Clinton wants all U.S. troops out of Iraq when Bush leaves office

[stephanie]

:uhoh: What a BITCH..
DAVENPORT, Iowa: U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that U.S. President George W. Bush should withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq before he leaves office, saying it would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief.

"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator said her in first presidential campaign tour through the early-voting state of Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.

The White House condemned Clinton's comments as a partisan attack that undermines U.S. soldiers.

About 130,000 American troops are in Iraq, and Bush has announced this month he was sending 21,500 more as part of his new war strategy.



"I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it."

Bush describes Iraq as the central front in the global fight against terrorism that began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The war on terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again," he recently told USA Today newspaper.

One questioner asked Clinton if her track record showed she could stand up to "evil men" around the world.

"The question is, we face a lot of dangers in the world and, in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of evil men and what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men," Clinton said. She paused to gaze while the audience interrupted with about 30 seconds of laughter and applause.

Meeting later with reporters, she was pressed repeatedly to explain what she meant. She insisted it was a joke.

"I thought I was funny," Clinton said. "You guys keep telling me to lighten up, be funny. I get a little funny and now I'm being psychoanalyzed."

She told reporters that evil men included al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. "Isn't it about time we get serious about that?" she said.

During the town hall meeting, she tried to make clear that she thinks she would be a chief executive with enough fortitude to confront any danger facing the country.

"I believe that a lot in my background and a lot in my public life shows the character and toughness that is required to be president," Clinton said. "It also shows that I want to get back to bringing the world around to support us again."

Clinton defended the role that Congress has played, saying newly empowered Democrats are beginning to build pressure on Bush to act, but the public needs to be patient.

"We are at the beginning of a process," Clinton said. "It's a frustrating process, our system is sometimes frustrating."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/28/america/NA-POL-US-Clinton-2008.php

[jillian]

And?

He made the mess, let him clean it up.

[Nienna]

Did she vote to give him power to go to war?

Yeah, I'll bet she resents it. She's planning on winning the White House, and she doesn't want it on HER head. But Hillary, Honey, that's what a president DOES. When you're running a country, you sometimes have to make decisions like these. :rolleyes:


During the town hall meeting, she tried to make clear that she thinks she would be a chief executive with enough fortitude to confront any danger facing the country.

Yeah, as long as all the REALLY tough choices are removed before she takes office. Again... :rolleyes:

[jillian]

Did she vote to give him power to go to war?

Yeah, I'll bet she resents it. She's planning on winning the White House, and she doesn't want it on HER head. But Hillary, Honey, that's what a president DOES. When you're running a country, you sometimes have to make decisions like these. :rolleyes:

So... the pres gives false intel to get Congress to give him war authority AS A LAST RESORT (not a first resort) and screws up the operation and that's ok? I figure he broke it, he bought it. Isn't that what Colin Powell said? Oh yeah... he didn't get with Rummy's program so he was out.

[Nienna]

So... the pres gives false intel to get Congress to give him war authority AS A LAST RESORT (not a first resort) and screws up the operation and that's ok? I figure he broke it, he bought it. Isn't that what Colin Powell said? Oh yeah... he didn't get with Rummy's program so he was out.

Jilly! I knew you'd jump on that one! :D

Of course, Bush didn't inherit ANY messes from the PREVIOUS Billary administration. :cough: couldhavetakenOsama :cough: prevented9/11 :cough:

[stephanie]

So... the pres gives false Intel to get Congress to give him war authority AS A LAST RESORT (not a first resort) and screws up the operation and that's ok? I figure he broke it, he bought it. Isn't that what Colin Powell said? Oh yeah... he didn't get with Rummy's program so he was out.

Repeating a lie over and over.... Still Doesn't make it true..:wink2:

[jillian]

Repeating a lie over and over....Doesn't make it true..:wink2:

Exactly what we keep saying to the folk who keep insisting Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or was an "imminent threat".

[stephanie]

Exactly what we keep saying to the folk who keep insisting Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or was an "imminent threat".

There ya go again...

I know of NO ONE who believes that...

But don't let that get in your way...:dunno:

[jillian]

There ya go again...

I know of NO ONE who believes that...

But don't let that get in your way...:dunno:


Yeah...well, you're looking in the wrong places. EVERYONE I know knows that's the case. So there ya go.

[stephanie]

Yeah...well, you're looking in the wrong places. EVERYONE I know knows that's the case. So there ya go.

Hummmmm???:uhoh:

[jillian]

Jilly! I knew you'd jump on that one! :D

Of course, Bush didn't inherit ANY messes from the PREVIOUS Billary administration. :cough: couldhavetakenOsama :cough: prevented9/11 :cough:

I just love the right wing lies.

So what exactly did Iraq have to do with 9/11... hint... it didn't.

And wanna talk about preventing 9/11? Let's talk about the Presidential Daily Briefing of August, 2001 that Bush was too busy clearing brush to be bothered with.

And I wasn't even going there....

[stephanie]

And wanna talk about preventing 9/11? Let's talk about the Presidential Daily Briefing of August, 2001 that Bush was too busy clearing brush to be bothered with.




Hum..I wonder what Clinton was doing when the first World trade center bombing happened?

I wonder where he was, when the USS Cole was attacked???

Some people need to get a grip...:wink2:

:eek:

[manu1959]

So... the pres gives false intel to get Congress to give him war authority AS A LAST RESORT (not a first resort) and screws up the operation and that's ok? I figure he broke it, he bought it. Isn't that what Colin Powell said? Oh yeah... he didn't get with Rummy's program so he was out.

sure thing....i seem to recall the "slam dunk" intelligence came from the clinton CIA.....looks like the clintons called in some olde favours at the CIA and misslead the nation to blame it on bush ....

[manu1959]

I just love the right wing lies.

So what exactly did Iraq have to do with 9/11... hint... it didn't.

And wanna talk about preventing 9/11? Let's talk about the Presidential Daily Briefing of August, 2001 that Bush was too busy clearing brush to be bothered with.

And I wasn't even going there....

the only person that believes iraq had anything to do with 911 is the press and the left....the rest of us are clear that it was a violation of un resolutions and the treaty of iraq I withdrawl out of kuwait ....

[Gaffer]

Jill no one on the right said saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

The invasion of iraq was a pre-emptive strike because Bush was "told by ALL the worlds intelligence services" that saddam had WMD's and was prepared to use them.Along with his ignoring ALL the un mandates and shooting at our patroling aircraft. Supporting terrorist organizations like hamas and hizzbollah. And crimes against humanity within his own country.

Everything was laid out to the congress for them to make a choice on the matter and the majority of them voted for the invasion. Including hellery. No lies were told, just the known facts presented. Some of those facts turned out to be wrong. That does NOT make them lies. But we couldn't find out all of the facts until after the invasion.

It's becoming imperative that we make another pre-emptive strike against iran. They are developing nukes and threaten Israel and America publicly. If we strike and take out their nukes will you just say Bush lied again?

[Gunny]

I just love the right wing lies.

So what exactly did Iraq have to do with 9/11... hint... it didn't.

And wanna talk about preventing 9/11? Let's talk about the Presidential Daily Briefing of August, 2001 that Bush was too busy clearing brush to be bothered with.

And I wasn't even going there....

I don't suppose you are ever going to get past representing the information most of the intelligence agencies in the world believed to be true at the time as purposefully given false info?

Anyone with a functioning brain at the time believed Saddam had and was pursuing more WMDs. Since you're no dummy, I'd say that would include you.

Monday morning quarterbacking is bad form.

We went to war with Spain in 1898 because we believed the blowing up and sinking of the USS Maine was an act of sabotage by the Spanish. It was later discovered the ship blew up because of a faulty boiler.

Saddam possessed and used WMDs. Established fact. Lots of pics of lots of gassed Kurds to prove it.

Saddam was caught AFTER (1993) a ceasefire agreement he signed with an active bio weapons manufacturing lab.

If Saddam wasn't playing a shell game with the UN inspectors, he did a damned-convincing job of appearing that he was.

Had Saddam complied with the agreement he made to get us off his butt in 1991, there'd have been no grounds for argument. When you do the math with the numbers available at the time, it all adds up that he was trying to hide WMDs; which, he had proven he was willing to use.

I recall Saddam being tied to terrorism, but I don't recall anyone officially stating he was part of 9/11. He was accused of harboring AQ members.

[Pale Rider]

In any case.... getting back to hitlery.... she wants the president to withdraw all troops from Iraq before he leaves office. In other words, "she wants president Bush to SURRENDER before he leaves office".

I think the fight in Iraq is a good thing. I think we should stay there, because the terrorists have decided to fight us there. If we leave, they'll come right back here INTO America with another bombing or whatever. We'll just have to go right back over there SOMEWHERE and START ALL OVER AGAIN. Why not stay there, right where we've got a good start? Do the liberals REALLY BELIEVE that if we leave Iraq, the terrorist problem will just MAGICALLY go away? If you do.... heeeeerre's your picture....

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9010/yikeseb7.jpg

The liberal "cut and run" strategy is a loser's strategy. We'll suffer far worse with that type of action by far, than standing and fighting these blood thirsty killers on their own soil, AWAY from America.

[avatar4321]

Exactly what we keep saying to the folk who keep insisting Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or was an "imminent threat".

How can anyone honestly claim they dont understand why we went into Iraq? its been detailed for 5+ years. Nothing has changed. The fact is you want to pretend as though nothing changed with 9/11.

The world isnt the same. We cant wait around and hope we wont be attacked. We have to be proactive.

[retiredman]

Jilly! I knew you'd jump on that one! :D

Of course, Bush didn't inherit ANY messes from the PREVIOUS Billary administration. :cough: couldhavetakenOsama :cough: prevented9/11 :cough:

please explain to me what evidence we had against Osama in the spring of '96 that would have allowed us to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him.

[jillian]

How can anyone honestly claim they dont understand why we went into Iraq? its been detailed for 5+ years. Nothing has changed. The fact is you want to pretend as though nothing changed with 9/11.

The world isnt the same. We cant wait around and hope we wont be attacked. We have to be proactive.

And the ever-changing reasons from the admin are still as full of it today as they were at the onset.

You can choose to buy whatever self-serving statements they make. I don't.

[jillian]

In any case.... getting back to hitlery.... she wants the president to withdraw all troops from Iraq before he leaves office. In other words, "she wants president Bush to SURRENDER before he leaves office".

I think the fight in Iraq is a good thing. I think we should stay there, because the terrorists have decided to fight us there. If we leave, they'll come right back here INTO America with another bombing or whatever. We'll just have to go right back over there SOMEWHERE and START ALL OVER AGAIN. Why not stay there, right where we've got a good start? Do the liberals REALLY BELIEVE that if we leave Iraq, the terrorist problem will just MAGICALLY go away? If you do.... heeeeerre's your picture....

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9010/yikeseb7.jpg

The liberal "cut and run" strategy is a loser's strategy. We'll suffer far worse with that type of action by far, than standing and fighting these blood thirsty killers on their own soil, AWAY from America.

There WERE no terrorists fighting in Iraq before we deposed Saddam. He HATED the fundies.

She does't want Bush to "surrender". She wants him not to dump his mistakes on his successor. I think that's fair. The whole cut and run argument is disingenuous at best, intentionally inflammatory at worst. It is meant to create a barrier to discussion about the incompetence shown in the handling of every aspect of this misadventure.

[TheSage]

There WERE no terrorists fighting in Iraq before we deposed Saddam. He HATED the fundies.

She does't want Bush to "surrender". She wants him not to dump his mistakes on his successor. I think that's fair. The whole cut and run argument is disingenuous at best, intentionally inflammatory at worst. It is meant to create a barrier to discussion about the incompetence shown in the handling of every aspect of this misadventure.


But jillian, don't dems want to cut and run? What is their plan? Criticizing bush more is not a plan. Well, it's a plan, but not a plan for Iraq. Well, it's not a good plan for iraq, at the very least.

[retiredman]

But jillian, don't dems want to cut and run? What is their plan? Criticizing bush more is not a plan. Well, it's a plan, but not a plan for Iraq. Well, it's not a good plan for iraq, at the very least.

it never ceases to amaze me how republicans can continue to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs "the democrats have no plan!"

[TheSage]

it never ceases to amaze me how republicans can continue to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs "the democrats have no plan!"


So what is the democrat plan, besides getting bush to admit past failures, which is not a plan, for iraq.

[avatar4321]

it never ceases to amaze me how republicans can continue to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs "the democrats have no plan!"

What are we closing our eyes to? we have a plan. In fact, its going quite well despite the media trying to make people think otherwise. Obviously the troops think its going well or we wouldnt have record reenlistment. Shouldnt they be the ones who can tell if we are doing well?

[retiredman]

So what is the democrat plan, besides getting bush to admit past failures, which is not a plan, for iraq.

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.

[retiredman]

What are we closing our eyes to? we have a plan. In fact, its going quite well despite the media trying to make people think otherwise. Obviously the troops think its going well or we wouldnt have record reenlistment. Shouldnt they be the ones who can tell if we are doing well?

if you are suggesting that we should let enlisted personnel in the armed forces have a veto power over our nation's foreign policy, I think that is absurd in the extreme.

34K Iraq civilians died violent deaths last year. Things are not going well. Gates says they are not going well. Petraeus said they are not going well...Bush said they are not going well..... Cheney and you and the rest of the stepford conservatives on here seem to think differently. Why am I not surprised?

[TheSage]

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.


Could you articulate it here please, for our benefit? Could you do us the honor?

[avatar4321]

if you are suggesting that we should let enlisted personnel in the armed forces have a veto power over our nation's foreign policy, I think that is absurd in the extreme.

34K Iraq civilians died violent deaths last year. Things are not going well. Gates says they are not going well. Petraeus said they are not going well...Bush said they are not going well..... Cheney and you and the rest of the stepford conservatives on here seem to think differently. Why am I not surprised?

No. Im saying the troops actions are far more determinative than the medias opinions in determining if something is working or not.

34K Iraq civilians arent being killed by American troops. They are being killed by the terrorists. How exactly is running away and letting the terrorists do what they want going to make less Iraqi citizens die??

If you actually cared about these people, youd be supporting the Presidents effort to kill the terrorists that are killing them.

[Gaffer]

if you are suggesting that we should let enlisted personnel in the armed forces have a veto power over our nation's foreign policy, I think that is absurd in the extreme.

34K Iraq civilians died violent deaths last year. Things are not going well. Gates says they are not going well. Petraeus said they are not going well...Bush said they are not going well..... Cheney and you and the rest of the stepford conservatives on here seem to think differently. Why am I not surprised?

Sure what would a bunch of enlisted men know about what's going on in iraq? Or fighting a war? Only officers would have any idea about such things. After all enlisted men are just ignorant morons with no education. bin kerry says so.

34k iraqi's died last year. If we pull out even more will die as the savages are turned loose. Too me that's just more dead muslims, which is a good thing. But for someone like you who is a muslim lover and so incensed that innocents are being killed should be completely against a pull out of the troops.

[CSM]

if you are suggesting that we should let enlisted personnel in the armed forces have a veto power over our nation's foreign policy, I think that is absurd in the extreme.

No, only officers are smart enough to have that power. They and the MSM, along with folks like Cindy Sheehan should be the ONLY ones with any say. In fact, we should not allow enlisted personnel to vote either!

34K Iraq civilians died violent deaths last year. Guess how many violent deaths there were in the US last year! Things are not going well. Gates says they are not going well. Petraeus said they are not going well...Bush said they are not going well..... Cheney and you and the rest of the stepford conservatives on here seem to think differently. Why am I not surprised?

I have intentionally tried to stay out of the running gun battle between some Officer/Enlisted vets because it think it is a huge waste of time. However, whenever anyone suggests that enlisted service folks are stupid or in any way second class or imply such, they need to be taken to task.

Enlisted servicemen and women have every right to their opinion; as much right as every single anti-war protestor and MSM talking head and politician. And yes, even as much right to their opinion as retired Navy commanders! Yes, they even have as much right to vote as any other citizen in this country.

[Pale Rider]

There WERE no terrorists fighting in Iraq before we deposed Saddam. He HATED the fundies.
What difference does that make? None. They're there now. Lets fight them.


She does't want Bush to "surrender". She wants him not to dump his mistakes on his successor. I think that's fair. The whole cut and run argument is disingenuous at best, intentionally inflammatory at worst. It is meant to create a barrier to discussion about the incompetence shown in the handling of every aspect of this misadventure.
So you have another name for tucking tail and running other than surrender. Go ahead and use it. I'll still call it surrender. Would you prefer "lose and run" as opposed to "cut and run". Either way, no matter what you call it, you liberals want us to surrender.

War is tricky business. It's dynamic and ever changing. A standing army has to be versital and able to adapt. It would appear you have little military knowledge, or you'd know that. Mistakes have been made in the handling of this war, but this is a new kind of war, and a new kind of enemy. We're learning. New stratogies need to be formulated. New counter measures need to be implemented. No one deny's that. Not even the president himself. But just "up and leaving the battlefield" right now would be the greatest mistake this country has EVER made. It pains me that you liberals can't see that. You INIVITE more terrorist activity with that sort of defeatist attitude.

God help us if you people ever get back in the White House. There won't be a safe place on earth.

[retiredman]

Sure what would a bunch of enlisted men know about what's going on in iraq? Or fighting a war? Only officers would have any idea about such things. After all enlisted men are just ignorant morons with no education. bin kerry says so.

34k iraqi's died last year. If we pull out even more will die as the savages are turned loose. Too me that's just more dead muslims, which is a good thing. But for someone like you who is a muslim lover and so incensed that innocents are being killed should be completely against a pull out of the troops.

now now now.... let's try not to get personal here... calling me a "muslim lover" is pretty insulting and out of bounds.... no...wait...I'm sorry.... I take that back...you're the conservative and I'M the liberal.... so therefore, it is perfectly OK thing for YOU to say.... I am getting the hang of this place.

