Dale Mabry

I think his point is that anyone who is against the war is against the troops in the mind of the GOP, when in all reality, not a single politician is for the troops. As much rhetoric as this bringing the troops back thing is, using the troops and then cutting their health benefits is hypocritical.

It is nearly impossible to have a discussion on one political topic and not include others when you have chosen a side.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

KelJu

OMG, somebody gets it. I'm going to quit now.

BoneCrusher

Ohhhh but you were doing so well. You had double quotes in one post and more than one paragraph. It was like your brain exploded all over the thread ... pretty cool really.

KelJu

Political threads always have me by the time I'm done.

BoneCrusher

These threads are here to get you to think, to learn, and to activate you in some way. Whether that means you get inspired to participate in the political process and maybe even go out and vote, or you sit atop the UT Clock Tower with an M1 garrand is all a matter of genetics.

This shit is good for your college writing skills though ... . You prolly left poly-sci behind you a long time ago?

KelJu

My old boss got me turned on to AM radio when I was a freshman in college. Music stations suck balls in Mobile, so I would rather listen to conservative talk radio than tennie-bop music. It took my a year to realize that conservative radio was 95% bullshit. I listened to Rush, Sean, Bill, Boortz, and Ingram while I was at work. Then we got sirrus radio and I finally got some decent news listening to NPR.

BoneCrusher

Patriot radio ... channel 144 on your radio dial
Octane ... channel 20
PLANET JAZZ ... channel 70
World Radio Network 140

dg806

I agree with this 100%. But like others have said, lets stick to the original topic..........The dems vote to withdraw troops. You can't leave them stranded. And we can't pull out. What bothers me the most is the democrats willingness to give up. I don't want them in control when something else happens. AND IT WILL. No matter how bad Bush has screwed up, I will not vote democrat as long as this thinking prevails.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

Dale Mabry

This logic is flawed. I agree that pulling out is illogical and a political ploy. But, the dems being against this war has nothing to do with whether they would act if we were attacked. Remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The fact that most dems voted for action shows they would have at least done something, one would only hope that it wouldn't be to attack a country that had nothing to do with the aggressive act.

In fact, if I were a GOP guy, I would be asking the dems why they voted for it in the first place if they are so dead set against it and it is obvious that attacking Iraq was wrong. If it was so obvious, maybe some of them should have done their jobs and investigated the intelligence rather than just blindly following it.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

Big Smoothy

I think the Dems are stuck in a hard place.

Why?

Because there are elections in 19 months. 1/3 of the Senate. 1/3 of the House. Also, a Presidential election.


They have two tents that are each filled with a few different groups in general, IMO.

1. Withdraw (some/or all)
or, Set Time-table to withdraw
reduce funding/or cut funding

but somehow keep

2. "supporting" the effort with sufficient funds. "support troops"
keep current level of funds, reduce funds

Remember: the insurgents are not running for election.


The American politicians are.

dg806

I don't think it is. They have a track record of being soft. Maybe they would lob a cruise missle in the middle of the desert like Clinton did?
I'm not that type of person. Stand very firm and act aggressively IMO is what you need today.
Like someone else said earlier, the dems just change course depending on what they think the polls say and what they think will get them elected. They really STILL have nothing to stand on. That is what hurt them in the last two presidential elections. Sadly, it looks like the republicans are headed the same route.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

Decker

No. Most of the democrats fell for the mushroom cloud, 500 tons of sarin gas, etc that Powell fed to the UN. That bullshit evidence was cherrypicked by the Office of Special Plans created by Cheney/Rumsfeld to compete with the information provided by the CIA by playing up any evidence of weapons allegedly possessed by Iraq meanwhile eliminating any countervailing evidence.

The stupid democrats trusted Bush--big mistake--and wanted to look stalwart in the wake of 9/11 attacks.

You might be right. But your point is irrelevant. Congress granted Bush the authority to use force in dealing with Iraq.

Since Iraq did not attack the US or an ally nor did Iraq pose an imminent threat, the only legal recourse Bush had for attacking Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions. That's why Bush went to the UN asking to enforce the sanctions and Powell did his little dance of deception flanked by Tenet.

Back to your point, it doesn't matter what Bush or the Congress believed about Iraq's WMDs after the grant of authority to use force. What mattered was the execution of that force under UN Resolution 1441.

Bush ordered the invasion prior to the WMD inspectors finishing their inspections. Even if the inspectors had found evidence of WMDs, Bush still could not have ordered an attack until the entire UN Security Council authorized an attack for the purposes of disarmament. Bush misused his authority in ordering the invasion--that's a war of aggression and a war crime.

In short, it didn't matter what Bush, Clinton, me or you thought about Iraq's possible possession of WMDs.

Decker

So continuing an ill-conceived and illegal invasion is the best course of action for the US? Continue breaking the law with impunity....? Whose interests are being served by continuing this mess in Iraq?

You say democrats are soft? Is that like a president that fires all generals that disagree with him about the military handling of Iraq b/c he can't take legitimate professional criticism? Or outing a WMD covert agent for same reason...

Incidentally almost all politcians blow with poll results.

dg806

For the 100th time, The US is not under control of the UN and does not nor should not take ANY directives from them. SCREW THE UN! If it was me, I would tear down the UN office in NYC and throw them all out of the country.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

dg806

Do you think the democrats are ready to take the blame for the de-stabilization of the region and the world when we pull out?

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

BoneCrusher

SOmehow we have got to walk away from this thing in a way that doesn't leave us in a worse off situation with terrorism. Right now that is exactly where we are. Iraq and Afghanistan are now charged up and ready for a fight, militarily prepared, and financially secure. We just leave that situation as is and we will see shit start blowing up all around the United States.

