Fishermage, as you policies "encourage" (invade) freedom everywhere, the country is broke, our institutions are failing (health care, education), our infrastructure is deteriorating (bridges falling), jobs are being lost, companies are going bankrupt, one in six American households are in foreclosure, the military is over-stretched, and I will stop for now.
And you are spending your time "encouraging" democracy and freedom.
Look
Some people, cultures do not want "freedom" (they do not want a culture of children wearing hardly any clothes) and
Maybe we should "encourage" freedom and growth in our country?
Fishermage, as you policies "encourage" (invade) freedom everywhere, the country is broke, our institutions are failing (health care, education), our infrastructure is deteriorating (bridges falling), jobs are being lost, companies are going bankrupt, one in six American households are in foreclosure, the military is over-stretched, and I will stop for now.
And you are spending your time "encouraging" democracy and freedom.
Look
Some people, cultures do not want "freedom" (they do not want a culture of children wearing hardly any clothes) and Maybe we should "encourage" freedom and growth in our country?
There you go again...more straw men that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Typical. How about sticking to one subject, rather than moving onto another after you lose an argument?
How about sticking to the words and definitions I am using instead of equivocating and then arguing something I'm not saying at all?
Either way, I DO believe we need to encourage liberty and growth in our country -- it is YOU who don't, as we have seen repeatedly on these boards.
However, liberty and growth in the US will not cost our government a penny -- in fact the way to do that is with less government at all levels. That leaves MORE money to fight the greatest enemy in our history.
Originally posted by Fishermage Either way, I DO believe we need to encourage liberty and growth in our country -- it is YOU who don't, as we have seen repeatedly on these boards. However, liberty and growth in the US will not cost our government a penny -- in fact the way to do that is with less government at all levels. That leaves MORE money to fight the greatest enemy in our history.
If anything, I have been crystal clear on the importance of rebuilding the United States of America. "You who don't." Whatever.
"Growth in the US will not cost our government a penny." Your policies of invasion, war, tax cuts, HUGE government are not working. You have
Bankrupted the government
Invaded at least two countries (with no evidence of success)
Created a MASSIVE federal giant bureaucracy - Homeland Security Department
Implemented tax cuts that have not helped working Americans or the economy
Done nothing on health care, education, or the country's infrastructure; but
Keep talking about "the greatest enemy in our history."
Pardon me if I think your policies do not work, and your "greatest enemy in history" theme is lunacy.
You do realize that protecting our ALLIES is part of defending our country don't you? IF they fall so do we. We went into Iraq, not for our interests but to preserve Europe. why do you think Britain never allowed NATO to vote on it? they pulled it from the floor, because they knew this had to be. Unless Europe is set free from Russian oil , they will continued to be under the strong arm of Russia. It is a matter of securing Europes future for the US to keep the oil flowing from Iraq to Europe.
WOW ......I guess the biggest problem with this is the idea that going to War with Iraq is a good way to effect this outcome. I wish anyone could explain to me how making Iran the dominate player in the Middle East (The only real effect of this War) is good for anyone other than Iran. We went to War in Iraq for two reasons. Bush was a psychopath and Blair was weak. The outcome has and will continue to be a disaster.
Still, the Islamic fundamentalist have made out pretty well over the deal. Hey Bush note to self when you have two equally strength, sized and diametrically opposed groups in a enemy region.....leave them alone. They tend to fight it out among them self. You destroy one, they just become one bigger enemy.....dummy.
I say it again, failure of this magnitude must be punished or our system of government losses all credibility. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Actually, that kind of realpolitik was what LED to 9/11. That has to stop. America needs to be a consistent friend to liberty, not stability. Well, in that liberty and rule of law is in the long run the only stable form of government, one ends up with what one wanted.
Iran is not stronger due to our actions, in fact, it is now surrounded, it;s economy is in shambles -- far worse than ours, and Israel has the free fly zone she needed. Look at the map. Then you will see our strategy, First Iraq, then Iran, the Syria - meanwhile we need to encourage Saudi Arabia to liberalize along with the rest of that part of the region.
the biggest mistake we've made is not pushig liberty enough in Pakistan, but that's still coming along.
Then, slowly but surely continue to fight the Jihad in the Phillipines, and africa as well. This is world war three. may as well get used to it -- and realize we are not telegraphing our punches or our strategy. This is a new, long war, and we have to stop thinking in the cold war boxes you seem to still be thinking of.
9/11 wasn't caused by any (relevant) type of thinking, or anything else the West did. It was caused by ignorant hate filled religious (conservative) terrorist. They are the only ones to blame.
Iran is in-fact much stronger as a result of our actions. Iran is a religious state. Iraq was a secular state and was Iran's biggest threat. Remember that recent eight year war, and with who you might ask (Iraq/Iran). This simple fact alone makes Iran much stronger, but the real problem is much deeper. As a secular police state, Iraq controlled and isolated a large portion of the regions Shi'a population. What is the dominate religious persuasion in Iran you ask. Thats right grasshopper, it's Shi'a. This mean Iran is now a much stronger religious state with much more influence in the region and Iraq is completely destabilized.
Don't believe me just ask George Bush Sr., he was smart enough to realize this and pull our forces out the first time. His son, on the other hand, was a weak minded fool trying to outdo his father, and now Americas children will be paying for his stupidity for a very long time.
So, I say for the third time now, failure of this magnitude must be punished or our system of government losses all credibility. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
BTW...You want to save the world thats fine.....Just don't use my tax dollars to do it...If I want to see a crusade, I'll go to a museum.
read what I wrote, I didn't say any kind of thinking caused 9-11. just that it LED TO 9-11. I have been studying militant Islam since before it happened, and I know who and what COMMITTED Those acts. I am talking about what could we have done to prevent it.
We could have stopped 9/11 if we had been more involved in Afghanistan. We could have stopped 9/11 if we had been following a policy of freedom instead of coddling dictators.
Iraq was not "secular," it was another Islamic fascist state, even if it was more secular than Iran. Saddam wanted to be the leader of the caliphate as much as bin Laden does, as much as Ahmadinijaad does. I notice you just state that Iran is much stronger, yet provide no evidence. You don't define strength and you don't support it, just make the same unsubstantiated fact. How is Iran stronger,. I see a weaker economy and less respect in theregion, and more and more of the world turning against them.
You seem to be saying all Shi'a muslims want to be ruled by religious fascism -- that is simply not true. Most shia in Iraq want nothing to do with Iran.
George Bush Sr's bungle in iraq exacerbated the problems and didn't help anyone. By betraying the shia in Iraq he broke trust and made or job more difficult.
4000 lives to defeat two countries is a failure? I guess to a Democrat. Historically it is a stunning success and a testament to how great our military is. It's not about saving the world (there's the straw man here), but about defeating a JIhad that will destroy everything. I understand, it is difficult to admit the threats we face, and far, far easier to attack politicians and people on forum boards rather than actually face the people who want to destroy you.
I understand that good people can disagree on this and it is a hard reality to face.
