood and kill 100 Mexicans and take credit for it with a Afro American banner... at the same time you do the same in the black sector... Then the same from both sides on white neighborhoods... you could do the whole civil war for about $10,000 and destroy CA But what if Mexico helped the Spanish community and all the blacks from other states helped the blacks and the whites from other states... not directly but by sending money and weapons. Could the CA police made up of white, black and Mexican sort it out by themselves?




I have yet to see any evidence that the war is almost won. Most of the evidence I see comes out like this story on CNN yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/18/alqaeda.sunnis/index.html?iref=newssearch

If Al-Qaeda has the weapons and manpower to spend on killing its own former allies, I doubt they are on the verge of being driven from the country as you suggest.Are you suggesting Iraq and the US should surrender to whom?

I will find you a source that shares my opinion from a statesman here as an edit in a few moments:http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=203629#post203629




That excuse only works for so long. They've had five years to re-train these personnel, and have had plenty of US assistance in doing so. What's causing the hold-up if not internal fighting among the Iraqis?



You were alot less expensive than the war in Iraq. ;)They are, the Iraqi's are doing the heavy lifting now.



Well, I thank you for your service on the peninsula, but if I were the commander in chief I would remove all US ground presence from Korea. Given the sheer size of the Korean military, I think our nuclear arsenal and air power are the real deterents. Our ground forces are really only there now as a kind of massive symbolic gesture, and that's a bad reason to spend money and deploy thousands of soldiers, in my opinion.

The same solution to the Korean situation would apply to your Iranian scenario: The threat of nuclear/conventional weapons delivered by air power would contain the Iranians, much as it now contains Korea. The only real danger this scenario holds is the danger of the Iranian government handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, but that's a danger that the war in Iraq will do nothing to address.Yes, Korea is a totally different situation, nothing strategic to lose if we nuke something and the war would be between uniformed armies.




The sad reality is that we already have another granite wall. The question now is how many names we want etched on it. And then there's the more hidden cost, the human impact of spending all these trillions of dollars on wars rather than education, health care, economic stimulus packages, ect.The loss of life and treasure could be much more if we make the wrong choice... there will be this wall and the one from the war that will follow because nothing will have changed... it will be in our interest to go back and sort it out once again.

[Gaffer]

So your argument is that a shiite dominated Iraq will be used by Iran as a staging ground for an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Don't you suspect that the the rest of the Arab world (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Israel, ect.) might have a problem with that? As you yourself have said, Saddam Hussein tried to do so the same thing, and look at the results. No, I don't see Barack Obama leading a re-invasion of Iraq, but I can see him applying US air power to invasion of the entire Middle East launched by Iran, especially if we had wide-spread international support for a change.

That's exactly what they will do. And the other countries will do nothing. Syria is already allied with iran.


So long as there were enemy soldiers coming from the North, that war would not be over.

Again he explained the Vietnam situation very well. The dems sold out South Vietnam by cutting off all support to the country. If they had the material support they needed they could have thrown the NVA back. It was a complete dem sell out and resulted in the killing fields.

So you are acknowledging that the presence of the US military on the ground is the only factor preventing the Sunnis and Shiites from fighting a civil war against each other? If so, doesn't that suggest that they don't really want a democratic government that requires them to cooperate with each other?

He didn't acknowledge any such thing. Our military is fighting the islamist that are trying to undermine the country and establish a safe haven to continue attacks against us here. There is no civil war going on in iraq.

I have yet to see any evidence that the war is almost won. Most of the evidence I see comes out like this story on CNN yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/18/alqaeda.sunnis/index.html?iref=newssearch

Well you really need to expand you news sources. You don't really think the MSM with all their Bush hatred are going to report on successes in iraq do you? Most of the political benchmarks have now been met and the casualties are down to record lows. Not news you want to hear, but its a fact.

If Al-Qaeda has the weapons and manpower to spend on killing its own former allies, I doubt they are on the verge of being driven from the country as you suggest.

AQ is driven by rage, not sense. They don't have the abilitiy to take on the US and iraqi forces so they are going after soft targets which can't fight back. It's what they do best.

That excuse only works for so long. They've had five years to re-train these personnel, and have had plenty of US assistance in doing so. What's causing the hold-up if not internal fighting among the Iraqis?

Training takes time. Also weeding out the AQ types that try to get in. The whole army and police force had to be built from scratch. They also have to be equipt and taught how to use that equipment. They are proving to be very effective now.