Are you suggesting that, before D-Day, Ike took a poll of his enlisted troops and formulated his normandy invasion strategy based upon their input?

you all need to get over this "terrorists are killing the innocent iraqis" story. It is a civil war. From dictionary.com
civil war –noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

This is indiginous sunnis fighting indiginous shiites. It's a civil war. We have no role to play other than prolonging and exacerbating.

[avatar4321]

now now now.... let's try not to get personal here... calling me a "muslim lover" is pretty insulting and out of bounds.... no...wait...I'm sorry.... I take that back...you're the conservative and I'M the liberal.... so therefore, it is perfectly OK thing for YOU to say.... I am getting the hang of this place.

Are you suggesting that, before D-Day, Ike took a poll of his enlisted troops and formulated his normandy invasion strategy based upon their input?

you all need to get over this "terrorists are killing the innocent iraqis" story. It is a civil war. From dictionary.com
civil war –noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

This is indiginous sunnis fighting indiginous shiites. It's a civil war. We have no role to play other than prolonging and exacerbating.

So which indiginous faction are the Iranian troops in?

[Pale Rider]

now now now.... let's try not to get personal here... calling me a "muslim lover" is pretty insulting and out of bounds.... no...wait...I'm sorry.... I take that back...you're the conservative and I'M the liberal.... so therefore, it is perfectly OK thing for YOU to say.... I am getting the hang of this place.

Are you suggesting that, before D-Day, Ike took a poll of his enlisted troops and formulated his normandy invasion strategy based upon their input?

you all need to get over this "terrorists are killing the innocent iraqis" story. It is a civil war. From dictionary.com
civil war –noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

This is indiginous sunnis fighting indiginous shiites. It's a civil war. We have no role to play other than prolonging and exacerbating.


It's the Iranian backed insurgents that have incited the waring factions, and also the ones that are perpetuating it.

[Pale Rider]

now now now.... let's try not to get personal here... calling me a "muslim lover" is pretty insulting and out of bounds....

Muslim lover isn't bad. Had he called you a radical islamist jihadist apologist, that would different.

In any case, it gives you the opportunity to clarify your position regarding islam.

[retiredman]

No, only officers are smart enough to have that power. They and the MSM, along with folks like Cindy Sheehan should be the ONLY ones with any say. In fact, we should not allow enlisted personnel to vote either!
then you are saying something I certainly don't agree with

34K Iraq civilians died violent deaths last year. Guess how many violent deaths there were in the US last year!

34K in a country whose total population is 28M. Are you suggesting that, if we had a little sectarian problem here in America...a little north versus south or liberal versus conservative or caucasian versus all the other races.... and that little sectarian problem resulted in 360 THOUSAND Americans dying last year of violent deaths directly resulting from that sectarian conflict, are you suggesting that wouldn't be a CIVIL WAR?

However, whenever anyone suggests that enlisted service folks are stupid or in any way second class or imply such, they need to be taken to task. You need to learn how to read the running context of a thread, buddy. avatar said:
"Obviously the troops think its going well or we wouldnt have record reenlistment. Shouldnt they be the ones who can tell if we are doing well?"

and I suggested that NO...they should NOT be the ones who tell us how to run a war.

Enlisted servicemen and women have every right to their opinion; as much right as every single anti-war protestor and MSM talking head and politician. And yes, even as much right to their opinion as retired Navy commanders! Yes, they even have as much right to vote as any other citizen in this country. I have never suggested otherswise.... I just do not think that we make our determinations as to how a military operation is doing in terms of meeting its objectives or furthering some strategic goal by polling the troops

[retiredman]

It's the Iranian backed insurgents that have incited the waring factions, and also the ones that are perpetuating it.

Iran backs the shiites. they are the majority of the population. This is a civil war.

[retiredman]

So which indiginous faction are the Iranian troops in?

Iranian TROOPS?

link please

[retiredman]

Muslim lover isn't bad. Had he called you a radical islamist jihadist apologist, that would different.

In any case, it gives you the opportunity to clarify your position regarding islam.

I know many muslims. I have lived amongst them in the middle east. The vast majority of muslims are peaceful kind and generous folks. They are as upset by the perversion of THEIR religion as we are.

[Pale Rider]

Iran backs the shiites. they are the majority of the population. This is a civil war.

Like I said, Iranian insurgents are inciting much of the violence. Yes it is a civil war. So what's the solution?

[Pale Rider]

I know many muslims. I have lived amongst them in the middle east. The vast majority of muslims are peaceful kind and generous folks. They are as upset by the perversion of THEIR religion as we are.

I believe that. I just wonder why, since the "majority" are peace loving, don't condem the actions of the militant jihadist muslims.

[jillian]

Like I said, Iranian insurgents are inciting much of the violence. Yes it is a civil war. So what's the solution?

Either they make a political deal or blow each other up. Solves the problem.

[retiredman]

I believe that. I just wonder why, since the "majority" are peace loving, don't condem the actions of the militant jihadist muslims.

yeah....kinda like the town's librarian and dentist and cobbler and grocer and kindergarten teacher standing up to the armed gang of hell's angels that roared into town.

[Gaffer]

now now now.... let's try not to get personal here... calling me a "muslim lover" is pretty insulting and out of bounds.... no...wait...I'm sorry.... I take that back...you're the conservative and I'M the liberal.... so therefore, it is perfectly OK thing for YOU to say.... I am getting the hang of this place.

Are you suggesting that, before D-Day, Ike took a poll of his enlisted troops and formulated his normandy invasion strategy based upon their input?

you all need to get over this "terrorists are killing the innocent iraqis" story. It is a civil war. From dictionary.com
civil war –noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

This is indiginous sunnis fighting indiginous shiites. It's a civil war. We have no role to play other than prolonging and exacerbating.

I call a spade a spade.

There are a bunch of thugs supported by iran and syria that are making attacks on innocent people in order to create a civil war. al queda is doing the same thing. They are out to create a civil war and bring down the new government. There is no civil war be waged there. Based on the very definition you provided. There are no sunni and shea armies engaged in combat. The only ones being targeted are the people going about their daily lives. And as long as the American troops are there there will be no civil war.

The civil war will start when we leave.

[retiredman]

Like I said, Iranian insurgents are inciting much of the violence. Yes it is a civil war. So what's the solution?


let me repeat myself:

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.


don't act like there are a number ov viable alternative plans out there. I have typed them all a number of times and I have no doubt that you have read them from me or from someone else.... so, basically, go look it up. I refuse to feed it to you again only to have you pull one of the two stock responses noted above

[Gaffer]

yeah....kinda like the town's librarian and dentist and cobbler and grocer and kindergarten teacher standing up to the armed gang of hell's angels that roared into town.

If they don't stand up and the town is taken over and used as a base of operations, then the town is blamed in general. Not doing anything is giving tacit support.

[CSM]

No, only officers are smart enough to have that power. They and the MSM, along with folks like Cindy Sheehan should be the ONLY ones with any say. In fact, we should not allow enlisted personnel to vote either!
then you are saying something I certainly don't agree with

34K Iraq civilians died violent deaths last year. Guess how many violent deaths there were in the US last year!

34K in a country whose total population is 28M. Are you suggesting that, if we had a little sectarian problem here in America...a little north versus south or liberal versus conservative or caucasian versus all the other races.... and that little sectarian problem resulted in 360 THOUSAND Americans dying last year of violent deaths directly resulting from that sectarian conflict, are you suggesting that wouldn't be a CIVIL WAR?

However, whenever anyone suggests that enlisted service folks are stupid or in any way second class or imply such, they need to be taken to task. You need to learn how to read the running context of a thread, buddy. avatar said:
"Obviously the troops think its going well or we wouldnt have record reenlistment. Shouldnt they be the ones who can tell if we are doing well?"

and I suggested that NO...they should NOT be the ones who tell us how to run a war.

Enlisted servicemen and women have every right to their opinion; as much right as every single anti-war protestor and MSM talking head and politician. And yes, even as much right to their opinion as retired Navy commanders! Yes, they even have as much right to vote as any other citizen in this country. I have never suggested otherswise.... I just do not think that we make our determinations as to how a military operation is doing in terms of meeting its objectives or furthering some strategic goal by polling the troops

Nice tap dance, but you know exactly what I mean! The troop's opinions of how well things are going are every bit as valid as those opinions expressed in the MSM. That is my point. I dont see anywhere in this thread where anyone has suggested that the enlisted should be the ones "telling us how to run a war" (as you put it).


I find it interesting that some would dismiss the troops evaluation of their own performance in meeting objectives has no bearing on decision making. I have no idea how things work in the Navy, but in the Army, leaders ignore the troops opinions at their own peril. It is the troops that have to execute the plan. Also, many of those same folks who would ignore the troop's opinions are the first to trot ought the few disgruntled soldiers as being representative of the consensus of the 99% of the rest.

If those 34,000 + deaths are the result of secretarian violence, then they would have (and did) occur whether or not there is a US presence in Iraq.

Regarding your question about civil war, I am suggesting that if a civil war occurs in today's international political climate, the implications are global in effect. If Iraq were an isolated country and both sides in the civil strife conducted their operations without outside interference, I would be in agreement with you. Unfortunately, the result of this particular confrontation have global implications. I suspect the reason the rest of the world (including the UN) has not interferred in places like Dafur is because the global implications of occurences there are of minimal international impact.

[retiredman]

If those 34,000 + deaths are the result of secretarian violence, then they would have (and did) occur whether or not there is a US presence in Iraq.

no...Iraq was not embroiled in a sectarian civil war prior to our invasion.

and I never said that their opinion did not count.... only that - at a national, strategic level - "how the war is going" is not a question appropriately answered by the troops.

[retiredman]

If they don't stand up and the town is taken over and used as a base of operations, then the town is blamed in general. Not doing anything is giving tacit support.

so if law enforcement enters the town in search of the morotcycle gang, they should just slaughter everybody.... yeah...that's the American way, isn't it? NOT

If that were the "American way", there would be streets named Wounded Knee and My Lai and Haditha.

[CSM]

let me repeat myself:

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.


don't act like there are a number ov viable alternative plans out there. I have typed them all a number of times and I have no doubt that you have read them from me or from someone else.... so, basically, go look it up. I refuse to feed it to you again only to have you pull one of the two stock responses noted above


I presume that as an officer in the Navy, you know well that plans are debated continually and critiqued constantly. Once the commander decides on a course of action, he continues with that plan unless and until his staff presents him with compelling reasons to change it. Critique notwithstanding, the ultimate decision is his (as is the responsibility).

The Commander in Chief has chosen to execute a plan; criticisms and optional plans are all open to debate, but the final decision is his. You may not agree with it, but that is the reality. You personally may agree or not with the effectiveness of his plan (one "troops" opinion...valueless according to you) the responsibility and choice is his.

[retiredman]

I presume that as an officer in the Navy, you know well that plans are debated continually and critiqued constantly. Once the commander decides on a course of action, he continues with that plan unless and until his staff presents him with compelling reasons to change it. Critique notwithstanding, the ultimate decision is his (as is the responsibility).

The Commander in Chief has chosen to execute a plan; criticisms and optional plans are all open to debate, but the final decision is his. You may not agree with it, but that is the reality. You personally may agree or not with the effectiveness of his plan (one "troops" opinion...valueless according to you) the responsibility and choice is his.

your presumption is correct. And now, as a retiree and private citizen, I can and will criticize the decisions of the commander in chief anytime I think they are particularly boneheaded..... like surging more troops into Iraq.

When you find yourself in a hole.... you quit digging, you don't throw 21.5K more folks with shovels into the bottom of the hole

[CSM]

If those 34,000 + deaths are the result of secretarian violence, then they would have (and did) occur whether or not there is a US presence in Iraq.

no...Iraq was not embroiled in a sectarian civil war prior to our invasion.

Yeah, Hussein did keep a good lid on that. Gassing them Kurds was a good thing, eh?

and I never said that their opinion did not count.... only that - at a national, strategic level - "how the war is going" is not a question appropriately answered by the troops.

Unfortunately, you did not articulate "at the national or strategic level" in your statements. Strategy, however, is fully dependent on tactics. Poor strategy can survive given good tactics; the reverse is not true.

[retiredman]

like it or not.... Saddam did three things much better than we have been able to:

1. keep a lid on sunni-shiite sectarian carnage
2. keep islamic extremists OUT of his county
3. act as a regional foil against Iranian hegemony.

Saddam was a bad bad man...but the value of doing those three things well is growing in retrospect

[CSM]

your presumption is correct. And now, as a retiree and private citizen, I can and will criticize the decisions of the commander in chief anytime I think they are particularly boneheaded..... like surging more troops into Iraq.

When you find yourself in a hole.... you quit digging, you don't throw 21.5K more folks with shovels into the bottom of the hole

Yup, you are absolutely free to do that. Others are free to take an opposing view.

What is the crux of the debate is whether the US is "in a hole" or not. Some do not think so.

[CSM]

like it or not.... Saddam did three things much better than we have been able to:

1. keep a lid on sunni-shiite sectarian carnage
2. keep islamic extremists OUT of his county
3. act as a regional foil against Iranian hegemony.

Saddam was a bad bad man...but the value of doing those three things well is growing in retrospect

"..in retrospect" are the key words.

I do believe that if the US military was allowed to implement the same (or worse) measures as Saddam did, then the secretarian carnage would cease. The same is true of the other two points you make.

One could infer then that such measures are a viable option for the US and you would agree with them as being effective (not talking morality, simply effectiveness).

[retiredman]

"..in retrospect" are the key words.

I do believe that if the US military was allowed to implement the same (or worse) measures as Saddam did, then the secretarian carnage would cease. The same is true of the other two points you make.

One could infer then that such measures are a viable option for the US and you would agree with them as being effective (not talking morality, simply effectiveness).

Because totalitarian regimes are effective, do I think that America should enact similar tactics? hell no.

And really...if you suggest that we should enact those tactics in Iraq, why not enact them in Chicago and Detroit and New York City while you're at it?

Or...conversely, if you are suggesting that America has some "moral imperative" to throw our young men and women into the breech anywhere anytime around the globe wherever people do not have human rights and freedoms equal to Americans, I would suggest that such a proposition is... inaccurate.

[Pale Rider]

Either they make a political deal or blow each other up. Solves the problem.

I'd like to see that.

[Pale Rider]

let me repeat myself:

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.


don't act like there are a number ov viable alternative plans out there. I have typed them all a number of times and I have no doubt that you have read them from me or from someone else.... so, basically, go look it up. I refuse to feed it to you again only to have you pull one of the two stock responses noted above


I've never seen "your plan", here or anywhere else. If I had, how could I possibly say "you don't have a plan"?

I don't fit into many molds or follow many trends. I also support the Hells Angels.

[CSM]

Because totalitarian regimes are effective, do I think that America should enact similar tactics? hell no.

And really...if you suggest that we should enact those tactics in Iraq, why not enact them in Chicago and Detroit and New York City while you're at it?

Or...conversely, if you are suggesting that America has some "moral imperative" to throw our young men and women into the breech anywhere anytime around the globe wherever people do not have human rights and freedoms equal to Americans, I would suggest that such a proposition is... inaccurate.

Ah, we are now cruising toward middle ground...bravo!

Of course, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, all strategic plans tend to look great right up until the moment one begins to apply the tactical slant necessary to support such plans. That is true of whatever plan one can examine (the democrats/libs/neocon ad nauseam). Then of course, everyone gets to "vote" on the plan almost before it is even made public. Whether you espouse immediate withdrawal or "staying the course" and anywhere in between, each plan has the possibility of success and an equal possibility of failure. Each plan is dependent upon the price the US and its citizens are willing to pay.

[Gaffer]

so if law enforcement enters the town in search of the morotcycle gang, they should just slaughter everybody.... yeah...that's the American way, isn't it? NOT

If that were the "American way", there would be streets named Wounded Knee and My Lai and Haditha.

Why do you always have to take things to the extreme? I never said a thing about what would be done. I simply stated that the town that allows thugs to take up residence and doesn't do something about them would be considered as tacitly supporting the thugs. How does that imply slaughtering the whole town?

[Grumplestillskin]

I've never seen "your plan", here or anywhere else. If I had, how could I possibly say "you don't have a plan"?

The plan is to get out and let them eat themselves. Gonna happen anyway, no matter how long the US stays there..


I also support the Hells Angels.

Why does that not surprise me...:D

[Pale Rider]

Why does that not surprise me...:D

Hey... it comes with the territory. Among other professions, I'm a Master Harley Davidson Technician. I know Hells Angels, I make their bikes go fast, and I ride with them. You have to be "voted in" just to RIDE with them. It's an honor. Many of them are friends and good people. They HAVE asked me to patch with them, but, my loyalty is with Harley Davidson, and I'm not wrenching on anybody's bike for free.

[retiredman]

Why do you always have to take things to the extreme? I never said a thing about what would be done. I simply stated that the town that allows thugs to take up residence and doesn't do something about them would be considered as tacitly supporting the thugs. How does that imply slaughtering the whole town?

do you support eradicating insurgents in Iraq?

[retiredman]

Ah, we are now cruising toward middle ground...bravo!

Of course, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, all strategic plans tend to look great right up until the moment one begins to apply the tactical slant necessary to support such plans. That is true of whatever plan one can examine (the democrats/libs/neocon ad nauseam). Then of course, everyone gets to "vote" on the plan almost before it is even made public. Whether you espouse immediate withdrawal or "staying the course" and anywhere in between, each plan has the possibility of success and an equal possibility of failure. Each plan is dependent upon the price the US and its citizens are willing to pay.

no...each plan does not have an equal possibility of success or failure. some plans are better than others and have a better chance of success than others.

And I do not know what this middle ground is you speak of.... I do not think that America ought to sink to the level of our enemies and I do not think that America needs to spill the blood of ITS young men and women to fight for everyone ELSE's freedoms

[CSM]

no...each plan does not have an equal possibility of success or failure. some plans are better than others and have a better chance of success than others.