This one is actually pretty easy. The situation on the ground doesn't support your argument. We'll all be dead and buried before that stable, healthy, functioning Iraq (one that is not lost to Iranian influence) ever comes about. Period, end of argument.
What we have here is a situation that has clearly resulted as a result of a failure. W was a dreamer who should have listened to his daddy. Our children will be paying for it for a long time.
Originally posted by deviliscious Do you think in the entire history of the US that it has ever mattered whether or not The people that lived in the occupied area wanted the US to be there ? look at Texas for example.. we were actually brought back to the union at gunpoint, we were " we were occupied" no one here was jumping up and down about the US taking us over. LOL! It honestly makes no difference whether the people want us there or not, diplomatic process? LOL that is a joke right? You do, of course, realize the difference. Texas applied for Statehood, to become a part of the United States of America. Iraq, to the best of my knowledge, has never applied for Statehood, to become a part of the United States of America. You rebelled against the lawful government of the United States which you had agreed to accept, Iraq did not. Statehood is not a revolving door, to be applied for when Texas feels it to their advantage, and to be revoked when Texas feels it is not to there advantage, only to be applied for again when Texas needs something. Frankly, I wish we would have let the south go their own way. The North had the industrialized economy, the South was still living on feudal agricultural fiefs dependant on serfs. History has shown what the standard of living is in every nation that failed to move from an agrarian society to an industrial society. Do you think it is an accident of history that an industrial nation the size of Great Britain could carve out an empire that the sun never set on? Cry me a river about all the disadvantages you have suffered having been forced to remain as a member of the United States. Since when have we ever cared what anyone else interests are, we do what is in our best interests, and it is in our best interests to make sure the oil stays flowing to Europe.. Honestly i think all of this "peacekeeping " nonsese .. is just that, we are "controlling the area" so that we can carry out our objectives, "liberating" and "peacekeeping" is just another way at stating "we are the boss of you." comply or you will regret it. Then why are you attacking Obama's position on military withdrawal from Iraq? You do realize you are defending McCain's position that we maintain a continued long term military presence in Iraq? How does a long term military presence in Iraq further the interests of the United States? Why is it in the interests of the United States that the oil keeps flowing to Europe? Long term foreign policy of the United States has alway, always, always been directed at trade relationships with Asia. That goes back to before 1800. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, or had Hitler not declared war in response to our declaration of war on Japan, we never would have gone into Europe. Our commitment to WW 1 was minor compared to the European commitment, and only came about as a response to the German's unrestricted submarine warfare. Historically, the United States has always looked to the East, not to Europe. Our interests lie in developing new Asian markets for trade, not in Europe. Strategic neccessity and being welcome have never gone hand in hand, I have no clue why they would even try to put on the show that it does, it would have been better to just state" this is what we need to do to secure the area" whether or not anyone likes it here or not. Then all the bitching and moaning about us being there would have not mattered so much to the whole objective. Peacekeeping BS, has never been our objective.. you don;t seriously believe it ever was do you? This is war, it is not "moral or pretty" lol. It is a matter of survival. There is absolutely zero strategic necessity for the United States to be in Iraq. None, nada. The strategic necessity is to keep oil flowing to the Asian markets so that we can develope their economies to establish mutually beneficial trade relationships. This also requires the Asians to like us. Think of China and India as strong trade partners and allies of the United States. The balance of geo-political power in the world shifts dramatically. Iran is the source of oil to the largest Asian market in the world. Should our foreign policy interrupt the flow of oil to China we would be unable to develope their economy to the point that we would create a mutually beneficial trade relationship. Right now that is somewhat a moot point, as our irresponsible credit management policies have managed to torpedo most of the economies around the world. United States foreign policy must continue along the lines developed 200 years ago, to look East, not West. Asia is our economic future. China, Korea, India, and Japan are our where our national interests lie. Continual Imperialist adventures in Iraq and Iran are detremental to US strategic policy. Bush fought the wrong war, for the wrong national interests, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The sooner we distance ourselves from that mistake and get back on the track of long term American foreign policy interests the better.
This is war, it is not "moral or pretty" lol. It is a matter of survival.
If you really believe that , would you please get together with all your aristocratic friends and find a way to fight this one with out losing.
Yea I know how we can win it .. just the"moral world" would highly object. There would be mass civilians casualties, but yes, it would be much more effective, and the war would end a heelaofalot sooner.
Except there is no valid reason for this war!
Had Bush had an ounce of intelligence and followed 200 years of American foreign policy, which by the way, culminated with Nixon opening the gateway to Red China, we would be a member of an Asian trading block dealing with the sheiks from a position of global economic strength.
Bush is about as dense as Truman. Truman turned his back on a stupid little brown man named Ho Chi Min, who, at the end of WW 2, thought the US was aces and wanted our help in keeping the French out so there could be an independant Vietnam. But Truman sold out little brown Vietnamese brother for our nice white cousins, the French, and we are only now recovering from that piss poor decision, at the cost of countless US and Vietnamese lives.
There was never a valid reason for the Vietnam War either. It was the continuance of a failed European Colonial policy, just like the United States insists on continuing a failed European Colonial policy in the Middle East.
Approximately 200 years ago a decision was made that the United States would stay out of European Colonial problems and look East for trade partners. Every time we lose sight of the objective we find ourselves in a serious clusterfuck.
Originally posted by deviliscious You do, of course, realize the difference. Texas applied for Statehood, to become a part of the United States of America. Iraq, to the best of my knowledge, has never applied for Statehood, to become a part of the United States of America. You rebelled against the lawful government of the United States which you had agreed to accept, Iraq did not. Our founding fathers were considered" rebels, or criminals" in the eyes of their government at the time ( England) . The people who created our country never intended it to be run like this. No, they wanted liberty, justice, and freedom for the US. "we the people" meant exactly that, it was never intended for the people to be ruled by someone from somewhere else, and for the power of the states to be stripped from them. When there comes a time that the government strips the power of the people it should be the states decision to determine whether or not they want to be a part of it. If you do not live in that state you have no right to make decisions for it, the people there do. Statehood is not a revolving door, to be applied for when Texas feels it to their advantage, and to be revoked when Texas feels it is not to there advantage, only to be applied for again when Texas needs something. Texas never chose to come back to the US, we had planned at that time to leave for good. We were forced back at gunpoint, and it was never agreed upon, in fact people are still disputing whether or not we are legally a state at all, because we were an "occupied territory" . Every year, the first vote the texas legislature takes is 1. whether or not we would like to divide into 5 separate states, and 2. do we wish to secede from the union?