You were alot less expensive than the war in Iraq. ;)

The expense of a soldier is the same regardless of where they are.

Well, I thank you for your service on the peninsula, but if I were the commander in chief I would remove all US ground presence from Korea. Given the sheer size of the Korean military, I think our nuclear arsenal and air power are the real deterents. Our ground forces are really only there now as a kind of massive symbolic gesture, and that's a bad reason to spend money and deploy thousands of soldiers, in my opinion.

Our forces are in Korea to prevent another invasion such as occurred in 1950. Using nukes is not an option as long as NK's allies (russia and china) are similarly armed. Our air power neutralizes the numbers the NK have over the US and SK troops.

The same solution to the Korean situation would apply to your Iranian scenario: The threat of nuclear/conventional weapons delivered by air power would contain the Iranians, much as it now contains Korea. The only real danger this scenario holds is the danger of the Iranian government handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, but that's a danger that the war in Iraq will do nothing to address.

Again china and russia would stand for us nuking iran. And iran is out to start an apocalyptic war. They are not concerned with whether their country survives as long as they can destroy us and bring back the hidden imam. MAD doesn't work with these people. iran is working on building rockets that can reach the US. They will gladly give nukes to any terror organization that wants to use them against us.

The sad reality is that we already have another granite wall. The question now is how many names we want etched on it. And then there's the more hidden cost, the human impact of spending all these trillions of dollars on wars rather than education, health care, economic stimulus packages, ect.

The reality is, this is going to be a long war. It's just getting started. The cost so far is just a trickle. It's a simple fact of either spend the money on defense or have no education,health care or economy to worry about. The biggest threat this country has ever faced is looming on the horizon and you and your kind can't see it. You won't acknowledge it exists. When it does come for you I'm sure you'll point your finger and try to find someone to blame....besides yourself.

[gabosaurus]

Muslim extremists are very thankful for the Bush presidency. Before the U.S. invasion, religious extremists were not welcome in Iraq, where Saddam ran a purely secular government.
The U.S. invasion allowed Muslim extremists and terrorist factions to gain a foothold in Iraq, which they have expanded ever since.

Removing U.S. forces from Iraq would allow the country to practice self-determination. It will likely return to feudalism, which is how it was for thousands of years.
The positive part is the U.S. will no longer be involved. Meaning they can kill each other and not our people.

[Classact]

Muslim extremists are very thankful for the Bush presidency. Before the U.S. invasion, religious extremists were not welcome in Iraq, where Saddam ran a purely secular government.
The U.S. invasion allowed Muslim extremists and terrorist factions to gain a foothold in Iraq, which they have expanded ever since.

Removing U.S. forces from Iraq would allow the country to practice self-determination. It will likely return to feudalism, which is how it was for thousands of years.
The positive part is the U.S. will no longer be involved. Meaning they can kill each other and not our people.Is there a missing link in the left's ability to apply logic and reason or what?

Yes, lets allow Iraq to practice self determination and when a couple million people are dead and the price of gasoline is $10 a gallon when you can buy it on your coupon talk to the American people about putting up a solar panel and windmill... You know what the people will do when the ME is a bloodbath and oil stops flowing because Iran has the navy and military to stop it? The American people will have the choice of drilling in the US and ANWAR and nuking the ME or going back to war with the ME. Now that's an easy choice now isn't it? Let them kill each other while we ride our bikes through the snow drifts... we can ride bicycles while the oil companies drill can't we... wont we?

[Black Lance]

I see your grasping at every loser straw you can find. We are winning there now, in spite of the lefts efforts. There are additional troops moving into the contested areas all the time. They are called the iraqi army. The US is gradually standing down while the iraqi's take over.

If the US is gradually standing down, why are our troops not coming home?

[Black Lance]

Well Iran will not send in invading Iranian armies nor will any of the other neighbors. Look at Syria and Lebanon... Iran, with the help of Syria is invading and overtaking Lebanon using the "political group" Hezbollah... With a power vacuum Iran will send in weapons to Syria because Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will send in money and weapons to the Sunnis. There is no army to bomb... the only civil war is that which is created by absence of security.

Hezbollah does not have the manpower or resources to take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, if such an obvious threat to Saudi security emerged, the US military could target Hezbollah with impunity.