And I do not know what this middle ground is you speak of.... I do not think that America ought to sink to the level of our enemies and I do not think that America needs to spill the blood of ITS young men and women to fight for everyone ELSE's freedoms

We are essentially in agreement on your last statement. As to the first, each plan, until it is executed starts with an equal chance of success or failure because NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE OTHER THAN PLANNING. It is after it gets to execution that the balance changes. My point is, the plans being offered as alternatives to the current one remain untested. It is easy to denigrate a plan that is under execution; compare it to a plan that is in concept and declare the concept "better".

Personally, I have stated several times that I do not think the US military should ever again be utilized to interfere with, protect or otherwise support any other nation...period. Not because I have some moral inhibition against war. It is simply because I do not believe the citizens of this country will ever again have the commitment required to see such efforts through to the end.

I would infer from your statement about "middle ground" that for you personally, there is no middle ground. Are you saying that you are positively correct and therefore anyone opposed to you must be positively wrong?

[retiredman]

I am all for finding consensus... but, if you put yourself in a liberal democrat's shoes - especially one who rightfully believes he has something to add to the debate about middle eastern policy - and you have been as marginalized and trivialized as we have for the past four years.... you can see how we might get the idea that consensus is only now anything the right is interested in... now that they've lost their mandate.

[CSM]

I am all for finding consensus... but, if you put yourself in a liberal democrat's shoes - especially one who rightfully believes he has something to add to the debate about middle eastern policy - and you have been as marginalized and trivialized as we have for the past four years.... you can see how we might get the idea that consensus is only now anything the right is interested in... now that they've lost their mandate.

Understood. There is plenty of room for fingerpointing and blame throwing. I have an learned (and deep) distaste for politicians in general (in either party).

It is my personal conviction that both political parties have been hijacked by the extreme left/right (pick your poison and as appropriate) and that there is plenty of snobbery and hypocracy on both sides. I sincerely hope that the US citizenry wakes up soon and realizes that NEITHER party is particularly interested in what is good for the country but rather interested in achieving and maintaining power for its own sake. I am not saying that either party is all bad but neither is either party "all" right.

We elect officials to serve the people...ALL the people...not just the gays, not just the Christians, not just the hawks, not just the unions, and not just corporate America. Somehow, that has all been lost (in my opinion).

That aside, formulation and execution of a plan for Iraq and US involvement/non-involvement MUST be free from political hackery. The whole issue is far too important to be relegated to use as a tool for either party to achieve mere political ascendency. I seriously doubt that such a plan will ever see the light of day...which is very, very sad.

[retiredman]

"That aside, formulation and execution of a plan for Iraq and US involvement/non-involvement MUST be free from political hackery. The whole issue is far too important to be relegated to use as a tool for either party to achieve mere political ascendency. I seriously doubt that such a plan will ever see the light of day...which is very, very sad."

It is my belief that political hackery has been the essence of the current plan since day one. Look at who were the big cheerleaders for this war and look at their rosy pronouncements and prognostications...this war was ginned up in the PNAC laboratory and its salesman have been hawking it (double entendre intended) since 9/12/01.

[CSM]

"That aside, formulation and execution of a plan for Iraq and US involvement/non-involvement MUST be free from political hackery. The whole issue is far too important to be relegated to use as a tool for either party to achieve mere political ascendency. I seriously doubt that such a plan will ever see the light of day...which is very, very sad."

It is my belief that political hackery has been the essence of the current plan since day one. Look at who were the big cheerleaders for this war and look at their rosy pronouncements and prognostications...this war was ginned up in the PNAC laboratory and its salesman have been hawking it (double entendre intended) since 9/12/01.

Once again, it appears that you believe that NOTHING in opposition to your views could be anything but wrong. I do not believe that, so obviously there is little point in pursuing this debate.

I do believe that mistakes have been made in the prosecution of this war; I do believe that the MSM and others have gone to great lengths to make failure in Iraq a self fulfilling prophecy. I also believe that the some in this country are more opposed to the sitting President simply because he is not a Democrat and Iraq is a convenient issue with which to beat the aforementioned. With that, I leave you to further pursue your agenda.

[Grumplestillskin]

I do believe that the MSM and others have gone to great lengths to make failure in Iraq a self fulfilling prophecy. .

The media have had NO affect on the war itself. On the minds of people at home, sure, but most people don't need the media to tell them a fuck up when they see one...


I also believe that the some in this country are more opposed to the sitting President simply because he is not a Democrat.

I'd say it's more to do with him being an idiot and a puppet than any political affiliation.

[CSM]

The media have had NO affect on the war itself. On the minds of people at home, sure, but most people don't need the media to tell them a fuck up when they see one...



I'd say it's more to do with him being an idiot and a puppet than any political affiliation.

I disagree...the media has done a fine job of advancing the cause of the anti-Bush crowd as well as disseminating the terrorist propaganda. Obviously, you don't see it that way.

As for "him being an idiot and a puppet", I am sure you reached that conclusion based on sound and objective reasoning without your personal politics entering into it...right?

[retiredman]

Once again, it appears that you believe that NOTHING in opposition to your views could be anything but wrong. I do not believe that, so obviously there is little point in pursuing this debate.

I do believe that mistakes have been made in the prosecution of this war; I do believe that the MSM and others have gone to great lengths to make failure in Iraq a self fulfilling prophecy. I also believe that the some in this country are more opposed to the sitting President simply because he is not a Democrat and Iraq is a convenient issue with which to beat the aforementioned. With that, I leave you to further pursue your agenda.

I believe that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. I believe that the invasion of Iraq has made us LESS safe, ity has made us MORE despised, it has made us FEWER and it has made us POORER and it has created MORE enemies and more adherents to the very cause we were supposedly seeking to destroy after THAT cause, and not Iraq, attacked us on 9/11... and I would believe ALL of that JUST as strenuously if a DEMOCRAT had done it ALL.

[Gaffer]

I believe that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. I believe that the invasion of Iraq has made us LESS safe, ity has made us MORE despised, it has made us FEWER and it has made us POORER and it has created MORE enemies and more adherents to the very cause we were supposedly seeking to destroy after THAT cause, and not Iraq, attacked us on 9/11... and I would believe ALL of that JUST as strenuously if a DEMOCRAT had done it ALL.

Our being in iraq has nothing to do with our enemies increasing. That's taught in the mosques and by the imams of islam. It's all iranian and al queda inspired. If iraq is mentioned its just as an excuse. The more they send into iraq, the more we kill. They have 1.2 billion to draw from and most of them hate the US because the US is not muslim. As long as your not muslim you are going to be hated by them.

[Gunny]

No, only officers are smart enough to have that power. They and the MSM, along with folks like Cindy Sheehan should be the ONLY ones with any say. In fact, we should not allow enlisted personnel to vote either!
then you are saying something I certainly don't agree with

34K Iraq civilians died violent deaths last year. Guess how many violent deaths there were in the US last year!

34K in a country whose total population is 28M. Are you suggesting that, if we had a little sectarian problem here in America...a little north versus south or liberal versus conservative or caucasian versus all the other races.... and that little sectarian problem resulted in 360 THOUSAND Americans dying last year of violent deaths directly resulting from that sectarian conflict, are you suggesting that wouldn't be a CIVIL WAR?

However, whenever anyone suggests that enlisted service folks are stupid or in any way second class or imply such, they need to be taken to task. You need to learn how to read the running context of a thread, buddy. avatar said:
"Obviously the troops think its going well or we wouldnt have record reenlistment. Shouldnt they be the ones who can tell if we are doing well?"

and I suggested that NO...they should NOT be the ones who tell us how to run a war.

Enlisted servicemen and women have every right to their opinion; as much right as every single anti-war protestor and MSM talking head and politician. And yes, even as much right to their opinion as retired Navy commanders! Yes, they even have as much right to vote as any other citizen in this country. I have never suggested otherswise.... I just do not think that we make our determinations as to how a military operation is doing in terms of meeting its objectives or furthering some strategic goal by polling the troops

Thank you Capt Sobel for putting in your own words what a couple of us have been saying all along. You're an elitist officer who thinks of enlisted personnel as lesser forms of life.

A good leader ALWAYS listens to his troops, and seeks their input. That's number one.

Number two, senior enlisted personnel are NOT "troops." We teach you officers how to do your damned jobs without getting everyone including yourselves killed.

I guarantee you every senior enlisted person I know is at a minimum as educated, and probably far more than you when it comes to battlefield strategy and tactics and the conduct of war.

[retiredman]

Thank you Capt Sobel for putting in your own words what a couple of us have been saying all along. You're an elitist officer who thinks of enlisted personnel as lesser forms of life.

A good leader ALWAYS listens to his troops, and seeks their input. That's number one.

Number two, senior enlisted personnel are NOT "troops." We teach you officers how to do your damned jobs without getting everyone including yourselves killed.

I guarantee you every senior enlisted person I know is at a minimum as educated, and probably far more than you when it comes to battlefield strategy and tactics and the conduct of war.

and how do you make such a guarantee, Mr. Cyber-Gunny? I have never never said that officers should not listen to enlisted men.... you would be surprised, I am sure by how many sailors from my career I keep in contact with.... I ALWAYS listened to my troops... and senior enlisted personnel certainly taught me many things throughout my career... and, at some point, I started teaching them as much if not more than they could teach me. My point in all of this was that the suits who call the shots in this war do not pay any more attention to the opinions of the men on the ground than they do to the MSM - NOR SHOULD THEY! Foreign policy decisions have NEVER been made with the opinions of the guys in the trenches in mind, and if we ever did make foreign policy decisions based upon that, we'd be totally fucked.

Do you REALLY disagree with that point, or are you so wrapped around the axle of disagreeing with ME that you refuse to see the validity in my position?

[Gunny]

and how do you make such a guarantee, Mr. Cyber-Gunny? I have never never said that officers should not listen to enlisted men.... you would be surprised, I am sure by how many sailors from my career I keep in contact with.... I ALWAYS listened to my troops... and senior enlisted personnel certainly taught me many things throughout my career... and, at some point, I started teaching them as much if not more than they could teach me. My point in all of this was that the suits who call the shots in this war do not pay any more attention to the opinions of the men on the ground than they do to the MSM - NOR SHOULD THEY! Foreign policy decisions have NEVER been made with the opinions of the guys in the trenches in mind, and if we ever did make foreign policy decisions based upon that, we'd be totally fucked.

Do you REALLY disagree with that point, or are you so wrapped around the axle of disagreeing with ME that you refuse to see the validity in my position?

This post is a far cry from:


I have never suggested otherswise.... I just do not think that we make our determinations as to how a military operation is doing in terms of meeting its objectives or furthering some strategic goal by polling the troops

I disagree only insofar as your thinking the MSM doesn't make some of the decisions for the politicians. If course it does. The public's general perception of the war is based on what the MSM feeds it. This in turn forms public opinion; which, very much DOES dictate politics.

There were major strategic and tactical errors made in the invasion of Iraq, and each can be linked to politicians attempting to appease public/world opinion.

[Grumplestillskin]

I disagree...the media has done a fine job of advancing the cause of the anti-Bush crowd as well as disseminating the terrorist propaganda. Obviously, you don't see it that way.

What terrorist propaganda? Are you saying that only you and those that think like you have the ability to tell the difference between propaganda and the truth?


As for "him being an idiot and a puppet", I am sure you reached that conclusion based on sound and objective reasoning without your personal politics entering into it...right?

Yep.

[Grumplestillskin]

Our being in iraq has nothing to do with our enemies increasing. That's taught in the mosques and by the imams of islam. It's all iranian and al queda inspired. If iraq is mentioned its just as an excuse. The more they send into iraq, the more we kill. They have 1.2 billion to draw from and most of them hate the US because the US is not muslim. As long as your not muslim you are going to be hated by them.

Of course it has to do with your enemies increasing (being in Iraq). Any family who has lost somebody to friendly fire is now your enemy. There are not 1.2 billion Muslims to draw from. The radical ones are small minority...

[retiredman]

I disagree only insofar as your thinking the MSM doesn't make some of the decisions for the politicians. If course it does. The public's general perception of the war is based on what the MSM feeds it. This in turn forms public opinion; which, very much DOES dictate politics.

There were major strategic and tactical errors made in the invasion of Iraq, and each can be linked to politicians attempting to appease public/world opinion.

far cry my ass.... I do not think that troops decide how we use the military as the muscular arm of foreign policy. Do you?

and the invasion of Iraq had errors...by "politicians" all right... REPUBLICAN politicians...this war was all your doing...and the american electorate has only STARTED to make you pay for it.

[retiredman]

Our being in iraq has nothing to do with our enemies increasing. That's taught in the mosques and by the imams of islam. It's all iranian and al queda inspired. If iraq is mentioned its just as an excuse. The more they send into iraq, the more we kill. They have 1.2 billion to draw from and most of them hate the US because the US is not muslim. As long as your not muslim you are going to be hated by them.

you do not know what you are talking about. the vast majority of those 1.2 billion muslims were only mildly annoyed at us for our support of Israel and even now, the large majority of them are STILL only mildly annoyed with us for that and for our invasion of Iraq...but we certainly DO have more enemies among the Islamic world than we DID before this ill-advised, boneheaded invasion.

[Gunny]

you do not know what you are talking about. the vast majority of those 1.2 billion muslims were only mildly annoyed at us for our support of Israel and even now, the large majority of them are STILL only mildly annoyed with us for that and for our invasion of Iraq...but we certainly DO have more enemies among the Islamic world than we DID before this ill-advised, boneheaded invasion.

I don't care what the vast majority of those 1.2 billion muslims think. I don't live by their leave. If they're annoyed, perhaps they should consider taking out their own trash instead of leaving it for someone else to clean up.

[Gunny]

I disagree only insofar as your thinking the MSM doesn't make some of the decisions for the politicians. If course it does. The public's general perception of the war is based on what the MSM feeds it. This in turn forms public opinion; which, very much DOES dictate politics.

There were major strategic and tactical errors made in the invasion of Iraq, and each can be linked to politicians attempting to appease public/world opinion.

far cry my ass.... I do not think that troops decide how we use the military as the muscular arm of foreign policy. Do you?

and the invasion of Iraq had errors...by "politicians" all right... REPUBLICAN politicians...this war was all your doing...and the american electorate has only STARTED to make you pay for it.

I never stated troops decide how we use the military as the muscular arm of foreign policy. I responded to a statement YOU made, not what you are attempting to amend it to.

Had the DEMOCRAT politicians that preceeded the REPUBLICAN politicians done their job, the DEMOCRAT President and his DEMOCRAT Congress would have taken care of Saddam Hussein in the early 90's and not left it for someone with the some balls to have to deal with.

[CSM]

and the invasion of Iraq had errors...by "politicians" all right... REPUBLICAN politicians...this war was all your doing...and the american electorate has only STARTED to make you pay for it.[/b]

I guess Republicans aren't part of the American electorate.

If the war is "all our doing", then perhaps you should refrain from comment and let us get on with it. That is, unless you want to be part of the "doings".

Nice to know that, when all is said and done, you are more interested in revenge on your political opposition than you are in seeing operations in Iraq being successful. I had truly thought that a retired Naval officer would be above such pettiness.

You have achieved some success. You have confirmed my belief about some residents of the state of Maine. You have also confirmed my suspicions concerning some officers.

[stephanie]

I guess Republicans aren't part of the American electorate.

If the war is "all our doing", then perhaps you should refrain from comment and let us get on with it. That is, unless you want to be part of the "doings".

Nice to know that, when all is said and done, you are more interested in revenge on your political opposition than you are in seeing operations in Iraq being successful. I had truly thought that a retired Naval officer would be above such pettiness.

You have achieved some success. You have confirmed my belief about some residents of the state of Maine. You have also confirmed my suspicions concerning some officers.

Exactly......Gunny.....There's no Sob... gonna shout me down from where I stand on this war, and my support of the military....

I work for the military.....Today...Now...
And I can vouch for what they say........

Totally.....They believe what they are there for, and they are standing up for the the Iraqi People until they can stand on their own.....

I don't stand behind anyone who is opposed to this war.....

I stand 100 percent behind President Bush , and our Brave Men and Women in Our Military, To Carry out this Mission...

It's like you looked at , Sheratan, Fonda, Timmy whats his name, ah, Shane Penn.....
You could ask them about the 244 hostages that was taken during the Carter yrs.....1972 or somewhere down in there

You could ask hem what they felt if we left this war as we did Vietnam...........

Ask them how many more people would be slaughtered if we left.........
Their only answer was..........It doesn't matter....
.We the United States Caused This...
.YEAh FUCKING RIGHT...
.WE ASKED FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING DURING THE CLINTON YRS...
THE EMBASSY BOMBING,
THE USS COLE, THE........?????
THESE PEOPLE ARE SO FUCKING USLESS, AND STUPID.....

THEY GO OUT AND RAISE THEIR FIST AT THE UNITED STATES, THEN THEY JUMP BACK INTO THEIR SHOUFFER DRIVERN LIMO, INTO THEIR 50, 000 SQ FOOT HOME, WITH THEIR BODYGUARDS.....

LAUGHING ALL THE WAY AT YOU FUCKIING LOW LIFE IDIOTS,....because THATS WAHT THEY LOOK AT YOU ALL, aS...........

you stand behind.......some wonderful peacenicks..
While you all go back on you stinky filled buses....
They jump in their Limos, laughing at you all the way home....so they can use their indoor bowling alley that was just built in their home.....

I don't fucking blame them.......
I Blame you....Idiots who allow yourselves to be used.....

I laugh, and laugh and laugh, also...

but I really don't care....



We will take care of your lame asses......
It's hard to do...........
But.......figure it done..

[retiredman]

I guess Republicans aren't part of the American electorate.

If the war is "all our doing", then perhaps you should refrain from comment and let us get on with it. That is, unless you want to be part of the "doings".

Nice to know that, when all is said and done, you are more interested in revenge on your political opposition than you are in seeing operations in Iraq being successful. I had truly thought that a retired Naval officer would be above such pettiness.

You have achieved some success. You have confirmed my belief about some residents of the state of Maine. You have also confirmed my suspicions concerning some officers.