Then why are you attacking Obama's position on military withdrawal from Iraq? That is just it, I am not attacking his position on troop withdrawl, what exactly is his position? He said " he never wanted troops to be withrawn from Iraq, and that he opposed an artifical timeline to withdraw them" then he said he wanted a decisive timeline to withdraw troops, then he said that we need to rebuild Afganistan, The point with him is no one has any idea what he wants he changes his mind so damn much it is scary, when it comes to war that is diturbing. You do realize you are defending McCain's position that we maintain a continued long term military presence in Iraq? SO we should just leave it defenseless? I mean it would be great if the Brits want to come on over and defend it themselves, but IF they do that Russia isn;t going to respond well. How does a long term military presence in Iraq further the interests of the United States? Helping our allies is in the interests of the US, without them we will fall. Why is it in the interests of the United States that the oil keeps flowing to Europe? Because without Europe we do not have a chance to fend off all these guys by ourselves. LOL! Long term foreign policy of the United States has alway, always, always been directed at trade relationships with Asia. That goes back to before 1800. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, or had Hitler not declared war in response to our declaration of war on Japan, we never would have gone into Europe. Yes and from WW2 we learned that we can never allow those that wish to destroy us all to get that powerful again, it is happenening again, too much power, and if we do not stop them now, how will stop them when they start nuking us? Our commitment to WW 1 was minor compared to the European commitment, and only came about as a response to the German's unrestricted submarine warfare. Historically, the United States has always looked to the East, not to Europe. Our interests lie in developing new Asian markets for trade, not in Europe. Europe is our ally, they come to our aid, we come to theirs, they are our friends, and we do not turn our backs on them. If we do not help them who will help us stand when the same people who wish to destroy them come knocking on our door? Look at how much of the world the "bad guys" already have... we taking them all on by ourselves? How will we stop these people later if we just allow them to gain strength against us? There is absolutely zero strategic necessity for the United States to be in Iraq. None, nada. The strategic necessity is to keep oil flowing to the Asian markets so that we can develope their economies to establish mutually beneficial trade relationships. This also requires the Asians to like us. Think of China and India as strong trade partners and allies of the United States. The balance of geo-political power in the world shifts dramatically. So you would have us abandon Europe and allow Russia to gain even more power ? Our allies are currently at war right now along side us , they are fighting this too, we are not alone here, we cannot do this alone, and it is madness to think we should abandon our European friends? They are just as important to the free world. Iran is the source of oil to the largest Asian market in the world. Should our foreign policy interrupt the flow of oil to China we would be unable to develope their economy to the point that we would create a mutually beneficial trade relationship. Right now that is somewhat a moot point, as our irresponsible credit management policies have managed to torpedo most of the economies around the world. United States foreign policy must continue along the lines developed 200 years ago, to look East, not West. Asia is our economic future. China, Korea, India, and Japan are our where our national interests lie. Continual Imperialist adventures in Iraq and Iran are detremental to US strategic policy. You do realize that Japan sent troops into Iraq with us, they were one of the few that actually went into Iraq with us, not just afganhistan. If japan did not support this, why did they go in as well?
Bush fought the wrong war, for the wrong national interests, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The sooner we distance ourselves from that mistake and get back on the track of long term American foreign policy interests the better.
We cannot take an eraser to this, it will nevr go away. It is not like life is a video game and we can just start over and erase the previous scores. We cannot "distance" ourselves from this, we did it we are stuck with it, no matter how much I did not want our ground troops in there, we can;t take it back now. Until we come up with a better plan for the defense of Iraq, it is our responsiblity to defend it.
I mean unless we should just fully take over the mission in afganhistan and send all of NATO to Iraq to defend it there isn't many options here. LOL< hand it over to Isreal to manage? geeze lol talk about drop kicking us into Armegeddon! lol People are already flippin out over any from isreal being anywhere near Iraq right now... I am just kidding, there is no way we should let isreal into Iraq ( though we have already) it is madness to do so with how explosive this area already is.
Democracy's don't follow there miltary....In a democracy the military follows and protects the civilians, even at there own peril.
Something Bush taught them all to well.
I don't think anyone said anything about democracy following the military, no.. have no idea where that came from lol. Babble up there was saying that "young republicans" don't have the courage to go to war basically.. well looks to me that they have plenty of courage from the graphs at military times. Our soldiers are not asking to be rescued, they want to finish the job. They do not want their children to have to come back and finish the job their parents didn't. If we lose this war it will not be due to our military, it will be because we didn't allow our troops to finish the job, so that we never have to go back, our children do not have to go back and that our grandchildren do not have to go back. They want to get it done right the first time.
United States foreign policy must continue along the lines developed 200 years ago, to look East, not West. Asia is our economic future. China, Korea, India, and Japan are our where our national interests lie. Continual Imperialist adventures in Iraq and Iran are detremental to US strategic policy. Bush fought the wrong war, for the wrong national interests, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The sooner we distance ourselves from that mistake and get back on the track of long term American foreign policy interests the better.
I don't see any way around this. We are just throwing good money after bad (as they say). The sooner we realize our mistake and move on the better. You can only call so many times, sooner or later you have to put your cards on the table and see how they lay. The Arab nations have a far greater interest in a stable Iraq than we ever will. Not to mention the fact that the only peace they will ever accept is one that they themselves create.
Democracy's don't follow there miltary....In a democracy the military follows and protects the civilians, even at there own peril.
Something Bush taught them all to well.
I don't think anyone said anything about democracy following the military, no.. have no idea where that came from lol. Babble up there was saying that "young republicans" don't have the courage to go to war basically.. well looks to me that they have plenty of courage from the graphs at military times. Our soldiers are not asking to be rescued, they want to finish the job. They do not want their children to have to come back and finish the job their parents didn't. If we lose this war it will not be due to our military, it will be because we didn't allow our troops to finish the job, so that we never have to go back, our children do not have to go back and that our grandchildren do not have to go back. They want to get it done right the first time.
I stand corrected.
Our military has been nothing if not courageous and long suffering. It's time to give them the leadership they deserve. I only hope our next president is up to that challenge.
Originally posted by deviliscious You do, of course, realize the difference. Texas applied for Statehood, to become a part of the United States of America. Iraq, to the best of my knowledge, has never applied for Statehood, to become a part of the United States of America. You rebelled against the lawful government of the United States which you had agreed to accept, Iraq did not. Our founding fathers were considered" rebels, or criminals" in the eyes of their government at the time ( England) . The people who created our country never intended it to be run like this. No, they wanted liberty, justice, and freedom for the US. "we the people" meant exactly that, it was never intended for the people to be ruled by someone from somewhere else, and for the power of the states to be stripped from them. When there comes a time that the government strips the power of the people it should be the states decision to determine whether or not they want to be a part of it. If you do not live in that state you have no right to make decisions for it, the people there do. The United States of America was a Federalist government at the time Texas applied for statehood. Texas was an independant sovereign country. You gave up your sovereign rights at the time you applied for Statehood to be a member of a larger, federalist, Government. Nobody forced you to, that was your choice. "We the People" does not mean every Tom, Dick, and Harry can chose to accept the benefits, without the responsibilities any time they so chose. "We the People" does not mean that everyone gets to rule only themselves, that is anarchy. Statehood is not a revolving door, to be applied for when Texas feels it to their advantage, and to be revoked when Texas feels it is not to there advantage, only to be applied for again when Texas needs something. Texas never chose to come back to the US, we had planned at that time to leave for good. We were forced back at gunpoint, and it was never agreed upon, in fact people are still disputing whether or not we are legally a state at all, because we were an "occupied territory" . Every year, the first vote the texas legislature takes is 1. whether or not we would like to divide into 5 separate states, and 2. do we wish to secede from the union? Doesn't matter. You made your initial choice, it was not a revolving door. You applied for Statehood. At no point in time did the United States invade and annex a sovereign Texas country. In fact, no State has ever been forced to join the Union. I find it interesting that the Texas Legislature always votes to secede from the Union, but never votes on whether to accept Federal benefits, such as disaster assistance in wake of a natural disaster. At least you admit that you want the money without any responsibility to the rest of the country. How noble. I notice you decided not to comment on my statement regarding the chances of success of an agrarian south in the post civil war global economy. Once again, you want to receive the benefits of the Union, without any of the responsibilities.