No, you really don't get it do you? Now there is security, mostly provided by the Iraq government... most of the casualties are Iraqis now that are providing security. The force is new as is the government of Iraq, a balance of security between two tribes with a common goal of security to raise their families in peace. It all is based on security... in months they will be able to provide their own security and will function with only a US force to prevent an outside army invasion as a non active force... a stand off force to allow them to do their thing of police and army on their own.


Please show substantive evidence that the Iraqi military will be able to handle its own domestic security "within months". If the Iraqi military has everything secure. why is Al-Qaeda in Iraq self-confident enough to be killing its own allies?



Let me put it like this, if in CA there was no federal government or Army National Guard could you start a war. Lets say you favor neither side but want the land where the war will take place... You go into a Spanish neighborhood and kill 100 Mexicans and take credit for it with a Afro American banner... at the same time you do the same in the black sector... Then the same from both sides on white neighborhoods... you could do the whole civil war for about $10,000 and destroy CA But what if Mexico helped the Spanish community and all the blacks from other states helped the blacks and the whites from other states... not directly but by sending money and weapons. Could the CA police made up of white, black and Mexican sort it out by themselves?


No, but after so many years of direct and indirect support, we have to conclude that your CA police are either unable or unwilling to resolve the problem.



Are you suggesting Iraq and the US should surrender to whom?


Nobody. We simply withdraw from Iraq, let the Iraqis kill each other as they wish, and focus our efforts directly on killing terrorists, not on nation building.



I will find you a source that shares my opinion from a statesman here as an edit in a few moments:http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=203629#post203629


Thanks for this, I will view it and edit in a response ASAP.



They are, the Iraqi's are doing the heavy lifting now.


Then why do we still have 120,000+ soldiers in that country? And why are they coming under fire and/or dying on a regular basis?



Yes, Korea is a totally different situation, nothing strategic to lose if we nuke something and the war would be between uniformed armies.

The loss of life and treasure could be much more if we make the wrong choice... there will be this wall and the one from the war that will follow because nothing will have changed... it will be in our interest to go back and sort it out once again.

We didn't go back to Vietnam, did we? We simply don't have enough of an interest in Iraq to justify the cost of what we are expending there.

[Gaffer]

If the US is gradually standing down, why are our troops not coming home?

Because things are just starting to work. Just because things are successful for a short time doesn't mean you should pack up and leave right away.

Firemen don't leave a fire just cause the flames are gone.

[retiredman]

Because things are just starting to work. Just because things are successful for a short time doesn't mean you should pack up and leave right away.

Firemen don't leave a fire just cause the flames are gone.


why aren't we at least bringing the surge troops home, who were supposed to be coming home now anyway?

[Gaffer]

why aren't we at least bringing the surge troops home, who were supposed to be coming home now anyway?

Ask the General that. He's the one that decides how long they stay. I'm sure he has info that I'm not privy too.

[Black Lance]

Ask the General that. He's the one that decides how long they stay. I'm sure he has info that I'm not privy too.

Maybe this info he knows is that removing the "surge" troops would create a reduction in manpower that the Iraqi military is hopelessly incompetent to make up for?

[Black Lance]

Because things are just starting to work. Just because things are successful for a short time doesn't mean you should pack up and leave right away.

Firemen don't leave a fire just cause the flames are gone.

It hasn't been a "short time" Gaffer. It has been five years. Sure, you don't pack up and leave a raging fire right away, but if the blaze keeps going for so long most fire officials will leave the flames to burn themselves out, and focus their efforts on simply preventing the fire from spreading.

[Classact]

Hezbollah does not have the manpower or resources to take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, if such an obvious threat to Saudi security emerged, the US military could target Hezbollah with impunity. Let's think clearly, Hezbollah is an Iranian surrogate... I posted:
Well Iran will not send in invading Iranian armies nor will any of the other neighbors. Look at Syria and Lebanon... Iran, with the help of Syria is invading and overtaking Lebanon using the "political group" Hezbollah... With a power vacuum Iran will send in weapons to Syria (I meant to say Iraq and not Syria)because Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will send in money and weapons to the Sunnis(in Iraq). There is no army to bomb... the only civil war is that which is created by absence of security.So in other words when we leave too fast the Iranians will send support to the Shiites in Iraq and Sunni led nations will send arms and support Iraqi Sunnis.

Iran has been rattling swords by showing off rockets that can reach all of its neighbors so without being on the ground as we are now would leave the neighborhood in WAR.