Democrats want to be part of UNDOING the mess.

You, of course, mischaracterize my motives as vengeful...I want very much to see the operation in Iraq come to as successful and prompt a conclusion as possible... I firmly believe that the current course will lead to no good and strongly desire to see a change. Such a desire is hardly "petty".

And regarding your beliefs concerning residents of the State of Maine and military officers, please know that your opinions about both are about as valuable to me as a bucket of lukewarm spit.... so, you can save yourself the time and refrain from informing me of them going forward.

[CSM]

Democrats want to be part of UNDOING the mess.

Horsecrap...you want Democrats in power at any price. It is as obvious as the lobotomy you sport.

You, of course, mischaracterize my motives as vengeful...I want very much to see the operation in Iraq come to as successful and prompt a conclusion as possible... I firmly believe that the current course will lead to no good and strongly desire to see a change. Such a desire is hardly "petty".

Guess you forgot the part where you stated the eloctorate making us pay! How convenient for you! You mentioned nothing about a successful conclusion in Iraq. Sure sounds petty to me!

And regarding your beliefs concerning residents of the State of Maine and military officers, please know that your opinions about both are about as valuable to me as a bucket of lukewarm spit.... so, you can save yourself the time and refrain from informing me of them going forward.

Interesting that I never stated exactly what my opinion of either happens to be. I am sure you will endow us with your opinons of everyone else though. Just know that the bucket of lukewarm spit to which you refer has the same value for me as your opinion does. Of course, buckets of spit are quite common in Maine...all that drool has to go someplace!


You are sooooo easy!

[stephanie]

And regarding your beliefs concerning residents of the State of Maine and military officers, please know that your opinions about both are about as valuable to me as a bucket of lukewarm spit.... so, you can save yourself the time and refrain from informing me of them going forward.

LOVELY, mY DEAR....:beer:
I don't give a shit about your lame fucking opinion or anything about you...
You can puff your chest out to everyone else, but it mean nothing to me...
I work now and in the moment with our military...
And from reading your post, none of the Commanders that I have ever worked with and respected, sounded like you....

So if you don't like it......Oh well..

[jimnyc]

So... the pres gives false intel to get Congress to give him war authority AS A LAST RESORT (not a first resort) and screws up the operation and that's ok? I figure he broke it, he bought it. Isn't that what Colin Powell said? Oh yeah... he didn't get with Rummy's program so he was out.

Still reading this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating comments/questions.

Was the intel false, or incorrect? There's a big difference. Sounds like you are implying he purposely gave congress information he knew to be false.

[retiredman]

what is obvious to you and what is, in fact, the truth, may - and in this case, are - two different things.

I do not think the war in Iraq is petty. I think it is without a doubt the worst most damaging foreign policy debacle in our country's long history. For perpetrating such a counterproductive horrific mess on our country and on the world, I DO think that republicans should PAY by having the keys taken away and forcing you all to sit in the corner for a long, well deserved "time out". That is anything but "petty". I am dead serious. I think that your party is terrible and dangerous.


And the fact that you didn't explicitly state your opinion is not the issue...I stated that I valued your opinion about as much as a value a bucket of warm spit... I don't care what that opinion is...I considered the source and determined that it was of negligle value and suggested you save bandwidth going forward by not expressing it to me.


now...who's easy?

[jimnyc]

Exactly what we keep saying to the folk who keep insisting Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or was an "imminent threat".

I believe the imminent threat was NOT directed about the USA, but rather to the outlying area and our allies. Democrats alike believed this and said so long before Bush was elected.

[retiredman]

Still reading this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating comments/questions.

Was the intel false, or incorrect? There's a big difference. Sounds like you are implying he purposely gave congress information he knew to be false.

what Team Bush gave to congress and to the UN - AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - that was FALSE was their assertion of absolute certainty and absence of doubt.

[jimnyc]

now now now.... let's try not to get personal here... calling me a "muslim lover" is pretty insulting and out of bounds.... no...wait...I'm sorry.... I take that back...you're the conservative and I'M the liberal.... so therefore, it is perfectly OK thing for YOU to say.... I am getting the hang of this place.

Please get a grip on your bellyaching about the board. Some claim unfairness with moderation here and yet nobody is banned, yet you continually bring this up at every opportunity. It would help your argument more to stick to topics at hand.

[jimnyc]

let me repeat myself:

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.


don't act like there are a number ov viable alternative plans out there. I have typed them all a number of times and I have no doubt that you have read them from me or from someone else.... so, basically, go look it up. I refuse to feed it to you again only to have you pull one of the two stock responses noted above

Again, I hope I'm not repeating what others have already stated.

You make a claim about alternative plans, and that you have posted them before elsewhere, but you don't want to post these plans?

[jimnyc]

2. keep islamic extremists OUT of his county


The country was riddled with terrorists and camps while Saddam was in power. Yeah, he hated extremists so much that he paid families of suicide bombers! LOL

[retiredman]

The country was riddled with terrorists and camps while Saddam was in power. Yeah, he hated extremists so much that he paid families of suicide bombers! LOL

it would serve you well to know a bit more about your "enemies".

there is a significant difference between palestinian nationalist "terrorists" and wahabbist islamic extremist "terrorists".

but, if they really are all just ragheads worthy of killing to you, I guess it doesn't much matter.

[jimnyc]

what Team Bush gave to congress and to the UN - AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - that was FALSE was their assertion of absolute certainty and absence of doubt.

And I'm confident they believed as much when they stated that. Hell, foreign countries believed as much from their intel. Many democrats had access to the exact same reports as Bush, those from the security council.

Given Saddam refused diplomacy & inspections, how else were we supposed to find out 100%? He forced the war. Given the intel and his 12 years of refusals and broken resolutions, I see no reason to have believed nothing more than what the intel stated.

[jimnyc]

it would serve you well to know a bit more about your "enemies".

there is a significant difference between palestinian nationalist "terrorists" and wahabbist islamic extremist "terrorists".

but, if they really are all just ragheads worthy of killing to you, I guess it doesn't much matter.

Why do you want to put words in my mouth? If I did the same, would you not be complaining how you don't want people disrespecting you, which you've now stated many times over?

And there was much more than the terrorists you claim, as well as the camps. A simple search about terrorists in Iraq under Saddam's rule will find you some great reading.

[stephanie]

what is obvious to you and what is, in fact, the truth, may - and in this case, are - two different things.

I do not think the war in Iraq is petty. I think it is without a doubt the worst most damaging foreign policy debacle in our country's long history. For perpetrating such a counterproductive horrific mess on our country and on the world, I DO think that republicans should PAY by having the keys taken away and forcing you all to sit in the corner for a long, well deserved "time out". That is anything but "petty". I am dead serious. I think that your party is terrible and dangerous.


And the fact that you didn't explicitly state your opinion is not the issue...I stated that I valued your opinion about as much as a value a bucket of warm spit... I don't care what that opinion is...I considered the source and determined that it was of negligible value and suggested you save bandwidth going forward by not expressing it to me.


now...who's easy?

;)




And the fact that you didn't explicitly state your opinion is not the issue...I stated that I valued your opinion about as much as a value a bucket of warm spit... I don't care what that opinion is...I considered the source and determined that it was of negligible value and suggested you save bandwidth going forward by not expressing it to me.

:lol::lol: :lol: :2up:

[retiredman]

Why do you want to put words in my mouth? If I did the same, would you not be complaining how you don't want people disrespecting you, which you've now stated many times over?

And there was much more than the terrorists you claim, as well as the camps. A simple search about terrorists in Iraq under Saddam's rule will find you some great reading.

there were NOT wahabbist Al Qaeda terrorists training in any part of Iraq that was under Saddam's operational control.

[jimnyc]

there were NOT wahabbist Al Qaeda terrorists training in any part of Iraq that was under Saddam's operational control.

Did I say that?

I clearly just made a general statement, that Iraq was riddled with terrorists and terrorist camps before we ever went there - which was in reply to the statement that there were no terrorists there under Saddam. And yes, I'm saying that the terrorists were there, as well as Islamic extremists, which to me are one and the same.

[CSM]

what is obvious to you and what is, in fact, the truth, may - and in this case, are - two different things.

I do not think the war in Iraq is petty. I think it is without a doubt the worst most damaging foreign policy debacle in our country's long history. For perpetrating such a counterproductive horrific mess on our country and on the world, I DO think that republicans should PAY by having the keys taken away and forcing you all to sit in the corner for a long, well deserved "time out". That is anything but "petty". I am dead serious. I think that your party is terrible and dangerous.

I feel the same about YOUR party. Terrible and dangerous are the right words indeed to describe your and your party's philosophy. So we can agree that there is no further point in debating that little gem!

And the fact that you didn't explicitly state your opinion is not the issue...I stated that I valued your opinion about as much as a value a bucket of warm spit... I don't care what that opinion is...I considered the source and determined that it was of negligle value and suggested you save bandwidth going forward by not expressing it to me.

Agreed. I feel the same way about your opinion, but somehow I seriously doubt that will keep you from spewing your misguided rhetoric.

now...who's easy?

Your the one who considers the value of buckets of lukewarm spit as a standard of worth. You ARE easy! Of course, in Maine there is little else of value to consider, I guess.

While this has been fun, I do have to go to work. I will however, drop in occassionally to see how things progress.

[retiredman]

And I'm confident they believed as much when they stated that. Hell, foreign countries believed as much from their intel. Many democrats had access to the exact same reports as Bush, those from the security council.

Given Saddam refused diplomacy & inspections, how else were we supposed to find out 100%? He forced the war. Given the intel and his 12 years of refusals and broken resolutions, I see no reason to have believed nothing more than what the intel stated.

and I am confident that every single bit of intell came laden with caveats and qualifiers... that not one ANALYST or piece of intelligence ever stated that there was certainty about Saddam's WMD cache. They could make the case.... and make it convincingly - they could even make it a "slam dunk", but they could only do so by mischaracterizing the whole of the data as having certainty where none actually existed.

[jimnyc]

and I am confident that every single bit of intell came laden with caveats and qualifiers... that not one ANALYST or piece of intelligence ever stated that there was certainty about Saddam's WMD cache. They could make the case.... and make it convincingly - they could even make it a "slam dunk", but they could only do so by mischaracterizing the whole of the data as having certainty where none actually existed.

You were responding to my claim that terrorists were in Iraq long before we went there. Not sure what this response has to do with that. YOU stated that Islamic extremists didn't exist in Iraq under Saddam's rule. Do you truly believe that and stand behind your statement? Would you consider terrorists, in training camps, being trained to kill, to be Islamic extremists?

Would you like to retract your statement that they didn't exist there, or should I dig up some proof, again?

[retiredman]

Did I say that?

I clearly just made a general statement, that Iraq was riddled with terrorists and terrorist camps before we ever went there - which was in reply to the statement that there were no terrorists there under Saddam. And yes, I'm saying that the terrorists were there, as well as Islamic extremists, which to me are one and the same.

then we can agree to disagree. I think that Palestinian nationalists are not the folks who attacked us... and the folks that attacked us are our enemies.

If you see no difference between a palestinian who wants his family property back and a wahabbist who wants to establish a theocracy from the mediterranean to the Indian Ocean overturning every nation state in the area, then, from my perspective, you really don't have a fine enough focus to add significant value to the debate.

[retiredman]

You were responding to my claim that terrorists were in Iraq long before we went there. Not sure what this response has to do with that. YOU stated that Islamic extremists didn't exist in Iraq under Saddam's rule. Do you truly believe that and stand behind your statement? Would you consider terrorists, in training camps, being trained to kill, to be Islamic extremists?

Would you like to retract your statement that they didn't exist there, or should I dig up some proof, again?

I do not, for the record, consider palestinian nationalists learning to use terror as a tactic to be the same thing as adherents to wahabbist and Qutbist salafist Islamic extremist philosophies.

[jimnyc]

then we can agree to disagree. I think that Palestinian nationalists are not the folks who attacked us... and the folks that attacked us are our enemies.

If you see no difference between a palestinian who wants his family property back and a wahabbist who wants to establish a theocracy from the mediterranean to the Indian Ocean overturning every nation state in the area, then, from my perspective, you really don't have a fine enough focus to add significant value to the debate.

No significant value? Are you even reading my posts? SHOW ME WHERE I MENTIONED PALESTINIANS?

There was MUCH more terrorists/extremists there than just those you mention.

[jimnyc]

I do not, for the record, consider palestinian nationalists learning to use terror as a tactic to be the same thing as adherents to wahabbist and Qutbist salafist Islamic extremist philosophies.

Ok, since you're purposely avoiding what I'm saying, allow me to ask differently:

Do you believe palestinian nationalists were the only extremists in Iraq under Saddam?

[jimnyc]

I suggest starting with these:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/general.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48343
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/01/algerian_terrorists_bin_laden.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml

Terrorist organizations given funds, shelter and/or training by Saddam Hussein:

Abul Nidal Organization
Ansar Al Islam
Arab Liberation Front
Hamas
Kurdistan Workers Party
Mujahedin e Khalq
Palestine Liberation Front

http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/09/wirq09.xml

[jillian]

I suggest starting with these:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/general.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48343
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/01/algerian_terrorists_bin_laden.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml

Terrorist organizations given funds, shelter and/or training by Saddam Hussein:

Abul Nidal Organization
Ansar Al Islam
Arab Liberation Front
Hamas
Kurdistan Workers Party
Mujahedin e Khalq
Palestine Liberation Front

http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/09/wirq09.xml


I'd suggest to you that we have plenty of people in this country contributing to those same groups. Should someone depose George Bush because of it, and toss us into civil war?

I suspect you'd find the very suggestion silly.

[jimnyc]

I'd suggest to you that we have plenty of people in this country contributing to those same groups. Should someone depose George Bush because of it, and toss us into civil war?

I suspect you'd find the very suggestion silly.

Not sure why you'd be posing a question or suggestion to me, I was merely responding to MFM's claim that no extremists were in Iraq under Saddam's rule.

[jillian]

Not sure why you'd be posing a question or suggestion to me, I was merely responding to MFM's claim that no extremists were in Iraq under Saddam's rule.

I suspect he was referring to an organized group of extremists which would somehow justify deposing the leader of a country. And the fact of there being "extremists" doesn't justify occupation any more than the fact that we have extremists here would.

That's why I responded to you. ;)

[jimnyc]

I suspect he was referring to an organized group of extremists which would somehow justify deposing the leader of a country. And the fact of there being "extremists" doesn't justify occupation any more than the fact that we have extremists here would.

That's why I responded to you. ;)

If that's the case, I suggest you read the links too! I'd say those groups were rather organized.

And I NEVER stated anything even remotely close to extremists being there gave us the right to occupy. It was the addition of MANY factors that brought forth our actions.

[retiredman]

Terrorist organizations given funds, shelter and/or training by Saddam Hussein:

Abul Nidal Organization secular left wing palestinian nationalist organization
Ansar Al Islam information about connection to Saddam is disputed and tenuous
Arab Liberation Front nothing but palestinian version of the ba'ath party...ho hum
Hamas palestinian nationalists
Kurdistan Workers Party bullshit! These guys are seeking to carve out an independent Kurdistan from portions of Iraq itself... no way Saddam gives these guys aid!..and even if he did want to help this group dismantle parts of his own country - which is ridiculous on its face - it is STILL another nationalist organization which has specific aims - noen of which involve America
Mujahedin e Khalq Iranian groups seeking to overthrow theocratic regime in Iran - totally nationalist in focus
Palestine Liberation Front duh...palestinian nationalists


your list of organizations does not contain Al Qaeda, oddly enough...

do you see the point? There are plenty of places around the world that harbor terrorists and that support terrorists. South Boston used to give money by the bucketfull to the Irish Republican Army. Are you suggesting that the Irishmen of Southie were a threat to America???We cannot nor ought not to be concerned about every single one of those places that support terrorists. We should worry about the folks who are helping and training and harboring the folks that want to do AMERICA harm. period. Iraq was not one of them.

[jimnyc]

Terrorist organizations given funds, shelter and/or training by Saddam Hussein:

Abul Nidal Organization secular left wing palestinian nationalist organization
Ansar Al Islam information about connection to Saddam is disputed and tenuous
Arab Liberation Front nothing but palestinian version of the ba'ath party...ho hum
Hamas palestinian nationalists
Kurdistan Workers Party bullshit! These guys are seeking to carve out an independent Kurdistan from portions of Iraq itself... no way Saddam gives these guys aid!..and even if he did want to help this group dismantle parts of his own country - which is ridiculous on its face - it is STILL another nationalist organization which has specific aims - noen of which involve America
Mujahedin e Khalq Iranian groups seeking to overthrow theocratic regime in Iran - totally nationalist in focus
Palestine Liberation Front duh...palestinian nationalists


your list of organizations does not contain Al Qaeda, oddly enough...

do you see the point? There are plenty of places around the world that harbor terrorists and that support terrorists. South Boston used to give money by the bucketfull to the Irish Republican Army. Are you suggesting that the Irishmen of Southie were a threat to America???We cannot nor ought not to be concerned about every single one of those places that support terrorists. We should worry about the folks who are helping and training and harboring the folks that want to do AMERICA harm. period. Iraq was not one of them.

Lots of obfuscation, BUT, it doesn't change the fact that there were PLENTY of Islamic extremists in Iraq during Saddam's tenure. Those were links I provided within 2 minutes with a quick search. I'm sure there are THOUSANDS of articles/reports out there that show the level of extremism within Iraq during Saddam's years.

You made the claim, and it was wrong. There is undeniable proof EVERYWHERE, and yet you won't simply admit you made a mistake with that point.

[jillian]

Lots of obfuscation, BUT, it doesn't change the fact that there were PLENTY of Islamic extremists in Iraq during Saddam's tenure. Those were links I provided within 2 minutes with a quick search. I'm sure there are THOUSANDS of articles/reports out there that show the level of extremism within Iraq during Saddam's years.

You made the claim, and it was wrong. There is undeniable proof EVERYWHERE, and yet you won't simply admit you made a mistake with that point.