Then why are you attacking Obama's position on military withdrawal from Iraq? That is just it, I am not attacking his position on troop withdrawl, what exactly is his position? He said " he never wanted troops to be withrawn from Iraq, and that he opposed an artifical timeline to withdraw them" then he said he wanted a decisive timeline to withdraw troops, then he said that we need to rebuild Afganistan, The point with him is no one has any idea what he wants he changes his mind so damn much it is scary, when it comes to war that is diturbing. Yet McCain is no better, and you consistently fail to attack his policy. Neither candidate understands 200 years of US foreign policy. US foreign policy is not something that is created anew every 4 or 8 years with the change in the wind direction. You do realize you are defending McCain's position that we maintain a continued long term military presence in Iraq? SO we should just leave it defenseless? I mean it would be great if the Brits want to come on over and defend it themselves, but IF they do that Russia isn;t going to respond well. The Europeans washed their hands of their colonial mess by the 1960s. Once again I will re-iterate for you.....US military forces are not seen by the Iraqi people as part of the solution, but rather as part of the problem. It is time for us to go, and conduct an orderly rotation of removing our forces and bringing in peace keeping forces of other Islamic nations. Who exactly do you think attacks are being launched against in Iraq? You think everyone in the country except Americans is the target? I have a surprise for you sweety, American military forces are the target. Remove American military forces and replace them with Islamic peace keeping forces will not increase the violence. How does a long term military presence in Iraq further the interests of the United States? Helping our allies is in the interests of the US, without them we will fall. Which allies? What failure? Our interests and allies are in Asia, not Europe, not the Middle East. When do these so called "allies" return the favor? By adding China, Indonesia, and India to our mutual trade relationships that now include Korea and Japan the United States grows stronger. You are arguing that we maintain loyal ties to unspecified allies that do not reciprocate and make us stronger. Why is it in the interests of the United States that the oil keeps flowing to Europe? Because without Europe we do not have a chance to fend off all these guys by ourselves. LOL! Fend of what guys, China, India, Indonesia? Are you dense, a strategic alliance with a developed China, India, and Indonesia is much stronger both economically and militarily than with Europe. Once we have formed this bond, Riyadh will come to us for a piece of the action. And we'll sell it to them. Long term foreign policy of the United States has alway, always, always been directed at trade relationships with Asia. That goes back to before 1800. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, or had Hitler not declared war in response to our declaration of war on Japan, we never would have gone into Europe. Yes and from WW2 we learned that we can never allow those that wish to destroy us all to get that powerful again, it is happenening again, too much power, and if we do not stop them now, how will stop them when they start nuking us? What? We entered WW 2 because of the direct conflict between the United States and Japan over access to the Asian markets. Ever hear of the Greater Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere? It didn't include the United States. It has absolutely nothing to do with "those that wanted to destroy us", it was market driven. The Japanese didn't take Hawaii because it was not within their pre-defined sphere, it was intentional, not a mistake. And exactly where did Hitler ever say, before Germany declared war on the United States, that he "wanted to destroy us"? Do you have any concept at all about American History? What do they teach you in school down there in Texas, that Texas was forced to join the Union, that Emperor Hirohito "wanted to destroy us"? Our commitment to WW 1 was minor compared to the European commitment, and only came about as a response to the German's unrestricted submarine warfare. Historically, the United States has always looked to the East, not to Europe. Our interests lie in developing new Asian markets for trade, not in Europe. Europe is our ally, they come to our aid, we come to theirs, they are our friends, and we do not turn our backs on them. If we do not help them who will help us stand when the same people who wish to destroy them come knocking on our door? Look at how much of the world the "bad guys" already have... we taking them all on by ourselves? How will we stop these people later if we just allow them to gain strength against us? Europe is not our ally, they are our competition. They want into the same markets that we do, Asian markets, for the purpose of enriching themselves through mutual trade. Tell me how many European troops their are presently in Iraq compaed to US troops? Where are our so called "allies"? Afghanistan, tell me the comparable troop levels? The Europeans watch us burn up our Gross National Product on military adventures/hardware while they beat the hell out of us economically. Quit thinking like a white person, and look at Asians as our allies. Then, instead of looking at the world the "bad guys" have (post European Colonial areas), look at the world we could have. In the analogy of the glass being half empty, or half full, you are fighting not to lose the half full part. I am telling you that for 200 years American foreign policy has been to fill the rest of the glass with Asian trade, not European. There is absolutely zero strategic necessity for the United States to be in Iraq. None, nada. The strategic necessity is to keep oil flowing to the Asian markets so that we can develope their economies to establish mutually beneficial trade relationships. This also requires the Asians to like us. Think of China and India as strong trade partners and allies of the United States. The balance of geo-political power in the world shifts dramatically. So you would have us abandon Europe and allow Russia to gain even more power ? Our allies are currently at war right now along side us , they are fighting this too, we are not alone here, we cannot do this alone, and it is madness to think we should abandon our European friends? They are just as important to the free world. Go find yourself a globe, not a flat map, but that circular orb that connects East to West. Find Europe, find Russia, now find China. Notice the relationship? Do you think Asian military forces have never before in history gone through Russia like shit through a goose? Oh, sorry, you learned History in Texas, so I'll make it easy for you, they have. And the Russians remember it well. The Russians remember taking a beating from the Japanese at Port Arthur 100 years ago. You think our moving closer to Asian interdependancy is going to be responded to by Putin attacking West? You think Putin will respond by being the lone wolf between a consolidated Asian and a rival consolidated European powerhouse? There is definately no hope for you. Putin will be the filling in a shit sandwich. Iran is the source of oil to the largest Asian market in the world. Should our foreign policy interrupt the flow of oil to China we would be unable to develope their economy to the point that we would create a mutually beneficial trade relationship. Right now that is somewhat a moot point, as our irresponsible credit management policies have managed to torpedo most of the economies around the world. United States foreign policy must continue along the lines developed 200 years ago, to look East, not West. Asia is our economic future. China, Korea, India, and Japan are our where our national interests lie. Continual Imperialist adventures in Iraq and Iran are detremental to US strategic policy. You do realize that Japan sent troops into Iraq with us, they were one of the few that actually went into Iraq with us, not just afganhistan. If japan did not support this, why did they go in as well? Only enough as required to a maintain favorable trade position. It was a token force. It's like a NFL game, the only reason some teams don't get beat 91-0 is that the other team doesn't need to put more points up. You only do what is minimally necessary. Iraq/Afghanistan are not Japan's fight, there will be no major troop commitment from them. It is called a token of goodwill.