Please show substantive evidence that the Iraqi military will be able to handle its own domestic security "within months". If the Iraqi military has everything secure. why is Al-Qaeda in Iraq self-confident enough to be killing its own allies?These are acts of desperation to re-enter and have influence. Once all provinces are secured by Iraqi forces and citizens respect the Iraqi security they will turn in AQ to their security forces. It simply takes time.




No, but after so many years of direct and indirect support, we have to conclude that your CA police are either unable or unwilling to resolve the problem.No one would have to conclude the security force doesn't trust itself... the whites don't trust blacks...Hispanic and vise verse.




Nobody. We simply withdraw from Iraq, let the Iraqis kill each other as they wish, and focus our efforts directly on killing terrorists, not on nation building.It wont be only Iraqis fighting, it will be the entire ME fighting.




Thanks for this, I will view it and edit in a response ASAP.So, did you read it?




Then why do we still have 120,000+ soldiers in that country? And why are they coming under fire and/or dying on a regular basis?To assure that AQ or Iran doesn't get the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites fighting against each other... Once there is security we can back off on the sidelines and the Iraqi security forces do it all. They will need us in the shadows for a while not fighting but in a support roll to allow peace to have a chance... once peace is experienced violence will be rejected and those who offer violence.




We didn't go back to Vietnam, did we? We simply don't have enough of an interest in Iraq to justify the cost of what we are expending there. Vietnam did not have the 9 million barrels of missing oil we use each and every day and the ME does.

[GW in Ohio]

Then the dark days of Pres Peanut Carter will return.

And terrorists around the world will be giddy over the party of appeasement and surrender running things

You're making a lot of assumptions about how things will be under President Obama. Your assumptions are based on how some things have happened in the past.

But the political world is not static; it's dynamic, and things are ever changing.

Furthermore, you can never predict how a given individual will act as president. Everyone assumed that Richard Nixon would be a hard-core conservative president, but many of the things he did as president were quite liberal. And when the current president was elected, would anyone have predicted that he would take government spending to levels that would make the most liberal of left-wing Democrats uncomfortable?

You should not assume you know how President Obama will behave in office. He could very well be made of the same steel that Ronald Reagan was made of.

[Little-Acorn]

January 09 will see a Democratic President, Senate and House of Representatives

Democratic turnout is two to one across America.


The leftist extremists seem to be doing a lot of crowing over the great victory to come in January.

I don't blame them for doing it now. They won't be able to after November.

:cheers2:

[retiredman]

The leftist extremists seem to be doing a lot of crowing over the great victory to come in January.

I don't blame them for doing it now. They won't be able to after November.

:cheers2:

are you suggesting that anyone who predicts a democratic victory this fall is a leftist extremist?

[Abbey Marie]

There is a thread somewhere on site that shows a video of it.

But, just because someone in Miami, I think, flies a flag in an office for Obama, doesn't mean that Obama knows anything about it, right?

Immie

It's like the Farrakhan support. You are judged largely by the "company you keep".

[Classact]

are you suggesting that anyone who predicts a democratic victory this fall is a leftist extremist?Democrats are made up of numerous splinter groups connected only by emotions.

I think the splinters will stab each other to death by November allowing Republicans to have a great chance of victory in congress and the White house.

[retiredman]

Democrats are made up of numerous splinter groups connected only by emotions.

I think the splinters will stab each other to death by November allowing Republicans to have a great chance of victory in congress and the White house.

Pray tell...in the republican party, what connects the fundamentalist christian anti-gay rights demonstrator with the small government fiscal conservative with the foreign policy neocon with the wealthy businessman?

a bridge to nowhere, perhaps? :laugh2:

[Classact]

Pray tell...in the republican party, what connects the fundamentalist christian anti-gay rights demonstrator with the small government fiscal conservative with the foreign policy neocon with the wealthy businessman?

a bridge to nowhere, perhaps? :laugh2:The natural order... Social Darwinism under the rule of Gods rules... Common sense and reason has a lot to bind us together also.

The point is that there are more conservatives in America than liberals... America is a conservative nation... a large splinter of the Democratic Party is conservative... Blue Dogs (Democrats) are more conservative than some Republicans. Many Democrats are conservative but support Democrats for specific reasons like only Union Support...

Republicans represent an oak tree and the Democratic Party represent switch grass...

[retiredman]

The natural order... Social Darwinism under the rule of Gods rules... Common sense and reason has a lot to bind us together also.