And talking about extremists who may or may not have existed in Iraq prior to the occupation doesn't change the fact that attacking Iraq when we were attacked by a group of Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, is really no different than if we had attacked Mexico when we were attacked by Japan in WWII.

[jimnyc]

And talking about extremists who may or may not have existed in Iraq prior to the occupation doesn't change the fact that attacking Iraq when we were attacked by a group of Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, is really no different than if we had attacked Mexico when we were attacked by Japan in WWII.

What does this have to do with me correcting someone's mistake? Why the need to further obfuscate my point? I don't see this having anything to do at all as to whether his claim was wrong or right.

[jimnyc]

And talking about extremists who may or may not have existed in Iraq prior to the occupation doesn't change the fact that attacking Iraq when we were attacked by a group of Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, is really no different than if we had attacked Mexico when we were attacked by Japan in WWII.

Not to mention we didn't attack Iraq as a result of 9/11. Remember those 12 years of futility, refusals to cooperate and outright breaches of resolutions?

[retiredman]

no obfuscation whatsoever. If my terminology did not comport with yours, please let me restate:

I believe that there are terrorist organizations out there who have America in their crosshairs. Al Qaeda being the umbrella organization that "represents" them. I believe that we need to worry about THOSE individuals and THOSE groups and I refer to them as Islamic extremists as opposed to Islamic nationalists. They have different aims. Saddam exclusively supported organizations that were nationalist is focus. Those organizations do NOT and did not have America in their cross hairs.

I believe that attacking Saddam in the wake of 9/11 because he supported arab nationalist organizations makes as much sense as attacking South Boston in the wake of 9/11 because of their support for the IRA. Neither the IRA nor the PLO have any intention of flying airplanes into American skyscrapers.

I hope that clarifies my position.

[jimnyc]

no obfuscation whatsoever. If my terminology did not comport with yours, please let me restate:

I believe that there are terrorist organizations out there who have America in their crosshairs. Al Qaeda being the umbrella organization that "represents" them. I believe that we need to worry about THOSE individuals and THOSE groups and I refer to them as Islamic extremists as opposed to Islamic nationalists. They have different aims. Saddam exclusively supported organizations that were nationalist is focus. Those organizations do NOT and did not have America in their cross hairs.

I believe that attacking Saddam in the wake of 9/11 because he supported arab nationalist organizations makes as much sense as attacking South Boston in the wake of 9/11 because of their support for the IRA. Neither the IRA nor the PLO have any intention of flying airplanes into American skyscrapers.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Did Islamic terrorists exist in Iraq while Saddam was in rule - Yes or No?

It's really not so hard. It's either "I was mistaken" or "There were no extremists there"

[jillian]

Did Islamic terrorists exist in Iraq while Saddam was in rule - Yes or No?

It's really not so hard. It's either "I was mistaken" or "There were no extremists there"

Do Islamic terrorists exist in *this* country? In Canada? In Mexico? In France? In Germany? in Italy? In Spain? In Britain? In Australia? In New Zealand?

[jimnyc]

[quote=manfrommaine;7706]nI believe that attacking Saddam in the wake of 9/11 because he supported arab nationalist organizations makes as much sense as attacking South Boston in the wake of 9/11 because of their support for the IRA. Neither the IRA nor the PLO have any intention of flying airplanes into American skyscrapers./quote]

And I believe that 12 years of the cat and mouse game were MORE than long enough. Being in breach of UN resolutions for so long, and then refusing to cooperate with inspectors.

[jimnyc]

Do Islamic terrorists exist in *this* country? In Canada? In Mexico? In France? In Germany? in Italy? In Spain? In Britain? In Australia? In New Zealand?

I never made claims they didn't exist, did I?

I find it hilarious watching people run around in circles instead of just having the intellectual honesty to admit a mistake was made.

[retiredman]

Did Islamic terrorists exist in Iraq while Saddam was in rule - Yes or No?

It's really not so hard. It's either "I was mistaken" or "There were no extremists there"


did Islamic terrorists exist in Iraq? of course.....

"Islamic extremism" is not a synonym for "terrorism". It has to do with their philosophy, not their methodology.

That was always the sense in which I used the term and in that sense, I am not mistaken. If you took my words to mean that Saddam did not train terrorists, I was misunderstood.

[retiredman]

[quote=manfrommaine;7706]nI believe that attacking Saddam in the wake of 9/11 because he supported arab nationalist organizations makes as much sense as attacking South Boston in the wake of 9/11 because of their support for the IRA. Neither the IRA nor the PLO have any intention of flying airplanes into American skyscrapers./quote]

And I believe that 12 years of the cat and mouse game were MORE than long enough. Being in breach of UN resolutions for so long, and then refusing to cooperate with inspectors.

well.. there is another point upon which we disagree. Israle is in violation of UN resolutions for at least that long and yet, somehow, we don't go applying shock and awe to THEM because of their non-compliance.

Sending 3 thousand Americans to die in order to enforce UN resolutions? Aren't you guys always talking about how irrelevant the UN is? Now, being their enforcement agency is worth a trillion dollars and 25K dead and wounded AMericans???

[jimnyc]

did Islamic terrorists exist in Iraq? of course.....

"Islamic extremism" is not a synonym for "terrorism". It has to do with their philosophy, not their methodology.

That was always the sense in which I used the term and in that sense, I am not mistaken. If you took my words to mean that Saddam did not train terrorists, I was misunderstood.

No, THERE WERE extremists in Iraq under Saddam's rule. Hell, there was infighting within the Shiite's and Sunni's back then, with organized groups, that killed one another. They are not extremists?

[jimnyc]

well.. there is another point upon which we disagree. Israle is in violation of UN resolutions for at least that long and yet, somehow, we don't go applying shock and awe to THEM because of their non-compliance.

I thought we were discussing Iraq? Do the resolutions against Israel state we will use military force if necessary if they don't comply?


Sending 3 thousand Americans to die in order to enforce UN resolutions? Aren't you guys always talking about how irrelevant the UN is? Now, being their enforcement agency is worth a trillion dollars and 25K dead and wounded AMericans???

I'll save you the list of reasons, in addition to the said resolutions, as I believe we're all intelligent enough to know the devastation Saddam reaped on his own citizens.

And since you're replying to me at the moment, I'm sure you can backup your claim that I said the UN was irrelevant?

[retiredman]

No, THERE WERE extremists in Iraq under Saddam's rule. Hell, there was infighting within the Shiite's and Sunni's back then, with organized groups, that killed one another. They are not extremists?

once again...I am using the term "Islamic extremist" to refer to those organizations with an "extreme" view of "Islam" that would seek to rewrite the map of that portion of the world and subsume political nation states within an Islamic caliphate. sunnis and shiites desiring to kill one another are not the same thing.... but if you want to call them "islamic extremists", you go right ahead. I'll know what you mean going forward and adjust my replies accordingly.

[jimnyc]

once again...I am using the term "Islamic extremist" to refer to those organizations with an "extreme" view of "Islam" that would seek to rewrite the map of that portion of the world and subsume political nation states within an Islamic caliphate. sunnis and shiites desiring to kill one another are not the same thing.... but if you want to call them "islamic extremists", you go right ahead. I'll know what you mean going forward and adjust my replies accordingly.

I believe killing in the name of Islam would be a bit extreme. But if you're now trying to change what you stated earlier, and clarify it to only count a specific 'group' - fine. But the general claim that Islamic extremists didn't exist in Iraq under Saddam is actually laughable.

[retiredman]

I thought we were discussing Iraq? Do the resolutions against Israel state we will use military force if necessary if they don't comply?

I'll save you the list of reasons, in addition to the said resolutions, as I believe we're all intelligent enough to know the devastation Saddam reaped on his own citizens.

And since you're replying to me at the moment, I'm sure you can backup your claim that I said the UN was irrelevant?

Do the UN resolutions against Iraq state that we WILL use military force if necessary if they don't comply?

Are you suggesting that Saddam's mistreatment of Iraqis is sufficient rationale to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq? If so, why do we selectively apply such rationale across the globe?

And I never implied that YOU said that the UN was irrelevant. I said YOU GUYS...meaning conservatives. Are YOU suggesting that dissing the UN is not commonplace amongst conservatives?

[retiredman]

I believe killing in the name of Islam would be a bit extreme. But if you're now trying to change what you stated earlier, and clarify it to only count a specific 'group' - fine. But the general claim that Islamic extremists didn't exist in Iraq under Saddam is actually laughable.

The general claim that Saddam did not train and had no reason to train the types of organizations that attacked us is not laughable... and, as I said, support of any other type of organization ought not to be used as justification for the invasion of Iraq.

If you want to call the PLO Islamic extremists, go for it. I'll know to compensate in the future.

[jimnyc]

Do the UN resolutions against Iraq state that we WILL use military force if necessary if they don't comply?

Nope, but it was an option. Is that option on the table with Israel, and if so, why hasn't any action been taken? Can you please link me to said resolution that includes the option of military force?


Are you suggesting that Saddam's mistreatment of Iraqis is sufficient rationale to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq? If so, why do we selectively apply such rationale across the globe?

Nope, adding up EVERYTHING was sufficent reasoning. Please tell me you don't need a laundry list of Saddam's and/or Iraq's issues over the past 15 years.


And I never implied that YOU said that the UN was irrelevant. I said YOU GUYS...meaning conservatives. Are YOU suggesting that dissing the UN is not commonplace amongst conservatives?

Not sure, I don't follow other conservatives blindly, I make my own sound decisions for myself.

[jimnyc]

The general claim that Saddam did not train and had no reason to train the types of organizations that attacked us is not laughable... and, as I said, support of any other type of organization ought not to be used as justification for the invasion of Iraq.

If you want to call the PLO Islamic extremists, go for it. I'll know to compensate in the future.

Did you specify just certain types of extremists, or did you make a blanket statement about extremists altogether. Your one line statement is sure having a lot of caveats to go with it.

[retiredman]

[QUOTE=jimnyc;7724]Nope, but it was an option. Is that option on the table with Israel, and if so, why hasn't any action been taken? Can you please link me to said resolution that includes the option of military force?

just curious... can you link me to a UN resolution that delineates a military response regarding Iraq?



Nope, adding up EVERYTHING was sufficent reasoning. Please tell me you don't need a laundry list of Saddam's and/or Iraq's issues over the past 15 years.

I do not...I will disagree that the laundry list was sufficient reasoning to invade.



Not sure, I don't follow other conservatives blindly, I make my own sound decisions for myself. good for you. you might ask some of your conservative buddies what THEY think of the UN and, in light of THEIR responses to your question, you might ask THEM why they felt that enforcement of UN resolutions was worth a trillion dollars and three thousand dead Americans

[jimnyc]

just curious... can you link me to a UN resolution that delineates a military response regarding Iraq?

Why would I, I haven't made such a claim.


I do not...I will disagree that the laundry list was sufficient reasoning to invade.Ok, I guess next time we should wait until another million or so are killed, and maybe another 10 resolutions and another 12 years. Would it be sufficient then?

[retiredman]

Did you specify just certain types of extremists, or did you make a blanket statement about extremists altogether. Your one line statement is sure having a lot of caveats to go with it.

SO...if a guy is a muslim, and he is, for example, a fan of extremely loud music... he would also be an islamic extremist to you? What if he were an extreme fan of the New York Yankees? Islamic extremist? YOU think that Islamic people who use terror as a tactic, are, therefore Islamic extremists...have I got that right? My one line statement assumed that you would use Islamic extremists to refer to people with an extreme view of Islam, not Islamic individuals with an extreme view of anything.

[jimnyc]

SO...if a guy is a muslim, and he is, for example, a fan of extremely loud music... he would also be an islamic extremist to you?

Depends, is he purposely killing people with extremely loud Islamic music, because they might have different beliefs than him?


What if he were an extreme fan of the New York Yankees? Islamic extremist? YOU think that Islamic people who use terror as a tactic, are, therefore Islamic extremists...have I got that right? My one line statement assumed that you would use Islamic extremists to refer to people with an extreme view of Islam, not Islamic individuals with an extreme view of anything.

I'm referring to those who kill in the name of Islam, I think it's fair to say anyone that commits such an act is an extremist. And there weren't just handfuls of individuals like this during Saddam's days.

[retiredman]

Let me rephrase....just curious... can you link me to a UN resolution that delineates an OPTIONAL military response regarding Iraq

Ok, I guess next time we should wait until another million or so are killed, and maybe another 10 resolutions and another 12 years. Would it be sufficient then?

Are you suggesting that stopping deaths of Iraqis is reason enough to put American fighting men in harm's way - not to mention putting them in Arlington? And you never answered why we are so selective in our application of that standard?

[retiredman]

I'm referring to those who kill in the name of Islam, I think it's fair to say anyone that commits such an act is an extremist. And there weren't just handfuls of individuals like this during Saddam's days.

I disagree on all counts....but, like I said...I now know how you use the term and I will compensate accordingly.

[jimnyc]

Are you suggesting that stopping deaths of Iraqis is reason enough to put American fighting men in harm's way - not to mention putting them in Arlington? And you never answered why we are so selective in our application of that standard?

First off, YES, I do believe it's our responsibility to save hundreds of thousands of lives if we can. It sucks that we suffer military losses but to leave Saddam unchecked would have been worse.

Not sure why we don't do the same elsewhere. I think we should bomb the shit out of Syria, NK & Iran too. And anywhere else there is a dictator killing so many of his own citizens, if democratic efforts don't work, we should swoop in and make sure they get their share of the rope too!

[jimnyc]

I'm referring to those who kill in the name of Islam, I think it's fair to say anyone that commits such an act is an extremist. And there weren't just handfuls of individuals like this during Saddam's days.

I disagree on all counts....but, like I said...I now know how you use the term and I will compensate accordingly.

I'm sure you do, and I'm sure you also do after reading the articles I linked, and doing a little research yourself. I'll reiterate my original statement - Iraq was riddled with terrorists and extremists long before Saddam was removed from power.

I now see your intellectual dishonesty and superb use of obfuscation. I will compensate accordingly and save my debates for those with a little bit of integrity, and ability to admit when they misspoke, in the future.

[retiredman]

I'm sure you do, and I'm sure you also do after reading the articles I linked, and doing a little research yourself. I'll reiterate my original statement - Iraq was riddled with terrorists and extremists long before Saddam was removed from power.

I now see your intellectual dishonesty and superb use of obfuscation. I will compensate accordingly and save my debates for those with a little bit of integrity, and ability to admit when they misspoke, in the future.

look...I have never suggested that Saddam was not training nasty folks... I have suggested that, in using the words Islamic Extremist to mean those people with an extreme view of Islam (as opposed to Islamic people with an extreme view of anything) - and those that sought to do America harm, were not among them. I have further suggested that we should be attacking the folks that harbor and help train the folks that want to do us harm and not worry too much about the other types of terrorists.... like the PLO or the IRA.

How are you coming on that UN resolution that talks about military responses to Saddam's non-compliance?

[jimnyc]

How are you coming on that UN resolution that talks about military responses to Saddam's non-compliance?

Before I do so, let me make sure we are on the same page:

Are you stating that the resolutions that Iraq was in breach of didn't include military force as an option?

[retiredman]

Before I do so, let me make sure we are on the same page:

Are you stating that the resolutions that Iraq was in breach of didn't include military force as an option?

I am unaware of resolutions made after the first gulf war that authorized member states to use military force against Iraq.

[jimnyc]

I am unaware of resolutions made after the first gulf war that authorized member states to use military force against Iraq.

Not authorized, included miltary force as an 'option'.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18252.pdf)

Found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations.
Gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply.
Demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days.
Demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally and actively with the UN inspections.
Decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach.
Recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations. UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18092.pdf)

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination. UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18091.pdf)
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18090.pdf)
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18089.pdf)
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq." UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18088.pdf)
"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18087.pdf)
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18086.pdf)
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18085.pdf)
"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18083.pdf)
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18082.pdf)
"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq. UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18081.pdf)
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors. UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18080.pdf)
"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors. UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18079.pdf)
"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance. UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18078.pdf)
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18077.pdf)
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait. UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18076.pdf)
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." http://www.state.gov/p/io/fs/2003/18850.htm

[retiredman]

I seem to be missing those sections that included a "military" response as an "option"

[jillian]

I seem to be missing those sections that included a "military" response as an "option"

I think it's clear that military response was an option. The prudence of pursuing a military option while the inspectors were still on the ground and had cooperation is quite another story.

[jimnyc]

I seem to be missing those sections that included a "military" response as an "option"

Then you are the last man remaining on the planet that doesn't understand what the Security Council meant by:


Recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

[jimnyc]

Also, MFM, I've now complied with your request, whether you agree with the statement or not.

Can you now please post a link to the resolutions against Israel, that included a military option or "the severest of consequences"

[CSM]

Then you are the last man remaining on the planet that doesn't understand what the Security Council meant by:



I would point out that the UN does not decide when the US will or will not use its military force. UN resolutions or not, it is our own Congress which authorized the use of force in Iraq. Yes, even the Dems voted for it. By the way, the bill was sponsored by a Dem too. The list of names voting "for" is rather interesting. Note that more Dems voted "YEA" than voted "NAY" and the "YEAs" include such illustrious figures as Feinstein, Kerry, and Clinton.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

and in the House:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

At the heart of it, current action is not SOLEY the fault of the current President. No amount of back peddling by libs/Dems will change the facts; Dems did in fact vote for the war.

[retiredman]

regarding the vote in congress, I am quite proud of the fact that a majority of the democratic caucus in congress voted against the use of force....while the republican support for it was damned near unanimous.

[jimnyc]

regarding the vote in congress, I am quite proud of the fact that a majority of the democratic caucus in congress voted against the use of force....while the republican support for it was damned near unanimous.

And about that Israel resolution you were going to post for me?

[CSM]

regarding the vote in congress, I am quite proud of the fact that a majority of the democratic caucus in congress voted against the use of force....while the republican support for it was damned near unanimous.