Bush fought the wrong war, for the wrong national interests, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The sooner we distance ourselves from that mistake and get back on the track of long term American foreign policy interests the better.
We cannot take an eraser to this, it will nevr go away. It is not like life is a video game and we can just start over and erase the previous scores. We cannot "distance" ourselves from this, we did it we are stuck with it, no matter how much I did not want our ground troops in there, we can;t take it back now. Until we come up with a better plan for the defense of Iraq, it is our responsiblity to defend it.
But it will go away. Truman messed up big time in Vietnam by ignoring Ho Chi Mihn's request not to cave in to French Colonialism. That was a mistake, and we compounded that mistake when we substituted American troops for French troops. Today, we trade with Vietnam, our garmet industry is based there.
Same with China. Truman backed Chang Kai Shek, an unpopular warlord. Just in case you haven't noticed, now China is a major trading partner.
The same can happen in Iran. The same can happen in Iraq. It's called business. When two opposing sides sit down and figure out a way they can make money together, they do.
For all you know the Iraqi and Iranian people are Republican, they just want us to cut out they bullshit so we can all make money. You think the third world likes the idea of living hand to mouth, with no electricity, and no running water?
I mean unless we should just fully take over the mission in afganhistan and send all of NATO to Iraq to defend it there isn't many options here. LOL< hand it over to Isreal to manage? geeze lol talk about drop kicking us into Armegeddon! lol People are already flippin out over any from isreal being anywhere near Iraq right now... I am just kidding, there is no way we should let isreal into Iraq ( though we have already) it is madness to do so with how explosive this area already is.
Your the nut job in this paragraph, not me. All you can see is staying the course with a failed European Colonial policy that doesn't advance the interests of the United States one iota. If you ever get to thinking outside the box, you will realize that there is no reason for us to play militarily in the Middle East, everything that is there we can get by offering participation in an American/Asian economy.
You think Obama is clueless. I think you, Obama, and McCain are clueless. You are all to busy fighting to preserve the past rather than to go out and forge a bold new future.
Here's a simple answer for voting FOR McCain. He wants lower taxes for people making over $250,000 a year. period. Obama wants to raise taxes for people making over $250,000 a year. period.
McCain wants to continue the war on terror. period. Obama wants to end the war on terror. period. IMO Obama wins, because a "War on Terror" is not a war that we can ever win. How will we know when a war on terror is over, when all of the terrorists are dead/disabled? Good luck with that one.
McCain wants to shrink government and cut pork spending. period. Obama already has made it clear he wants to grow government and increase spending. period. Again I vote for Obama because I'm not naive enough to believe that some goverment control = socialism. We need some control on Wall Street to stop the rampant greed of CEO's and execs.
McCain wants the United States to keep her sovereignty. Period. Obama wants the world to dictate our policy. period. I don't understand where you get this stance from. Obaba would never let the world dictate what our policies would be.
If Obama wins, the whole world will think more highly of our country. Look at polls of European countries, the numbers are astounding with how many people support Obama over McCain.
Here's a simple answer for voting FOR McCain. He wants lower taxes for people making over $250,000 a year. period. Obama wants to raise taxes for people making over $250,000 a year. period.
McCain wants to continue the war on terror. period. Obama wants to end the war on terror. period. IMO Obama wins, because a "War on Terror" is not a war that we can ever win. How will we know when a war on terror is over, when all of the terrorists are dead/disabled? Good luck with that one.
McCain wants to shrink government and cut pork spending. period. Obama already has made it clear he wants to grow government and increase spending. period. Again I vote for Obama because I'm not naive enough to believe that some goverment control = socialism. We need some control on Wall Street to stop the rampant greed of CEO's and execs.
McCain wants the United States to keep her sovereignty. Period. Obama wants the world to dictate our policy. period. I don't understand where you get this stance from. Obaba would never let the world dictate what our policies would be.
If Obama wins, the whole world will think more highly of our country. Look at polls of European countries, the numbers are astounding with how many people support Obama over McCain.
Slythe, the tax plan is going to be for people making FAR LESS than 250k. You're being sold a lie.
Besides, let's say you're right...just for argument's sake...
The amount of individuals making 250k could never EVER hope to pay for the proposals Obama has suggested. Not even HALF of them. So where is that money coming from? ....Business. But... Guess what, it's not just big business.....it's SMALL business. making LESS than 250k as a business is not the same as an individual.
My father has a corporation, but he never made 250k with it. But because he's a corp, BAM. taxes go UP.
Small business can't absorb such pain, so they'll lay off...you guessed it... employees. or they'll close up shop and move to....insert any other nation here...why? because the US has the SECOND highest corporate taxes ON THE PLANET. That's why.... so bye bye jobs. bye bye money. Bye bye working man, you're laid off.
.....................
war on terror.
you just said in your response, "we can't win...." well I say you're wrong. And about half this country thinks you're wrong. And ALL/EVERY military person out there says you're wrong. Tell a Marine he can't win...I dare you. Think about this position from any other topic point of view... you're saying "don't bother trying, it's futile...." cmon man you're smarter than that.
.....................
on what other nations think of us.....
Do you know why the UN world headquarters is in NY? the United States really is the world's greatest nation in the history of the world.... here's some facts for ya... No nation has created more wealth. No nation has liberated more people into freedom. No nation has protected more of the world with no strings attached. No nation has given more of it's wealth away to aid other nations....the list goes on and on...and no republican thinks we're perfect....that whole "nationalist" bullshit argument is for the birds and they know it. libs call names when they have no valid retort.
Obama wants us to feel like we've failed at being humans, well that's pure bullshit. We haven't failed. we've succeeded far beyond anyone could ever have thought possible as a nation. despite years of democrats trying to poision our military and water it down, we're STILL the most powerful nation on theplanet and do you see us out there bullying the world? hmmm... I see Norh Korea bullying. I see Iran bullying. I see China bullying. What do we do? We impose sanctions to try and sway policy.
If the Iraq war was about oil as libs still to this day say, then why havn't we just taken all that oil to pay for our war? answer: America has class and respect.
I'm sure there are some on here ready to post links and youtube vids on how evil the us is and how much they are hated by all the planet.
It's easy to hate. Courage....that takes backbone.
"They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States' falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments."
I never heard a lib say Bush expanded the UN in the world. I never heard them say he did more for AIDS than any other person on the planet either.
"Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."
John Bolton nailed them on the head.
"For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain -- only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator -- life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. "I keep my mouth shut," said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain. "Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington," in search of jobs in an Obama administration.
"It will be devastating if Obama loses," the official said. "There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome."
The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration's lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia."
Note how McCAin got credit for responding with the Russian issue. Obama had no clue how to deal with it.