The point is that there are more conservatives in America than liberals... America is a conservative nation... a large splinter of the Democratic Party is conservative... Blue Dogs (Democrats) are more conservative than some Republicans. Many Democrats are conservative but support Democrats for specific reasons like only Union Support...

Republicans represent an oak tree and the Democratic Party represent switch grass...


you should definitely hold on tight to your dreams.

but when you look back at the inexorable advance of progressive liberalism in the last century, it must be hard!

[Classact]

you should definitely hold on tight to your dreams.

but when you look back at the inexorable advance of progressive liberalism in the last century, it must be hard!Actually, if you look at conservatism it is not standing still but rather change over time... look at the Civil War and the Century that passed before former slaves rights were adjusted. Please note that their rights were fully acknowledged before women's rights... women's rights are still lacking according to women's rights groups... If you flash back to the 2000 election you will learn President Bush was elected because of high turnout in many states to stop gays from getting certain rights on state referendums...

So Vern, what we have here is Progressive Conservatism... in a social Darwinism free capitol environment.

[GW in Ohio]

January 09 will see a Democratic President, Senate and House of Representatives unless. (This is where you explain how it could be otherwise) Democratic turnout is two to one across America.

For me, the following things are the only things that could stop the landslide:

A fight within the Democratic Party between Obama and Clinton that sees so unfair that half of the party refuses to turn out to vote. (still the congress would be Democratic majorities). This could happen if Clinton gained some votes in TX, PA and OH with the help of crossover Republican voters.

Or, someone could assassinate Obama and blame it on Clinton.

Please tell me how the Republican Party could gain seats in the House, Senate and take the White house.

Well, some of you guys have a realistic view of things. Yes, the Democrats will be in charge of the legislative and judicial branches of government in '08. Whether they stay in power depends on whether they're able to govern well.

The last time the Dems controlled Congress, from about 1954--1994, they became corrupt and arrogant. The Newt Gingrich-led Republican counterattack swept them out of power in '94.

And in 2000, with the election of George Bush, the GOP controlled the White House and the Congress. Didn't take them long to fuck it up and lose control, did it? A couple of clowns named Bush and Cheney were the biggest perpetrators. They listened to their neocon advisors and had grandiose dreams of re-making the Middle East in our image.

We all know how that went, don't we?

So now the Dems look like they'll be controlling things next year. I'll be real interested to see if they can keep both feet on the ground and govern well.

[JohnDoe]

Well, some of you guys have a realistic view of things. Yes, the Democrats will be in charge of the legislative and judicial branches of government in '08. Whether they stay in power depends on whether they're able to govern well.

The last time the Dems controlled Congress, from about 1954--1994, they became corrupt and arrogant. The Newt Gingrich-led Republican counterattack swept them out of power in '94.

And in 2000, with the election of George Bush, the GOP controlled the White House and the Congress. Didn't take them long to fuck it up and lose control, did it? A couple of clowns named Bush and Cheney were the biggest perpetrators. They listened to their neocon advisors and had grandiose dreams of re-making the Middle East in our image.

We all know how that went, don't we?

So now the Dems look like they'll be controlling things next year. I'll be real interested to see if they can keep both feet on the ground and govern well.

From your mouth to God's ears!

And my fingers crossed, rubbing the rabbit foot, picking a four leaf clover and getting the larger side in the wishbone break have all been utilized by me the last month or so, in the realization of the Dems opportunity, and wishing for them to not mess this up! :eek:

jd

[retiredman]

Actually, if you look at conservatism it is not standing still but rather change over time... look at the Civil War and the Century that passed before former slaves rights were adjusted. Please note that their rights were fully acknowledged before women's rights... women's rights are still lacking according to women's rights groups... If you flash back to the 2000 election you will learn President Bush was elected because of high turnout in many states to stop gays from getting certain rights on state referendums...

So Vern, what we have here is Progressive Conservatism... in a social Darwinism free capitol environment.

conservatism keeps moving to the left so as not to be left behind in the dustbin of history. suffrage, rights of workers to organize, minimum wage, workplace safety, child labor laws, environmental regulation, social security, civil rights, medicare, medicaid, welfare, AFDC, etc. etc. etc.....conservatism opposed every one... and held each of them off for a time, and then lost... the same will happen with gay rights, and the ERA... all conservatives can do is hold the line for a time, until the next high tide sweeps them back...but they never really undo any of the gains.

So Vern...keep telling yourself you're winning. That's fine with me. I'll let you think that and say that all day long, as long as the actually march of progressive liberalism continues!