Hmmm...in the Senate, the majority of Dems voted YEA and only one Repub voted NAY. The majority of the Dems in the House voted NAY along with six Repubs.

Just for clarification.

[CSM]

And about that Israel resolution you were going to post for me?

Don't hold your breath!

[jimnyc]

Don't hold your breath!

Well, he posted several times for me to post the Iraq resolutions in question, I thought he would be decent enough to post for me the Israel resolutions he mentioned.

[CSM]

Well, he posted several times for me to post the Iraq resolutions in question, I thought he would be decent enough to post for me the Israel resolutions he mentioned.

Obviously, he reserves 'decency' for those he deems worthy. You don't meet his criteria. You weren't enlisted military, were you?

[jimnyc]

Obviously, he reserves 'decency' for those he deems worthy. You don't meet his criteria. You weren't enlisted military, were you?

Nope, can't say I was :(

[retiredman]

And about that Israel resolution you were going to post for me?

there are myriad UN resolutions that strongly condemn demand, deplore, deeply deplore, strongly deplore, and censure Israel for a variety of offenses.... I know of none off the top of my head that use the term severest consequences...but would suggest that America has vetoed any and all such language since day one.

Don't you think that Iraqi UN resolutions would have been similarly watered down had Iraq had a benefactor with a permanent seat?

[jimnyc]

there are myriad UN resolutions that strongly condemn demand, deplore, deeply deplore, strongly deplore, and censure Israel for a variety of offenses.... I know of none off the top of my head that use the term severest consequences...but would suggest that America has vetoed any and all such language since day one.

Don't you think that Iraqi UN resolutions would have been similarly watered down had Iraq had a benefactor with a permanent seat?

Nope, I believe all the resolutions were legit, and Iraq made conscious decisions to be in breach of them. What are the offenses? Killing perhaps millions of their own citizens? Failure to return things to neighboring countries? Refusing inspectors? Shooting at planes in the no-fly zone?

In other words, the resolutions are MUCH different, yet you somehow tried to make a relation to Iraq's breach and subsequent invasion to resolutions against Israel.

[CSM]

there are myriad UN resolutions that strongly condemn demand, deplore, deeply deplore, strongly deplore, and censure Israel for a variety of offenses.... I know of none off the top of my head that use the term severest consequences...but would suggest that America has vetoed any and all such language since day one.

Don't you think that Iraqi UN resolutions would have been similarly watered down had Iraq had a benefactor with a permanent seat?

Russia, France and China have permanent seats. At least one of those was pretty chummy with SH and in retrospect had a good reason for watering down the resolutions if they had wanted to.

[retiredman]

Nope, I believe all the resolutions were legit, and Iraq made conscious decisions to be in breach of them. What are the offenses? Killing perhaps millions of their own citizens? Failure to return things to neighboring countries? Refusing inspectors? Shooting at planes in the no-fly zone?

In other words, the resolutions are MUCH different, yet you somehow tried to make a relation to Iraq's breach and subsequent invasion to resolutions against Israel.

I have never suggested that Iraq's resolutions were not legit. I have suggested that none of the violations were serious enough for us to invade..and that is not only my opinion, but the opinion of the UNSC which refused to give Dubya his resolution specifically authorizing force that he requested prior to invasion.

[retiredman]

Russia, France and China have permanent seats. At least one of those was pretty chummy with SH and in retrospect had a good reason for watering down the resolutions if they had wanted to.

I would not think that any of those three countries mentioned had the sort of relationship with Iraq that we have had with Israel.

[jillian]

I would not think that any of those three countries mentioned had the sort of relationship with Iraq that we have had with Israel.

Israel had nothing to do with Al Queda attacking us. Wasn't even one of OBL's reasons. So I'm curious as to why you keep bringing Israel up in this context.

[5stringJeff]

I have never suggested that Iraq's resolutions were not legit. I have suggested that none of the violations were serious enough for us to invade..and that is not only my opinion, but the opinion of the UNSC which refused to give Dubya his resolution specifically authorizing force that he requested prior to invasion.

Thankfully, the US doesn't operate under the authority of the UNSC.

[CSM]

I would not think that any of those three countries mentioned had the sort of relationship with Iraq that we have had with Israel.

Then I guess Saddam should have chosen his friends more wisely!

[retiredman]

Israel had nothing to do with Al Queda attacking us. Wasn't even one of OBL's reasons. So I'm curious as to why you keep bringing Israel up in this context.

the right continues to use the invasion excuse of "we had to force Saddam to quit ignoring UN resolutions....

I merely make two observations:

1. it is silly for the neocons to elevate to some critical importance the resolutions of an organization it routinely villifies....and
2. Israel has been in violation of plenty of UN resolutions but no one considers invading them to force their compliance

and ...Iraq had nothing to do with AQ attacking us either.

[5stringJeff]

Israel had nothing to do with Al Queda attacking us. Wasn't even one of OBL's reasons. So I'm curious as to why you keep bringing Israel up in this context.

Actually, he did mention it in his 1998 fatwa:
"[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

(copied from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Attacks_on_United_States_targets))

[retiredman]

Thankfully, the US doesn't operate under the authority of the UNSC.


We certainly agree on this point

[Gaffer]

The un is irrelavent. I said it. Many times.

The resolutions against saddam were watered down by the russians the french and the germans who were making millions in kickbacks from the oil for food program. Just as the russians and chinese are watering down resolutions against iran today.

"Serious consequences" is the pc words for military action. War is a dirty word in the un and is not allowed except by dictatorships that want to threaten someone.

Fully three quarters of all the resolution put out by the un since its begining are against Israel. Ya kinda get the impression someone is out to get them.

There are two major heads to the terrorist snakes. iran and al queda. All the other groups fall under the umbrella of these two. Including the pals. Whether nationalists or fundimentalists they all have one goal the destruction of the US and Israel. The two countries that stand in the way of their world conquest.

[retiredman]

I beg to differ...palestinians could care less about the destruction of the United States...they only want their country back.

Now I happen to believe that they had the chance, several times, to tell their arab nation state sponsors to take a hike and they would settle for what the UN and the world gave them in '48...but in each and every instance, they put all their money on the Syrians or the Egyptians of the Pan-Arab Army and each and every time, they rolled craps. Bad choice. Look at the original map of the partitioning of Palestine. The Jews would NEVER have started any wars to increase their holdings over and above that, and the palestinians would be dancing in the street today if the original arab palestinian partition were modern Palestine.... but...too fucking bad.... they bet on the neighboring Arabs to get it ALL for them and they lost.

[jillian]

I beg to differ...palestinians could care less about the destruction of the United States...they only want their country back.

Now I happen to believe that they had the chance, several times, to tell their arab nation state sponsors to take a hike and they would settle for what the UN and the world gave them in '48...but in each and every instance, they put all their money on the Syrians or the Egyptians of the Pan-Arab Army and each and every time, they rolled craps. Bad choice. Look at the original map of the partitioning of Palestine. The Jews would NEVER have started any wars to increase their holdings over and above that, and the palestinians would be dancing in the street today if the original arab palestinian partition were modern Palestine.... but...too fucking bad.... they bet on the neighboring Arabs to get it ALL for them and they lost.

You presume palestinians *had* a country. Jews had lived in Israel, Judea, Palestine, whatever you want to call it, for 6,000 years. At the time of the partition, the area was of nebulous identity, at best. It was the only land in the mid east with no oil and it was a desert... not much to fight over and they figured they could get away with giving that inhospitable land to the jews they didn't want coming to European and American countries. The "palestinians" were largely bedouin. However, after the partition, the grand mufti of jerusalem told his folk they'd have the jews in the ocean in 3 days. It was a pretty good bet given that the U.N. had given the arabs all of the defensible positions, all of the high ground (remember the Golan Heights?), etc. Thing is, once you wage war on people and lose land, you can't have a do over, which is what they've wanted for the last 30 some-odd years.

As for the last part of your post... agreed. Israel never would have aggressively sought to increase it's land holdings. You just left out the part where Arafat sucked their treasury dry for years, leaving his people impoverished and angry.

That said, I've always thought a 2-state solution was the only reasonable solution. Too bad the Palestinians had other ideas.

[retiredman]

You presume palestinians *had* a country. Jews had lived in Israel, Judea, Palestine, whatever you want to call it, for 6,000 years. At the time of the partition, the area was of nebulous identity, at best. It was the only land in the mid east with no oil and it was a desert... not much to fight over and they figured they could get away with giving that inhospitable land to the jews they didn't want coming to European and American countries. The "palestinians" were largely bedouin. However, after the partition, the grand mufti of jerusalem told his folk they'd have the jews in the ocean in 3 days. It was a pretty good bet given that the U.N. had given the arabs all of the defensible positions, all of the high ground (remember the Golan Heights?), etc. Thing is, once you wage war on people and lose land, you can't have a do over, which is what they've wanted for the last 30 some-odd years.

As for the last part of your post... agreed. Israel never would have aggressively sought to increase it's land holdings. You just left out the part where Arafat sucked their treasury dry for years, leaving his people impoverished and angry.

That said, I've always thought a 2-state solution was the only reasonable solution. Too bad the Palestinians had other ideas.

regardless of whether they had a "country", they definitely were occupying the land.... and rather than decide to live in harmony with the Jews, they put their money on the Pan Arab Army to kick all the Jews out and grab the whole pie.

When I lived in Northern Israel and worked in Southern Lebanon, I became very close friends with a lady named Adina Nissan...who was, in 1947, the teenaged member of Irgun who called the King David Hotel prior to the bombing in an effort to get PEOPLE out of the building. SHe had been born and raised in Palestine and her father had been a farmer in northern galiliee.... his neighbor was an arab farmer and Adina remembers, as a child, playing with the arab children and everyone pitching in to help both families harvest their crop. When Palestine was partitioned, the arab neighbor stopped by to tell Adina's father that he was taking his family to Damascus for what would undoubtedly be a short stay while the pan arab army drove the Jews into the sea, and then he would return and he would assume ownership of Adina's father's farm..... needless to say, he stayed in Damascus and Adina's father assumed ownership of HIS farm. Too bad. If he had stayed, he would STILL own his farm in Israel.

[jillian]

regardless of whether they had a "country", they definitely were occupying the land.... and rather than decide to live in harmony with the Jews, they put their money on the Pan Arab Army to kick all the Jews out and grab the whole pie.

When I lived in Northern Israel and worked in Southern Lebanon, I became very close friends with a lady named Adina Nissan...who was, in 1947, the teenaged member of Irgun who called the King David Hotel prior to the bombing in an effort to get PEOPLE out of the building. SHe had been born and raised in Palestine and her father had been a farmer in northern galiliee.... his neighbor was an arab farmer and Adina remembers, as a child, playing with the arab children and everyone pitching in to help both families harvest their crop. When Palestine was partitioned, the arab neighbor stopped by to tell Adina's father that he was taking his family to Damascus for what would undoubtedly be a short stay while the pan arab army drove the Jews into the sea, and then he would return and he would assume ownership of Adina's father's farm..... needless to say, he stayed in Damascus and Adina's father assumed ownership of HIS farm. Too bad. If he had stayed, he would STILL own his farm in Israel.

Very true. You seem to *get* it.

I have to ask you something, though. I've seen you post things which imply that if the US and Israel weren't close, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be as hated. Did I misread?

[retiredman]

Very true. You seem to *get* it.

I have to ask you something, though. I've seen you post things which imply that if the US and Israel weren't close, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be as hated. Did I misread?

Without question, our unflinching support for Israel AND the economic and military support AND PRESENCE in Saudi Arabia contributed to AQ's vengeance against America.

Having said that, I would NEVER advocate withdrawing even a scintilla of our support for Israel. They are like "kin" to us....

[CSM]

Without question, our unflinching support for Israel AND the economic and military support AND PRESENCE in Saudi Arabia contributed to AQ's vengeance against America.

Having said that, I would NEVER advocate withdrawing even a scintilla of our support for Israel. They are like "kin" to us....

No doubt our support for Israel and Saudi Arabia had an impact. Does that mean that the US should not support foreign countries, particularly in the Middle East?

I agree with you about our support for Israel. How then, do we pacify (note I did not say "appease") those who use our support for Israel (among other things) as an excuse to fly planes into our buildings or blow up our Navy? A foreign policy based on isolationism is precluded by our need to support our allies. Got any suggestions?

P.S. Spare me the whole "get out of Iraq" thing. We have already had that conversation...buckets of spit and all!

[retiredman]

1. We step up to the plate and quit talking like an honest unbiased middleman broker for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and we actually ACT like one.
2. We use our market clout and military support of the Saudi royal family to get them to really enact some democratic reforms and to STOP their support for wahabbist madrassas throughout the region that preach hatred of America. Is the Saudi royals want us to continue to provide them with massive amounts of military assistance, they simply MUST be made to quit stabbing us in the back in that manner.

how about that?

[jillian]

1. We step up to the plate and quit talking like an honest unbiased middleman broker for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and we actually ACT like one.
2. We use our market clout and military support of the Saudi royal family to get them to really enact some democratic reforms and to STOP their support for wahabbist madrassas throughout the region that preach hatred of America. Is the Saudi royals want us to continue to provide them with massive amounts of military assistance, they simply MUST be made to quit stabbing us in the back in that manner.

how about that?

Depends on what you think being an honest unbiased middleman is. Does it mean you treat each party in accordance with their actions and their reasonableness? Do you get rid of the pretense that they have an equal right to Israel's land? Or do you pretend their claims have equal weight even though there is no other country besides Israel that won land in defensive battle and had the world screaming for them to give it back?

[CSM]

Depends on what you think being an honest unbiased middleman is. Does it mean you treat each party in accordance with their actions and their reasonableness? Do you get rid of the pretense that they have an equal right to Israel's land? Or do you pretend their claims have equal weight even though there is no other country besides Israel that won land in defensive battle and had the world screaming for them to give it back?

Dammit Jillian, you get more neocon everyday! You are taking all my fun away!

The entire problem with diplomacy is that, as with any negotiations, for it to succeed, both parties have to WANT to negotiate in good faith. IF one or both parties use diplomacy to buy time to consolidate their position (such as rearm, perform tactical and strategic maneuvers to achieve and advantage, etc.) then diplomacy fails.

[retiredman]

Hmmm...in the Senate, the majority of Dems voted YEA and only one Repub voted NAY. The majority of the Dems in the House voted NAY along with six Repubs.

Just for clarification.

and just for clarification...the statement that a majority of the democratic congressional caucus voted against the war while republicans were nearly unanimous in support is entirely accurate and stands as is, without further clarification really needed.

[retiredman]

I honestly answered the following question:

How then, do we pacify (note I did not say "appease") those who use our support for Israel (among other things) as an excuse to fly planes into our buildings or blow up our Navy?

take it for what's it's worth.

[CSM]

1. We step up to the plate and quit talking like an honest unbiased middleman broker for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and we actually ACT like one.
2. We use our market clout and military support of the Saudi royal family to get them to really enact some democratic reforms and to STOP their support for wahabbist madrassas throughout the region that preach hatred of America. Is the Saudi royals want us to continue to provide them with massive amounts of military assistance, they simply MUST be made to quit stabbing us in the back in that manner.

how about that?

1. OK, great concept. What ACTIONS are you suggesting the US take (presuming that when you say "act" we should be actually DOING something.)

2. Great. What actions do we take to get the Saudi royals to do our bidding? Do we withdraw economic/military support and cease relations with them? What courses of action do we take?

As I stated earlier, the devil is in the details. Concepts and plans are great until they have to be implemented. I am not sharp shooting anything here; I am seriously open to your suggestions IF you can get to a level of detail beyond "It's all our fault and we should do something!"

[retiredman]

nah...you're sharpshooting. anything I say, you'll pick apart. I have yet to see any details from ANYONE on the right...so, until I do, I stick with broad concepts. I am not about to spend weeks doing research and writing an in-depth position paper on proposed actions to help improve our position in the middle east for presentation to a message board filled to the brim with neocons. That sounds to me like a monumental waste of time. I have an idea: why don't YOU do that and get back to me?

[CSM]

nah...you're sharpshooting. I wasn't, but I will damn sure do that now! anything I say, you'll pick apart. I have yet to see any details from ANYONE on the right...so, until I do, I stick with broad concepts. No courage....must be a Naval officer. I am not about to spend weeks doing research and writing an in-depth position paper on proposed actions to help improve our position in the middle east for presentation to a message board filled to the brim with neocons. How about doing a bit of research to substantiate your own concepts? Naw, you dont really care about having a logical reason for supporting your political position. I can now assume you are intellectually lazy. Seems to be a common trait among the more liberal Dems. That sounds to me like a monumental waste of time. I am sure it does....Why should you even have to think about backing anything you offer as your position? I have an idea: why don't YOU do that and get back to me? Indeed I have done that many times and even posted some of it on other boards. Besides, you are the one that put two concepts on the table for discussion....now you don't want to flesh them out.

Ah, so you admit that you are just a loudmouth. Figures.

What you are telling me is that you have not thought this your position through in any detail and are merely belly aching. Your post above also tells me that you are not interested in resolving ANYTHING. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt even after your comments about making Republicans/conservatives "pay". I will not make that mistake again. Go empty your bucket of spit....it would seem that is the only task you are capable of completing.

[retiredman]

based upon my observations, palestinians do not consider Americans to be honest brokers for peace. We do not make our support for Israel contingent upon any level of performance by them. We do not say 'boo' when they violate promises to us and build new settlements in occupied territories. We do not say 'boo' when they build a draconian fence that separates palestinians in their homes from the land they farm.... we do not say 'boo' when they carpet bomb entire neighborhoods of Beirut suburbs... we continue our support and our military and financial assistance unabated. I think we need to let Israel know that our support is contingent upon them doing something positive to end this impasse...something more than merely playing the "holocaust" card.