Decker I'm with you that the war is bogus in its inception. I've made my point that clearly BushCo is guilty of treason. The situation has evolved to a point though that somewhere the Islamic fundamentalists are going to be blowing shit up. All we can really do at this point is ask our selves WHERE we want the bombs to go off ... Here?????? or there?

Right wrong or in between it is what it is. I'm old school. If I know you want to get in my face I don't wait for you to come to me in your time & in your way ... I come to you on my terms and end you. So no I hate it as much as anyone here, but we're screwed now. We have no choice but to come to terms that will provide a safe exit strategy for America. Just packing our shit and flying home will not do that. They will follow us over here and keep on fighting.

Big Smoothy

The region will be a Shiite block that supports Hezbollah and will be heavily allied with Iran, no matter when the U.S. pulls out.


What is the advantage to the Al-Maliki/Al-Sadr/Al-Hakim government if the U.S. pulled out now? Or next year? 5 years?


They could slaughter the Sunnis in a massive sectarian cleansing.

How?

They have the numbers, and the police force, and the militias.


It is only a matter of time. Next year, 2 years, or five years, before the the sectarian cleansing begins.


By Al-Maliki's behaviour it's obvious to see this is where it's going.

BoneCrusher

We have to position our selves so that we back the winning team BEFORE they become the winners. There will be no "cleansing" of the sunnis since 80% of Islam is sunni, but there is already a sectarian war afoot. We just need to wind this down in a way that puts us in a better strategary.

Decker

Then why did Bush ask the UN to use force to ensure Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions?

Why didn't Bush have Congress declare war on Iraq?

Why didn't Bush just order the attack under the War Powers Resolution?

Why did he use the UN?

B/c if he didn't, he would be guilty of starting a war of aggression. That's a war crime.

Funny thing is, he ended up doing that anyways.

The holdings from the Nuremberg trials are still valid today.

Decker

I understand your point and I respect you for it.

Here's how I see it. Controlling terrorism is a police effort and not a military endeavor. All our invasion is doing is creating more and more terrorists. We are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and those on the fence worldwide.

Also, tell it to Spain and England that we have to fight them over there so as not to fight them here.

I cannot endorse prolonging an illegal activity b/c of fear of reprisal. Let the cops/FBI/CIA do their jobs and nail these bastards with good police work. I don't see how we can achieve any sort of comparable goal militarily.

dg806

If all that holds any water at all, Sadaam should have been tried and hanged after his invasion of Kuwait. Things are different today, and we will have to be proactive in our approach if we wish to reamain a nation. What will it take to prove otherwise? Loosing several of our biggest cities in a nuclear blast? North Korea and Iran should have already been dealt with.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

dg806

I strongly disagree. Too many strings attached to do anything. Not enough money in 90% of the Departments, save the large cities, to do anything. If it comes to this country, and I believe it will, the military will be involved.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

Decker

If we want to be proactive, then why in the hell did we attack a country that did not attack us on 9/11 and held Al Qaeda in contempt as another religious nutgroup?

It looks like you are equating 'dealt with' to the 'final solution.'

Are you proposing that we annihilate with nuclear bombs any country that has nuclear capabilities and interests divergent from those held in the US?...proactive armageddon?

Decker

I think we can dig up the funds. Bush has already pissed away over 500 billion dollars in Iraq.

That doesn't even scratch the surface for long-term costs for wounded soldiers, loss of life, maintaining a US presence in Iraq indefinitely. It could be trillions.

What do we get for it? Terrorism grows worldwide exponentially. America is viewed as the aggressor bad guy. There is no forseeable end to the violence.

Military action is messy and creates more problems than it solves. Leave it to the professional crime fighters to take care of terrorists. Remember, it was 19 guys with box cutters that attacked us.

dg806

It's not that easy. Dig up funds?? The feds are not going to give money to local departments. The only way local departments will get money is through tax increases. I don't want my tax money going for police to do military work toward countering terroism.
The only reason this bill passed, is because the republicans let it slide through because they did not want to delay the money for the troops and they know Bush will veto it anyway. So it will come back and at some point, the president and republicans will have to sit down with the democrats and work out a mutal agreeable solution.

1-Andro Rx Pro-hormone

Big Smoothy

Sir,

There IS cleansing of Sunni going on right now - in Iraq.

And there will be more cleansing of Sunni - in Iraq in the near and long-term future.

Yes, 80% of the world population is Sunni.

and 63% of the population of Iraq is Shiite (minus the Kurds in the north) and 31% of the population is Sunni in Iraq.


It's over and done.

It doesn't matter how long the U.S. stays or when it leaves..

It's just a postponement.


For a good reference: read Robert D. Kaplan's book about this topic called Balkan Ghosts.

Decker

Didn't Clinton's crime bill give funds to municipal PDs to put 100,000 new cops on the beat?


Bush just requested $100 Billion for the troops for 2008. If there's a will, there's a way.

Where do you think that $100 billion is coming from? Trickle down economics? I'm just kidding.

BoneCrusher

I wasn't aware we were focusing on Iran politics ... I missed that. My bad ...

BoneCrusher

Okay then lets put up or shut up. Let US come up with a plan and see where that goes. We have Decker that say we should leave skid marks as we burn off outta there. We know that won't happen, it's just not realistic. Leaving out the impossible ... we then see a need to pull out but HOW is the $100 billion dollar question.

Everyone has an opinion on what shoulda been done ... how about your solution on how to fix it?

lnvanry

minus the kurds? They account for 15-20%
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/iz.html

Blacks account for 12% and latinos account for 12-13% of the US population. Would you just ignore them? Thats 1/5 of the population...only 5million people

80% of the world population?...you mean 80% of muslims are sunni, right?
and its more like 85%
1st Islamic Web: Learn About The Fastest Growing Religion... Islam! Why not Explore & Be convinced