Originally posted by Faxxer war on terror. you just said in your response, "we can't win...." well I say you're wrong. And about half this country thinks you're wrong. And ALL/EVERY military person out there says you're wrong. Tell a Marine he can't win...I dare you. Think about this position from any other topic point of view... you're saying "don't bother trying, it's futile...." cmon man you're smarter than that.
Not true, I have two friends who are Marines stationed at Twentynine Palms here in Cali, and one of them agrees with me on this. He isn't against the war mind you, in fact he would probably agree with you on every thing that you said in your post (they are both Republicans) except for us winning. He doesn't think we are going to lose mind you, but the war on terror itself is simply not winnable because there will always be terrorists.Those are almost his exact words, and to be honest before he told me that I agreed with you.
My buddy Matt (I would post his last name for credibility purposes, but I feel wrong doing it) is a Staff Sergeant who is a combat marksmanship instructor. Very fun guy to go shooting at Lytle Creek Range with, when he has the time.
I would reply to the rest of your post Faxxer but honestly, I don't have the energy anymore. Talking about this crap for the last month has drained me, and I'm sure you feel the same way. Not to discredit what you said in your post or anything.
And about that article, that's an interesting read. So Bush has actually improved our relations with the UN? Hopefully Obama will keep that support going if he wins because he is not Clinton, any more than McCain is not Bush.
You do realize that protecting our ALLIES is part of defending our country don't you? IF they fall so do we. We went into Iraq, not for our interests but to preserve Europe. why do you think Britain never allowed NATO to vote on it? they pulled it from the floor, because they knew this had to be. Unless Europe is set free from Russian oil , they will continued to be under the strong arm of Russia. It is a matter of securing Europes future for the US to keep the oil flowing from Iraq to Europe.
WOW ......I guess the biggest problem with this is the idea that going to War with Iraq is a good way to effect this outcome. I wish anyone could explain to me how making Iran the dominate player in the Middle East (The only real effect of this War) is good for anyone other than Iran. We went to War in Iraq for two reasons. Bush was a psychopath and Blair was weak. The outcome has and will continue to be a disaster.
Still, the Islamic fundamentalist have made out pretty well over the deal. Hey Bush note to self when you have two equally strength, sized and diametrically opposed groups in a enemy region.....leave them alone. They tend to fight it out among them self. You destroy one, they just become one bigger enemy.....dummy.
I say it again, failure of this magnitude must be punished or our system of government losses all credibility. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Actually, that kind of realpolitik was what LED to 9/11. That has to stop. America needs to be a consistent friend to liberty, not stability. Well, in that liberty and rule of law is in the long run the only stable form of government, one ends up with what one wanted.
Iran is not stronger due to our actions, in fact, it is now surrounded, it;s economy is in shambles -- far worse than ours, and Israel has the free fly zone she needed. Look at the map. Then you will see our strategy, First Iraq, then Iran, the Syria - meanwhile we need to encourage Saudi Arabia to liberalize along with the rest of that part of the region.
the biggest mistake we've made is not pushig liberty enough in Pakistan, but that's still coming along.
Then, slowly but surely continue to fight the Jihad in the Phillipines, and africa as well. This is world war three. may as well get used to it -- and realize we are not telegraphing our punches or our strategy. This is a new, long war, and we have to stop thinking in the cold war boxes you seem to still be thinking of.
9/11 wasn't caused by any (relevant) type of thinking, or anything else the West did. It was caused by ignorant hate filled religious (conservative) terrorist. They are the only ones to blame.
Iran is in-fact much stronger as a result of our actions. Iran is a religious state. Iraq was a secular state and was Iran's biggest threat. Remember that recent eight year war, and with who you might ask (Iraq/Iran). This simple fact alone makes Iran much stronger, but the real problem is much deeper. As a secular police state, Iraq controlled and isolated a large portion of the regions Shi'a population. What is the dominate religious persuasion in Iran you ask. Thats right grasshopper, it's Shi'a. This mean Iran is now a much stronger religious state with much more influence in the region and Iraq is completely destabilized.
Don't believe me just ask George Bush Sr., he was smart enough to realize this and pull our forces out the first time. His son, on the other hand, was a weak minded fool trying to outdo his father, and now Americas children will be paying for his stupidity for a very long time.
So, I say for the third time now, failure of this magnitude must be punished or our system of government losses all credibility. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
BTW...You want to save the world thats fine.....Just don't use my tax dollars to do it...If I want to see a crusade, I'll go to a museum.
read what I wrote, I didn't say any kind of thinking caused 9-11. just that it LED TO 9-11. I have been studying militant Islam since before it happened, and I know who and what COMMITTED Those acts. I am talking about what could we have done to prevent it.
We could have stopped 9/11 if we had been more involved in Afghanistan. We could have stopped 9/11 if we had been following a policy of freedom instead of coddling dictators.
Iraq was not "secular," it was another Islamic fascist state, even if it was more secular than Iran. Saddam wanted to be the leader of the caliphate as much as bin Laden does, as much as Ahmadinijaad does. I notice you just state that Iran is much stronger, yet provide no evidence. You don't define strength and you don't support it, just make the same unsubstantiated fact. How is Iran stronger,. I see a weaker economy and less respect in theregion, and more and more of the world turning against them.
You seem to be saying all Shi'a muslims want to be ruled by religious fascism -- that is simply not true. Most shia in Iraq want nothing to do with Iran.
George Bush Sr's bungle in iraq exacerbated the problems and didn't help anyone. By betraying the shia in Iraq he broke trust and made or job more difficult.
4000 lives to defeat two countries is a failure? I guess to a Democrat. Historically it is a stunning success and a testament to how great our military is. It's not about saving the world (there's the straw man here), but about defeating a JIhad that will destroy everything. I understand, it is difficult to admit the threats we face, and far, far easier to attack politicians and people on forum boards rather than actually face the people who want to destroy you.
I understand that good people can disagree on this and it is a hard reality to face.
This one is actually pretty easy. The situation on the ground doesn't support your argument. We'll all be dead and buried before that stable, healthy, functioning Iraq (one that is not lost to Iranian influence) ever comes about. Period, end of argument.
What we have here is a situation that has clearly resulted as a result of a failure. W was a dreamer who should have listened to his daddy. Our children will be paying for it for a long time.
Obviously you simply don't know the situation on the ground, or the history of the situation, or warfare in general.
It seems you WANT to lose a war we have won. Interesting.
Originally posted by Faxxer war on terror. you just said in your response, "we can't win...." well I say you're wrong. And about half this country thinks you're wrong. And ALL/EVERY military person out there says you're wrong. Tell a Marine he can't win...I dare you. Think about this position from any other topic point of view... you're saying "don't bother trying, it's futile...." cmon man you're smarter than that.
Not true, I have two friends who are Marines stationed at Twentynine Palms here in Cali, and one of them agrees with me on this. He isn't against the war mind you, in fact he would probably agree with you on every thing that you said in your post (they are both Republicans) except for us winning. He doesn't think we are going to lose mind you, but the war on terror itself is simply not winnable because there will always be terrorists.Those are almost his exact words, and to be honest before he told me that I agreed with you.