I do not have any good ideas as to how we move the saudi royal family towards democracy - or the qataris or kuwaitis or any of the gulf states, for that matter, but my lack of specific ideas does not mean that it is not a worthwhile suggestion. If there is a homeless family living in cardboard boxes in a vacant lot, suggesting that a permanent structure be built is not a bad idea simply because it is not accompanies by a set of blueprints and material spec sheets. I know that the emirates and royal houses that control much of the wealth in that area add significantly to the socio-economic inequity that is the greatest impetus for islamic extremism...it only makes common sense that addressing it will be in our best interest.

[retiredman]

and you can tone down the nastiness if you expect me to continue to do likewise.


one might say that you are guilty of "unwarranted flaming"...but we know that none of the mods will ever make that call against you or your ilk.

[CSM]

and you can tone down the nastiness if you expect me to continue to do likewise.


one might say that you are guilty of "unwarranted flaming"...but we know that none of the mods will ever make that call against you or your ilk.

I expect to be banned if found guilty of such.

I was serioulsy trying to have a discussion with you. You chose to ignore that opportunity. So be it.

Care to try again? I am more than willing to have a rational conversation and elevate this discourse above the "I hate Bush...your and idiot" level if you are.

[retiredman]

did you just chose to ignore post 184?

[CSM]

based upon my observations, palestinians do not consider Americans to be honest brokers for peace. We do not make our support for Israel contingent upon any level of performance by them. We do not say 'boo' when they violate promises to us and build new settlements in occupied territories. We do not say 'boo' when they build a draconian fence that separates palestinians in their homes from the land they farm.... we do not say 'boo' when they carpet bomb entire neighborhoods of Beirut suburbs... we continue our support and our military and financial assistance unabated. I think we need to let Israel know that our support is contingent upon them doing something positive to end this impasse...something more than merely playing the "holocaust" card.

Fair enough. I honestly believe that what you say is true. On the other hand, I also believe that the Palestinians ( as well as Islamic extremists) are not interested in merely getting "their" land back, they want the destruction of Israel and the United States. I am convinced of that. The US definitely has to be more even handed with both factions. If the Palestinians fire rockets into Israel, there should be "severe consequences".

I do not have any good ideas as to how we move the saudi royal family towards democracy - or the qataris or kuwaitis or any of the gulf states, for that matter, but my lack of specific ideas does not mean that it is not a worthwhile suggestion. If there is a homeless family living in cardboard boxes in a vacant lot, suggesting that a permanent structure be built is not a bad idea simply because it is not accompanies by a set of blueprints and material spec sheets. But until something is put in concrete (pun intended) then the family continues to live in the cardboard box. The suggestion certainly has merit, but simply stating it and then walking away does not resolve the problem. Please note I am not saying you personally are doing that. I am saying (again) the devil is in the details.I know that the emirates and royal houses that control much of the wealth in that area add significantly to the socio-economic inequity that is the greatest impetus for islamic extremism...it only makes common sense that addressing it will be in our best interest. Here I disagree. Socio-economic inequity is ONE impetus. I think that the tenants of Islam itself contribute greatly to the problem of Islamic extremism. For example, Osama Bin Laden was not "poor" by any standards, yet he has become a poster child for Islamic extremism. many of the Islamic leaders calling for the destruction of the US/Israel are not socially nor economically disadvantaged. I am not certain how you convince a religious sect that their interpretation of dogma is wrong or somehow bad for humans.



Complex issues, to be sure.

[CSM]

did you just chose to ignore post 184?

Nope, was busy replying.

[retiredman]

I would not disagree that there are elements within the palestinian people who are not interested in peace, but in Israel's destruction.... just as there are elements within Israel who see Eretz Israel as a vision requiring the total subjegation of all non-Jews within that wider territory. I do believe that the vast majority of Israelis and the vast majority of Palestinians want, more than anything, for the violence to stop. We need to reach out to THOSE people.

And I do not disagree that Islam itself can be construed in a violent way...much like certain sects of Christians believe that violence is a justifiable tactic. I would suggest that the Christians who seek to kill abortion doctors are not poor and otherwise socio-economically deprived either... and I am not saying that there are as many wacko American Christians as there are wacko middle eastern muslims, only that they both represent - to varying degrees -the margins and not the vast majority.

All I can tell you is that I did, in fact, live and work amongst muslims for nearly two years. I lived in Beirut at a time when American made jets flown by Israeli pilots were dropping American made bombs on PLO compounds right next door to the UN office where I worked... if ever there was an "inconvenient" time to be an American in Beirut, that was the time.... and I certainly did have a number of run-ins with arabs deeply angry and filled with hatred for the west and for Israel, but I had daily routine interaction with MANY MANY more lebanese and palestinians alike that were friendly and affable and respectful and peace-loving folks. My experience leads me to believe that there is a way to achieve peace in the middle east.... I just do not believe that the methods we have used recently are very effective.

[CSM]

I would not disagree that there are elements within the palestinian people who are not interested in peace, but in Israel's destruction.... just as there are elements within Israel who see Eretz Israel as a vision requiring the total subjegation of all non-Jews within that wider territory. I do believe that the vast majority of Israelis and the vast majority of Palestinians want, more than anything, for the violence to stop. We need to reach out to THOSE people.

And I do not disagree that Islam itself can be construed in a violent way...much like certain sects of Christians believe that violence is a justifiable tactic. I would suggest that the Christians who seek to kill abortion doctors are not poor and otherwise socio-economically deprived either... and I am not saying that there are as many wacko American Christians as there are wacko middle eastern muslims, only that they both represent - to varying degrees -the margins and not the vast majority.

All I can tell you is that I did, in fact, live and work amongst muslims for nearly two years. I lived in Beirut at a time when American made jets flown by Israeli pilots were dropping American made bombs on PLO compounds right next door to the UN office where I worked... if ever there was an "inconvenient" time to be an American in Beirut, that was the time.... and I certainly did have a number of run-ins with arabs deeply angry and filled with hatred for the west and for Israel, but I had daily routine interaction with MANY MANY more lebanese and palestinians alike that were friendly and affable and respectful and peace-loving folks. My experience leads me to believe that there is a way to achieve peace in the middle east.... I just do not believe that the methods we have used recently are very effective.

I'll buy all of that. I guess my take on it is that it is not the ones who want the violence to stop that are the problem. It is the "margins" of which you spoke that are the problem. I fail to see how addressing those who are NOT the problem is going to prevent the extremists (Christian or otherwise) from blowing people and things to smithereens.

Just for the record, I am not one who thinks ALL Muslims are bad and should be killed, etc. I am very concerned about those who ARE indeed bad and want to kill us. It is a complex aspect of the issue. I am certain there are those within the Middle East who truly desire peace...they are not my concern. I am also certain there are those in the Middle East who will try to prevent peace AT ANY COST....and they concern me very much. They are the ones that I beleive no amount of diplomacy or appeasement will curtail. They may be in the minority but the damage they cause can be and is HUGE!

[retiredman]

I'll buy all of that. I guess my take on it is that it is not the ones who want the violence to stop that are the problem. It is the "margins" of which you spoke that are the problem. I fail to see how addressing those who are NOT the problem is going to prevent the extremists (Christian or otherwise) from blowing people and things to smithereens.

Just for the record, I am not one who thinks ALL Muslims are bad and should be killed, etc. I am very concerned about those who ARE indeed bad and want to kill us. It is a complex aspect of the issue. I am certain there are those within the Middle East who truly desire peace...they are not my concern. I am also certain there are those in the Middle East who will try to prevent peace AT ANY COST....and they concern me very much. They are the ones that I beleive no amount of diplomacy or appeasement will curtail. They may be in the minority but the damage they cause can be and is HUGE!


we are in absolute agreement on all points of this argument.

[CSM]

we are in absolute agreement on all points of this argument.

Well aint that just amazing!

Given that as a starting point and with the premise the the fringe element can and will strike again, how do we address that? It is my belief that SOME of the extremists are state sponsored...some are not. It is also my belief that diplomacy and appeasement will not work. How do we eliminate the threat?

[retiredman]

I believe that we do NOT do it with massive military might, but smaller focused special forces military/law enforcement/money tracing/infiltration/HUMINT efforts...

we are less of a high profile presence, and we target the REAL enemies and not merely piss off the locals and have to fight them TOO

[Pale Rider]

And I do not disagree that Islam itself can be construed in a violent way...much like certain sects of Christians believe that violence is a justifiable tactic. I would suggest that the Christians who seek to kill abortion doctors are not poor and otherwise socio-economically deprived either... and I am not saying that there are as many wacko American Christians as there are wacko middle eastern muslims, only that they both represent - to varying degrees -the margins and not the vast majority.

Then why is it 80% of every days world news is all about violence at the hands of islamist extremists?

[CSM]

I believe that we do NOT do it with massive military might, but smaller focused special forces military/law enforcement/money tracing/infiltration/HUMINT efforts...

we are less of a high profile presence, and we target the REAL enemies and not merely piss off the locals and have to fight them TOO

Now we diverge.

Special forces are a form of military might. The propaganda machine has and will portray them as CIA assassination attempts (illegal by our own laws). Regardless of scale, US personnel will be put in harms way, the anti-war crowd will raise the hue and cry and Congress will want public disclosure of ongoing operations....I see those as obstacles to ANY operation being effective (and those are just from our own side!).

Law enforcement has not and will not work. In my opinion, law enforcement is very reactionary and not proactive. The law enforcement entities do not get involved until AFTER the "crime" is committed. The scope of the potential damage is too great (9/11 is a manifestation of that!) to wait for the "smoking gun".

Money tracing, phone taps etc. have all been curtailed by Congress and public opinion. I would expect that will continue to be the case. The same is true of HUMINT and infiltration. Remember the big fiasco over the US government hiring unsavory characters to provide HUMINT and infiltrate some of these organizations? I got the impression back then that some of our politicians wanted to hire the Boy Scouts to provide human intel....which is fine except that Boy Scouts aren't "dirty" enough to infiltrate terrorist organizations.

As for targeting the REAL enemy, look what happens every time we blow up some nefarious character with an armed Predator or some other type of PGM. The anti war crowd, MSM and terrorist propaganda machine all combine to mitigate any value that COULD have been achieved by such actions. Short of sending in clandestine assassination teams (illegal, remeber?) there is no certain way of attacking and neutralizing said enemies.

[retiredman]

Then why is it 80% of every days world news is all about violence at the hands of islamist extremists?

you guys stir up the hornet's nest by sending in a christian army to invade, conquer and occupy an oil rich arab muslim country and then bitch that your actions piss people off? Are you suggesting that because 80% of the news (nice arbitrary number pulled straight from your ass) is about islamic extremists that somehow correlates to 80% of the world's muslims being extremist? what IS your point?

[CSM]

Then why is it 80% of every days world news is all about violence at the hands of islamist extremists?

Though the number of terrorist extremists is small, their impact is huge. Terrorism is ineffective if it is not sensational, horrifying and...well...terrifying! Obviously, what has not entered into this discussion yet is the whole issue of those who politicize such events to further their pursuit of power, regardless of the cost to the country. A related issue to be sure, but probably should be discussed in another thread or later on in this one.

[retiredman]

Now we diverge.

Special forces are a form of military might. The propaganda machine has and will portray them as CIA assassination attempts (illegal by our own laws). Regardless of scale, US personnel will be put in harms way, the anti-war crowd will raise the hue and cry and Congress will want public disclosure of ongoing operations....I see those as obstacles to ANY operation being effective (and those are just from our own side!).

Law enforcement has not and will not work. In my opinion, law enforcement is very reactionary and not proactive. The law enforcement entities do not get involved until AFTER the "crime" is committed. The scope of the potential damage is too great (9/11 is a manifestation of that!) to wait for the "smoking gun".

Money tracing, phone taps etc. have all been curtailed by Congress and public opinion. I would expect that will continue to be the case. The same is true of HUMINT and infiltration. Remember the big fiasco over the US government hiring unsavory characters to provide HUMINT and infiltrate some of these organizations? I got the impression back then that some of our politicians wanted to hire the Boy Scouts to provide human intel....which is fine except that Boy Scouts aren't "dirty" enough to infiltrate terrorist organizations.

As for targeting the REAL enemy, look what happens every time we blow up some nefarious character with an armed Predator or some other type of PGM. The anti war crowd, MSM and terroist propaganda machine all combine to mitigate any value that COULD have been achieved by such actions. Short of sending in clandestine assassination teams (illegal, remeber?) there is no certain way of attacking and neutralizing said enemies.

And your alternative to my suggestion would be...???

[CSM]

And your alternative to my suggestion would be...???

Fair question. I am not saying your suggestions have no merit. I am merely pointing out that these have been tried in the past and been stymied for one reason or another.

Two points.

Implement your suggestions where possible and security/secrecy is assured. Hard to do, for sure, but certainly applicable in some circumstances. I do mean ALL of your suggestions. I am not above eliminating the bad guy, listening in on his phone conversations, tracing his financial network, infiltrating his organizations with characters just as low down dirty as they are, etc. and then blowing the enemy's head of with a sniper rifle or blowing up his house with a PGM.

Second, confront those national entities sponsoring/supporting/aiding and otherwise abetting the terrorists. That confrontation includes massive military force, economic isolation, and whatever else is necessary. I would even consider diplomacy if appropriate but that has mostly proven to be ineffective.

The crux of the matter is that both have to be implemented simultaneously. Thusfar, this country has been committing resources piecemeal. Either we are at war or we are not. War means the committment of this nations blood and treasure to whatever extent necessary to WIN. If we are not at war, do not care that our nation can and will be attacked at any time with greater intensity and devastation as time progresses, and ignore the growing effectiveness of our enemy, then we will cease to exist as a nation.

More later.

[retiredman]

I agree with your first point, and support all of those actions against foreign enemies. I have a problem with the terribly slippery slope of wiretapping american citizens without warrant....

I agree with your second point, but am adamantly opposed to a trigger happy attitude that brings that military option up to the top of the list so blythely as has been displayed by the current administration. In the case of Iraq, I really beleve that our war in Iraq has hurt us in the war against Islamic extremists and not helped one bit.

[Nate]

1. We step up to the plate and quit talking like an honest unbiased middleman broker for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and we actually ACT like one.

The libtard's way of saying "throw all the hook-nosed bagel-biters back into camps":uhoh:

[jillian]

Dammit Jillian, you get more neocon everyday! You are taking all my fun away!

The entire problem with diplomacy is that, as with any negotiations, for it to succeed, both parties have to WANT to negotiate in good faith. IF one or both parties use diplomacy to buy time to consolidate their position (such as rearm, perform tactical and strategic maneuvers to achieve and advantage, etc.) then diplomacy fails.

Heh! I keep telling people I have views on both sides of the fence. You guys don't believe me. :D

I agree that diplomacy has to be in good faith. And we all know that Arafat didn't act in good faith when he was head of the PA. But I'm with Golda Meir on this subject.... you talk to your enemies because "who else are you going to talk to?"

I also agree that the terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas use ceasefires and diplomacy to achieve a tactical advantage. I think we're savvy enough to prevent them from benefitting too much from the delays. People always scream about Israel doing raids during ceasefires, but that's exactly what the raids do... prevent them from regrouping... a necessary evil and I don't have a problem with it.

[retiredman]

The libtard's way of saying "throw all the hook-nosed bagel-biters back into camps":uhoh:

no. you are wrong on all counts....
but that certainly is not surprising

[CSM]

I agree with your first point, and support all of those actions against foreign enemies. I have a problem with the terribly slippery slope of wiretapping american citizens without warrant....

Yep. So where do we implement such a suggestion and where is the line drawn? That is rhetorical and symbolizes exactly what I am talking about the devil being in the details.

I agree with your second point, but am adamantly opposed to a trigger happy attitude that brings that military option up to the top of the list so blythely as has been displayed by the current administration. Well, obviously diplomatic efforts were not working. Years of sanctions for example, (in the case of Iraq and North Korea) seem to have little effect. Again, a rhetorical question but when does one determine that anything BUT the military option is ineffective? Does one pursue diplomacy until the enemy achieves their goal or does a nation resort to military force sometime prior to that?

I really beleve that our war in Iraq has hurt us in the war against Islamic extremists and not helped one bit. I would agree except that Islamic extremists were attacking this country and its citizens prior to our invasion of Iraq. Our failure to address those attacks effectively emboldened not only terrorist organizations but rogue nations states as well.

The military option is always on the table...it has to be. Otherwise, EVERY diplomatic effort ends in capitulation eventually.

[CSM]

The libtard's way of saying "throw all the hook-nosed bagel-biters back into camps":uhoh:

I dont think he said that at all!

[CSM]

Heh! I keep telling people I have views on both sides of the fence. You guys don't believe me. :D

I agree that diplomacy has to be in good faith. And we all know that Arafat didn't act in good faith when he was head of the PA. But I'm with Golda Meir on this subject.... you talk to your enemies because "who else are you going to talk to?"

I also agree that the terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas use ceasefires and diplomacy to achieve a tactical advantage. I think we're savvy enough to prevent them from benefitting too much from the delays. People always scream about Israel doing raids during ceasefires, but that's exactly what the raids do... prevent them from regrouping... a necessary evil and I don't have a problem with it.

I agree with you BUT those Israelli raids are the excuse Hezbolla and Hamas use to continue their actions and even escalate their efforts. Hezbollah did not manufacture those rockets they were and are lobbing into Israel!

[retiredman]

Well, obviously diplomatic efforts were not working. Years of sanctions for example, (in the case of Iraq and North Korea) seem to have little effect. Again, a rhetorical question but when does one determine that anything BUT the military option is ineffective? Does one pursue diplomacy until the enemy achieves their goal or does a nation resort to military force sometime prior to that?
regarding Iraq, I beg to differ...and so would Colin Powell six months before 9/11 when he clearly stated in Cairo that sanctions had worked, that Saddam was NOT a threat to us and was incapable of any significant projection of power even beyond his own borders, let alone half way around the world.

I would agree except that Islamic extremists were attacking this country and its citizens prior to our invasion of Iraq. Our failure to address those attacks effectively emboldened not only terrorist organizations but rogue nations states as well.

the invasion of Afghanistan directly addresses those attacks. Going after Iraq was never seen on the arab street as a reasonable response to 9/11, whereas the Afghan operation was.