My buddy Matt (I would post his last name for credibility purposes, but I feel wrong doing it) is a Staff Sergeant who is a combat marksmanship instructor. Very fun guy to go shooting at Lytle Creek Range with, when he has the time.
I would reply to the rest of your post Faxxer but honestly, I don't have the energy anymore. Talking about this crap for the last month has drained me, and I'm sure you feel the same way. Not to discredit what you said in your post or anything.
And about that article, that's an interesting read. So Bush has actually improved our relations with the UN? Hopefully Obama will keep that support going if he wins because he is not Clinton, any more than McCain is not Bush.
That is because it is not a "War on Terror," it is a war to save civilization from the Jihad against us. I am surprised your friends don't know this. Everyone I know in the military understands this and has been taught this from day one. Naming it the "War in Terror" was merely for the sake of political correctness.
This is a war that has been going on since the 600s, so in that sense it is not "winnable" either, but that's hardly relevant. This is about survival and freedom. The war against tyranny is eternal as well. It's what we do as humans.
That is because it is not a "War on Terror," it is a war to save civilization from the Jihad against us. I am surprised your friends don't know this. Everyone I know in the military understands this and has been taught this from day one. Naming it the "War in Terror" was merely for the sake of political correctness. This is a war that has been going on since the 600s, so in that sense it is not "winnable" either, but that's hardly relevant. This is about survival and freedom. The war against tyranny is eternal as well. It's what we do as humans.
War on tyranny my veteran (in the military, not SWG sense) ass.
Islam is no more tyranny incarnate than Christianity is. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism.
Unless, Fishermage, you're a raging atheist out to stomp out all religion. You know, like Stalin was.
Some people will say anything to justify their fear of "the Other".
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
That is because it is not a "War on Terror," it is a war to save civilization from the Jihad against us. I am surprised your friends don't know this. Everyone I know in the military understands this and has been taught this from day one. Naming it the "War in Terror" was merely for the sake of political correctness. This is a war that has been going on since the 600s, so in that sense it is not "winnable" either, but that's hardly relevant. This is about survival and freedom. The war against tyranny is eternal as well. It's what we do as humans.
War on tyranny my veteran (in the military, not SWG sense) ass.
Islam is no more tyranny incarnate than Christianity is. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism.
Unless, Fishermage, you're a raging atheist out to stomp out all religion. You know, like Stalin was.
Some people will say anything to justify their fear of "the Other".
I never said Islam is tyranny. I'm also not afraid of anything. Not sure what straw man you are going after now, but it must be a good one.
Comments
Fishermage, as you policies "encourage" (invade) freedom everywhere, the country is broke, our institutions are failing (health care, education), our infrastructure is deteriorating (bridges falling), jobs are being lost, companies are going bankrupt, one in six American households are in foreclosure, the military is over-stretched, and I will stop for now.
And you are spending your time "encouraging" democracy and freedom.
Look
There you go again...more straw men that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Typical. How about sticking to one subject, rather than moving onto another after you lose an argument?
How about sticking to the words and definitions I am using instead of equivocating and then arguing something I'm not saying at all?
Either way, I DO believe we need to encourage liberty and growth in our country -- it is YOU who don't, as we have seen repeatedly on these boards.
However, liberty and growth in the US will not cost our government a penny -- in fact the way to do that is with less government at all levels. That leaves MORE money to fight the greatest enemy in our history.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Pardon me if I think your policies do not work, and your "greatest enemy in history" theme is lunacy.
WOW ......I guess the biggest problem with this is the idea that going to War with Iraq is a good way to effect this outcome. I wish anyone could explain to me how making Iran the dominate player in the Middle East (The only real effect of this War) is good for anyone other than Iran. We went to War in Iraq for two reasons. Bush was a psychopath and Blair was weak. The outcome has and will continue to be a disaster.
Still, the Islamic fundamentalist have made out pretty well over the deal. Hey Bush note to self when you have two equally strength, sized and diametrically opposed groups in a enemy region.....leave them alone. They tend to fight it out among them self. You destroy one, they just become one bigger enemy.....dummy.
I say it again, failure of this magnitude must be punished or our system of government losses all credibility. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Actually, that kind of realpolitik was what LED to 9/11. That has to stop. America needs to be a consistent friend to liberty, not stability. Well, in that liberty and rule of law is in the long run the only stable form of government, one ends up with what one wanted.
Iran is not stronger due to our actions, in fact, it is now surrounded, it;s economy is in shambles -- far worse than ours, and Israel has the free fly zone she needed. Look at the map. Then you will see our strategy, First Iraq, then Iran, the Syria - meanwhile we need to encourage Saudi Arabia to liberalize along with the rest of that part of the region.
the biggest mistake we've made is not pushig liberty enough in Pakistan, but that's still coming along.
Then, slowly but surely continue to fight the Jihad in the Phillipines, and africa as well. This is world war three. may as well get used to it -- and realize we are not telegraphing our punches or our strategy. This is a new, long war, and we have to stop thinking in the cold war boxes you seem to still be thinking of.
9/11 wasn't caused by any (relevant) type of thinking, or anything else the West did. It was caused by ignorant hate filled religious (conservative) terrorist. They are the only ones to blame
.
Iran is in-fact much stronger as a result of our actions. Iran is a religious state. Iraq was a secular state and was Iran's biggest threat. Remember that recent eight year war, and with who you might ask (Iraq/Iran). This simple fact alone makes Iran much stronger, but the real problem is much deeper. As a secular police state, Iraq controlled and isolated a large portion of the regions Shi'a population. What is the dominate religious persuasion in Iran you ask. Thats right grasshopper, it's Shi'a. This mean Iran is now a much stronger religious state with much more influence in the region and Iraq is completely destabilized.
Don't believe me just ask George Bush Sr., he was smart enough to realize this and pull our forces out the first time. His son, on the other hand, was a weak minded fool trying to outdo his father, and now Americas children will be paying for his stupidity for a very long time.
So, I say for the third time now, failure of this magnitude must be punished or our system of government losses all credibility. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
BTW...You want to save the world thats fine.....Just don't use my tax dollars to do it...If I want to see a crusade, I'll go to a museum.
read what I wrote, I didn't say any kind of thinking caused 9-11. just that it LED TO 9-11. I have been studying militant Islam since before it happened, and I know who and what COMMITTED Those acts. I am talking about what could we have done to prevent it.
We could have stopped 9/11 if we had been more involved in Afghanistan. We could have stopped 9/11 if we had been following a policy of freedom instead of coddling dictators.
Iraq was not "secular," it was another Islamic fascist state, even if it was more secular than Iran. Saddam wanted to be the leader of the caliphate as much as bin Laden does, as much as Ahmadinijaad does. I notice you just state that Iran is much stronger, yet provide no evidence. You don't define strength and you don't support it, just make the same unsubstantiated fact. How is Iran stronger,. I see a weaker economy and less respect in theregion, and more and more of the world turning against them.
You seem to be saying all Shi'a muslims want to be ruled by religious fascism -- that is simply not true. Most shia in Iraq want nothing to do with Iran.