[CSM]

Well, obviously diplomatic efforts were not working. Years of sanctions for example, (in the case of Iraq and North Korea) seem to have little effect. Again, a rhetorical question but when does one determine that anything BUT the military option is ineffective? Does one pursue diplomacy until the enemy achieves their goal or does a nation resort to military force sometime prior to that?
regarding Iraq, I beg to differ...and so would Colin Powell six months before 9/11 when he clearly stated in Cairo that sanctions had worked, that Saddam was NOT a threat to us and was incapable of any significant projection of power even beyond his own borders, let alone half way around the world.

Couldn't project power beyond his own borders? I guess those missles he fired would drop like a rock at the edge of his country and those MiGS he had could only fly in circles over Faluja. I suppose those European nations were there helping him make crop circles.

I would agree except that Islamic extremists were attacking this country and its citizens prior to our invasion of Iraq. Our failure to address those attacks effectively emboldened not only terrorist organizations but rogue nations states as well.

the invasion of Afghanistan directly addresses those attacks. Obviously, I disagree. Afghanistan is/was the tip of the iceberg. Going after Iraq was never seen on the arab street as a reasonable response to 9/11, whereas the Afghan operation was. True statement. But then the "Arab Street" thinks Las Vegas is just like every other American city.


It will be a cold day in hell when I let the Arab street determine what is best for this country. Probably about the same feeling you have about letting enlisted determine foreign policy and for the same reason!

[retiredman]

a few old MiG's do not effectively project anything... look...go read Colin Powell's press conference transcript http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

I didn't make that up. Are you suggesting that General Powell was LYING?

and the arab street, for all their faults and misconceptions, is still making decisions about us every day that impact the thoughts and chosen paths of individuals who become our enemies that might not otherwise do so.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. and it had absolutely no collaborative connection with wahabbism. To have such a connection was suicidal.

[jillian]

I agree with you BUT those Israelli raids are the excuse Hezbolla and Hamas use to continue their actions and even escalate their efforts. Hezbollah did not manufacture those rockets they were and are lobbing into Israel!

I know. And I didn't say it was perfect.

On the other hand, part of the problem is the pressure placed on Israel by the rest of the world *not* to retaliate, regardless of the transgression. If Canada's government was taken over by a terrorist organization which lined up missiles on Canada's southern border, and from that position was lobbing missiles into Michegan, the U.S. would have flatted the missile sites. And you wouldn't have heard a single complaint from the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, Israel is held to a far different standard.

[retiredman]

It will be a cold day in hell when I let the Arab street determine what is best for this country. Probably about the same feeling you have about letting enlisted determine foreign policy and for the same reason!

and I would never suggest that we let the Arab street determine what is best for this country...I think we might want to consider the reaction of the arab street and what that means to our future security when we consider invading, conquering and occupying an oil rich arab nation that had not attacked us.

And I have the same feeling about letting ANYONE in the military DETERMINE foreign policy. Guys in uniform don't DETERMINE foreign policy...their units are the muscular arm that implements portions of that policy.

I am not some elitist officer...I relied on my sailors all the time... and respected their skills and their talent and their motivation enormously. I have been retired for nearly 14 years and I STILL stay in contact with MANY more former enlisted shipmates than I do with former officer shipmates. My troops were very loyal to me and vice versa.

[CSM]

I know. And I didn't say it was perfect.

On the other hand, part of the problem is the pressure placed on Israel by the rest of the world *not* to retaliate, regardless of the transgression. If Canada's government was taken over by a terrorist organization which lined up missiles on Canada's southern border, and from that position was lobbing missiles into Michegan, (yeah and more so if it was MICHIGAN! Sorry, could not resist!) the U.S. would have flatted the missile sites (and flattened them too! Dammit, can't help it!). And you wouldn't have heard a single complaint from the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, Israel is held to a far different standard.

The situation you describe concerning Israel/Hezbollah etc. is exactly why I believe that those opposed to Israel are not serious about ANY negotiations or diplomatic resolutions.

[CSM]

and I would never suggest that we let the Arab street determine what is best for this country...I think we might want to consider the reaction of the arab street and what that means to our future security when we consider invading, conquering and occupying an oil rich arab nation that had not attacked us.

Absolutely, such considerations should indeed be weighed but it certainly should not be the ONLY consideration. If we apply that philosophy to Iran, at what popint do we take action...before or after they nuke Israel? I am being sarcastic here, so dont take offense.

And I have the same feeling about letting ANYONE in the military DETERMINE foreign policy. Guys in uniform don't DETERMINE foreign policy...their units are the muscular arm that implements portions of that policy.

Agreed.

I am not some elitist officer...I relied on my sailors all the time... and respected their skills and their talent and their motivation enormously. I have been retired for nearly 14 years and I STILL stay in contact with MANY more former enlisted shipmates than I do with former officer shipmates. My troops were very loyal to me and vice versa. Not sure where that came from but kudos to you. I also understand that sometimes we exaggerate things to illustrate a point and it flops. That is exactly why we are able to have a reasonable discussion as we are currently!

Reading back over this discussion, I am even more certain that the issues we face as a nation today are more complex than they ever have been in the past.

[jillian]

The situation you describe concerning Israel/Hezbollah etc. is exactly why I believe that those opposed to Israel are not serious about ANY negotiations or diplomatic resolutions.


Ah... but the situation isn't the fault of the people with whom the negotitions are being done. It's the fault of other nations for not supporting Israel's right to defend it's borders.

[CSM]

Ah... but the situation isn't the fault of the people with whom the negotitions are being done. It's the fault of other nations for not supporting Israel's right to defend it's borders.

That is one aspect of it. I suspect some of those people conducting negotiations know darn well they are buying time for their side, knowing full well that such a double standard does indeed exist.

[jillian]

That is one aspect of it. I suspect some of those people conducting negotiations know darn well they are buying time for their side, knowing full well that such a double standard does indeed exist.

Well, I'd agree with that, particularly given the percentage of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel.

[retiredman]

Absolutely, such considerations should indeed be weighed but it certainly should not be the ONLY consideration. If we apply that philosophy to Iran, at what popint do we take action...before or after they nuke Israel? I am being sarcastic here, so dont take offense.[/WQUOTE]

before

[QUOTE]Not sure where that came from but kudos to you. I also understand that sometimes we exaggerate things to illustrate a point and it flops. That is exactly why we are able to have a reasonable discussion as we are currently!

and I can't tell you how much I appreciate it




Reading back over this discussion, I am even more certain that the issues we face as a nation today are more complex than they ever have been in the past.

no doubt whatsoever.... and the solutions will be equally as complex, I fear

[CSM]

[QUOTE=CSM;8249]

Absolutely, such considerations should indeed be weighed but it certainly should not be the ONLY consideration. If we apply that philosophy to Iran, at what popint do we take action...before or after they nuke Israel? I am being sarcastic here, so dont take offense.[/WQUOTE]

before



and I can't tell you how much I appreciate it





no doubt whatsoever.... and the solutions will be equally as complex, I fear

ITA!!!!

One of my biggest frustrations with the political climate in this country is that true debate with the objective of finding solutions is stifled because we as citizens (sometimes including myself) tend to form our opinions based on a sound bite or even a statement from the Internet without really trying to understand all the nuances and implications, never mind trying to determine critical factors which have serious impact on both the issue and possible solutions.

[retiredman]

everything is reduced to soundbites...and aphorisms....black white ... nuance is synonymous with weakness

[Pale Rider]

you guys stir up the hornet's nest by sending in a christian army to invade, conquer and occupy an oil rich arab muslim country and then bitch that your actions piss people off? Are you suggesting that because 80% of the news (nice arbitrary number pulled straight from your ass) is about islamic extremists that somehow correlates to 80% of the world's muslims being extremist? what IS your point?

My point is, that everytime I listen to the news, the first 20 minutes of a 30 broadcast are all about the latest islamist bombings, killing, and general fucking hatred of anything infidel.

Is it not?

[Gaffer]

you guys stir up the hornet's nest by sending in a christian army to invade, conquer and occupy an oil rich arab muslim country and then bitch that your actions piss people off? Are you suggesting that because 80% of the news (nice arbitrary number pulled straight from your ass) is about islamic extremists that somehow correlates to 80% of the world's muslims being extremist? what IS your point?

Would it be better if we sent in a muslim army? Are we only allowed to fight wars with christian nations? America sent troops to iraq, not "us guys" the troops represent YOU as much as they do me. Unless you have given up your citizenship.

If 80% of the news is about muslim extremists it stand to reason most people are going to look at all muslims as extremists. Most Americans have not live around or among muslims as you claim to have done. Their only view of muslims is from the tv news.

[retiredman]

Would it be better if we sent in a muslim army? Are we only allowed to fight wars with christian nations? America sent troops to iraq, not "us guys" the troops represent YOU as much as they do me. Unless you have given up your citizenship.

If 80% of the news is about muslim extremists it stand to reason most people are going to look at all muslims as extremists. Most Americans have not live around or among muslims as you claim to have done. Their only view of muslims is from the tv news.

so... they have no responsibility to get it right? All they have to do is watch Faux News and hate muslims accordingly and that is perfectly acceptable?

[retiredman]

My point is, that everytime I listen to the news, the first 20 minutes of a 30 broadcast are all about the latest islamist bombings, killing, and general fucking hatred of anything infidel.

Is it not?

OK...then, from your learned perspective, that ought to be proof enough that all the muslims in the world, including those native born ones here in America deserve killing....have I got that about right?

[Oscar]

hey wait ins't the press and the :pee: left the same thing?

[Gunny]

:uhoh: What a BITCH..
DAVENPORT, Iowa: U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that U.S. President George W. Bush should withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq before he leaves office, saying it would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief.

"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator said her in first presidential campaign tour through the early-voting state of Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.

The White House condemned Clinton's comments as a partisan attack that undermines U.S. soldiers.

About 130,000 American troops are in Iraq, and Bush has announced this month he was sending 21,500 more as part of his new war strategy.



"I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it."

Bush describes Iraq as the central front in the global fight against terrorism that began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The war on terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again," he recently told USA Today newspaper.

One questioner asked Clinton if her track record showed she could stand up to "evil men" around the world.

"The question is, we face a lot of dangers in the world and, in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of evil men and what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men," Clinton said. She paused to gaze while the audience interrupted with about 30 seconds of laughter and applause.

Meeting later with reporters, she was pressed repeatedly to explain what she meant. She insisted it was a joke.

"I thought I was funny," Clinton said. "You guys keep telling me to lighten up, be funny. I get a little funny and now I'm being psychoanalyzed."

She told reporters that evil men included al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. "Isn't it about time we get serious about that?" she said.

During the town hall meeting, she tried to make clear that she thinks she would be a chief executive with enough fortitude to confront any danger facing the country.

"I believe that a lot in my background and a lot in my public life shows the character and toughness that is required to be president," Clinton said. "It also shows that I want to get back to bringing the world around to support us again."

Clinton defended the role that Congress has played, saying newly empowered Democrats are beginning to build pressure on Bush to act, but the public needs to be patient.

"We are at the beginning of a process," Clinton said. "It's a frustrating process, our system is sometimes frustrating."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/28/america/NA-POL-US-Clinton-2008.php

The height of irresponsibility like Clinton ignoring the situation for 8 years and passing it on to Bush?

[nevadamedic]

Damn computer. As I was saying Bush couldn't have kept us over there as long as he has without Senate and Congress approval. You realize Hilary, Obama and Edwards has voted for the war and supported it until recently? I like how Liberals say the war is lost, but where is Saddam? Is he still in power? No. How many terror attacks against the US has there been since 9/11? None. This war has prevented that. Bush is just cleaning up President Clintons mess that he made in office. Clinton had the chance to get Bin Laden but didn't take it so 9/11 happened. Clinton was definatly one of the worst Presidents in history other then Jimmy Carter and JFK.

[Mr. P]

Damn computer. As I was saying Bush couldn't have kept us over there as long as he has without Senate and Congress approval. You realize Hilary, Obama and Edwards has voted for the war and supported it until recently? I like how Liberals say the war is lost, but where is Saddam? Is he still in power? No. How many terror attacks against the US has there been since 9/11? None. This war has prevented that. Bush is just cleaning up President Clintons mess that he made in office. Clinton had the chance to get Bin Laden but didn't take it so 9/11 happened. Clinton was definatly one of the worst Presidents in history other then Jimmy Carter and JFK.

Medic, use the quote button, we have no idea who you are addressing.

[Pale Rider]

Damn computer. As I was saying Bush couldn't have kept us over there as long as he has without Senate and Congress approval. You realize Hilary, Obama and Edwards has voted for the war and supported it until recently? I like how Liberals say the war is lost, but where is Saddam? Is he still in power? No. How many terror attacks against the US has there been since 9/11? None. This war has prevented that. Bush is just cleaning up President Clintons mess that he made in office. Clinton had the chance to get Bin Laden but didn't take it so 9/11 happened. Clinton was definatly one of the worst Presidents in history other then Jimmy Carter and JFK.


I agree. And welcome aboard. It sure is nice to see a new CONSERVATIVE here instead of another stinking liberal.

[nevadamedic]

Medic, use the quote button, we have no idea who you are addressing.

Sorry, I am still trying to figure this site put since its my first day.

[nevadamedic]

I agree. And welcome aboard. It sure is nice to see a new CONSERVATIVE here instead of another stinking liberal.

THe only reason there are so many Liberals here is that they have ntohing better to do then be nasty, rude and negative. Being a Democrat should be considered a capitol offense punishable by death.

[Pale Rider]

THe only reason there are so many Liberals here is that they have ntohing better to do then be nasty, rude and negative. Being a Democrat should be considered a capitol offense punishable by death.

I'm ready... when do we start the war... we're both here in Nevada... we can start right now... as a matter of fact, I'm right here sitting on top of Carson City... :coffee:

[Doniston]

THe only reason there are so many Liberals here is that they have ntohing better to do then be nasty, rude and negative. Being a Democrat should be considered a capitol offense punishable by death. HA HA HA, you ARE new here, you have reversed the roles. as usual it is the Conservative who are nasy and rude, (and rather unrealistic.)at least to a large part, rather than the other way around.

[chum43]

Jilly! I knew you'd jump on that one! :D

Of course, Bush didn't inherit ANY messes from the PREVIOUS Billary administration. :cough: couldhavetakenOsama :cough: prevented9/11 :cough:

when are people going to realize that all the political higher ups play for the same team, they are in it together... the only reason their are two parties for these cookie cutter candidates is so they can fool people and play to both sides(everyone) and then blame each other when things go wrong... truth is nothing different would have happened, they didn't want to take osama, and if a bush were president that wouldn't have changed, and if a clinton is president next year nothing will happen any differently. THEY ARE ALL SAME with little tiny differences to play to the party that are always thrown out the window once they are in... have you heard giuliani, mccain, romney, obama, and clinton talk... the only tiny differences will be thrown out come december of next year... If hillary wins there will be some sort of bump in the road that will complicate things from taking ALL the troops out of iraq, and if someone else wins it will be the same, the troops are there for at least a few decades and nothing will be changing because we keep electing the same assholes. I'm not saying they should be taken out, but hillary isn't going to change anything radically from say what gw would do.

[nevadamedic]

The height of irresponsibility like Clinton ignoring the situation for 8 years and passing it on to Bush?

Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Edwards are all hippocrits as they all voted for the war, and now since they are running for President they are atacking it.

[avatar4321]

HA HA HA, you ARE new here, you have reversed the roles. as usual it is the Conservative who are nasy and rude, (and rather unrealistic.)at least to a large part, rather than the other way around.

You are obviously new around here too cause thats a bunch of bull:)

[avatar4321]

when are people going to realize that all the political higher ups play for the same team, they are in it together... the only reason their are two parties for these cookie cutter candidates is so they can fool people and play to both sides(everyone) and then blame each other when things go wrong... truth is nothing different would have happened, they didn't want to take osama, and if a bush were president that wouldn't have changed, and if a clinton is president next year nothing will happen any differently. THEY ARE ALL SAME with little tiny differences to play to the party that are always thrown out the window once they are in... have you heard giuliani, mccain, romney, obama, and clinton talk... the only tiny differences will be thrown out come december of next year... If hillary wins there will be some sort of bump in the road that will complicate things from taking ALL the troops out of iraq, and if someone else wins it will be the same, the troops are there for at least a few decades and nothing will be changing because we keep electing the same assholes. I'm not saying they should be taken out, but hillary isn't going to change anything radically from say what gw would do.

Sorry, but I have a very hard time taking anyone who says both parties are the same on everything seriously when there are very obvious differences. Its just a way to be lazy.

[chum43]

Sorry, but I have a very hard time taking anyone who says both parties are the same on everything seriously when there are very obvious differences. Its just a way to be lazy.

explain to me then why every president in modern history has run a very polarizing campaign and ended up being completely middle of the road once in office often upsetting the base of the party and simply not caring... it's exactly why republicans always say no new taxes and democrats always say we won't go to war... it's why we haven't had a balanced budget in decades despite hearing about one constantly. The differences are all talk, but yeah they are there, they just don't show up in their actions as president. by the time you start hating one side for going astray the other side steps in with the "solution".

[waterrescuedude2000]

Well I say that we should be in Iraq I have quite a few friends that were there and the liberal media makes it look 10 times worse than it actually is. I also think that the world is much better off without people like Saddam in it.

[Psychoblues]

And many millions of people think the World would be much better without gwb in it.



Well I say that we should be in Iraq I have quite a few friends that were there and the liberal media makes it look 10 times worse than it actually is. I also think that the world is much better off without people like Saddam in it.

Despite our differences, WELCOME TO DP!!!!!!!! Come on in and have great time. I would offer you a refreshment but the population here would rather piss and moan and ignore the life and fun of participation and pretty much shut my bar down.

Anyways, have a good time and check in when you feel like it!!!!!!!!!!!