George Bush Sr's bungle in iraq exacerbated the problems and didn't help anyone. By betraying the shia in Iraq he broke trust and made or job more difficult.
4000 lives to defeat two countries is a failure? I guess to a Democrat. Historically it is a stunning success and a testament to how great our military is. It's not about saving the world (there's the straw man here), but about defeating a JIhad that will destroy everything. I understand, it is difficult to admit the threats we face, and far, far easier to attack politicians and people on forum boards rather than actually face the people who want to destroy you.
I understand that good people can disagree on this and it is a hard reality to face.
This one is actually pretty easy. The situation on the ground doesn't support your argument. We'll all be dead and buried before that stable, healthy, functioning Iraq (one that is not lost to Iranian influence) ever comes about. Period, end of argument.
What we have here is a situation that has clearly resulted as a result of a failure. W was a dreamer who should have listened to his daddy. Our children will be paying for it for a long time.
According to the military times, The military supports McCain
www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
If you really believe that , would you please get together with all your aristocratic friends and find a way to fight this one with out losing.
Yea I know how we can win it .. just the"moral world" would highly object. There would be mass civilians casualties, but yes, it would be much more effective, and the war would end a heelaofalot sooner.
Except there is no valid reason for this war!
Had Bush had an ounce of intelligence and followed 200 years of American foreign policy, which by the way, culminated with Nixon opening the gateway to Red China, we would be a member of an Asian trading block dealing with the sheiks from a position of global economic strength.
Bush is about as dense as Truman. Truman turned his back on a stupid little brown man named Ho Chi Min, who, at the end of WW 2, thought the US was aces and wanted our help in keeping the French out so there could be an independant Vietnam. But Truman sold out little brown Vietnamese brother for our nice white cousins, the French, and we are only now recovering from that piss poor decision, at the cost of countless US and Vietnamese lives.
There was never a valid reason for the Vietnam War either. It was the continuance of a failed European Colonial policy, just like the United States insists on continuing a failed European Colonial policy in the Middle East.
Approximately 200 years ago a decision was made that the United States would stay out of European Colonial problems and look East for trade partners. Every time we lose sight of the objective we find ourselves in a serious clusterfuck.
According to the military times, The military supports McCain
www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
Democracy's don't follow there miltary....In a democracy the military follows and protects the civilians, even at there own peril.
Something Bush taught them all to well.
We cannot take an eraser to this, it will nevr go away. It is not like life is a video game and we can just start over and erase the previous scores. We cannot "distance" ourselves from this, we did it we are stuck with it, no matter how much I did not want our ground troops in there, we can;t take it back now. Until we come up with a better plan for the defense of Iraq, it is our responsiblity to defend it.
I mean unless we should just fully take over the mission in afganhistan and send all of NATO to Iraq to defend it there isn't many options here. LOL< hand it over to Isreal to manage? geeze lol talk about drop kicking us into Armegeddon! lol People are already flippin out over any from isreal being anywhere near Iraq right now... I am just kidding, there is no way we should let isreal into Iraq ( though we have already) it is madness to do so with how explosive this area already is.
According to the military times, The military supports McCain
www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
Democracy's don't follow there miltary....In a democracy the military follows and protects the civilians, even at there own peril.
Something Bush taught them all to well.
I don't think anyone said anything about democracy following the military, no.. have no idea where that came from lol. Babble up there was saying that "young republicans" don't have the courage to go to war basically.. well looks to me that they have plenty of courage from the graphs at military times. Our soldiers are not asking to be rescued, they want to finish the job. They do not want their children to have to come back and finish the job their parents didn't. If we lose this war it will not be due to our military, it will be because we didn't allow our troops to finish the job, so that we never have to go back, our children do not have to go back and that our grandchildren do not have to go back. They want to get it done right the first time.
I don't see any way around this. We are just throwing good money after bad (as they say). The sooner we realize our mistake and move on the better. You can only call so many times, sooner or later you have to put your cards on the table and see how they lay. The Arab nations have a far greater interest in a stable Iraq than we ever will. Not to mention the fact that the only peace they will ever accept is one that they themselves create.
IAccording to the military times, The military supports McCain
www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
Democracy's don't follow there miltary....In a democracy the military follows and protects the civilians, even at there own peril.
Something Bush taught them all to well.
I don't think anyone said anything about democracy following the military, no.. have no idea where that came from lol. Babble up there was saying that "young republicans" don't have the courage to go to war basically.. well looks to me that they have plenty of courage from the graphs at military times. Our soldiers are not asking to be rescued, they want to finish the job. They do not want their children to have to come back and finish the job their parents didn't. If we lose this war it will not be due to our military, it will be because we didn't allow our troops to finish the job, so that we never have to go back, our children do not have to go back and that our grandchildren do not have to go back. They want to get it done right the first time.
I stand corrected.
Our military has been nothing if not courageous and long suffering. It's time to give them the leadership they deserve. I only hope our next president is up to that challenge.
We cannot take an eraser to this, it will nevr go away. It is not like life is a video game and we can just start over and erase the previous scores. We cannot "distance" ourselves from this, we did it we are stuck with it, no matter how much I did not want our ground troops in there, we can;t take it back now. Until we come up with a better plan for the defense of Iraq, it is our responsiblity to defend it.
But it will go away. Truman messed up big time in Vietnam by ignoring Ho Chi Mihn's request not to cave in to French Colonialism. That was a mistake, and we compounded that mistake when we substituted American troops for French troops. Today, we trade with Vietnam, our garmet industry is based there.
Same with China. Truman backed Chang Kai Shek, an unpopular warlord. Just in case you haven't noticed, now China is a major trading partner.
The same can happen in Iran. The same can happen in Iraq. It's called business. When two opposing sides sit down and figure out a way they can make money together, they do.
For all you know the Iraqi and Iranian people are Republican, they just want us to cut out they bullshit so we can all make money. You think the third world likes the idea of living hand to mouth, with no electricity, and no running water?
I mean unless we should just fully take over the mission in afganhistan and send all of NATO to Iraq to defend it there isn't many options here. LOL< hand it over to Isreal to manage? geeze lol talk about drop kicking us into Armegeddon! lol People are already flippin out over any from isreal being anywhere near Iraq right now... I am just kidding, there is no way we should let isreal into Iraq ( though we have already) it is madness to do so with how explosive this area already is.
Your the nut job in this paragraph, not me. All you can see is staying the course with a failed European Colonial policy that doesn't advance the interests of the United States one iota. If you ever get to thinking outside the box, you will realize that there is no reason for us to play militarily in the Middle East, everything that is there we can get by offering participation in an American/Asian economy.
You think Obama is clueless. I think you, Obama, and McCain are clueless. You are all to busy fighting to preserve the past rather than to go out and forge a bold new future.
Trust me when I tell you, you really don't want to know the answer to this question.
Trust me when I tell you, you really don't want to know the answer to this question.
I'm finding that out......
Dang people, stop quoting inside quotes, it's getting insane to keep track of. lol
Here's a simple answer for voting FOR McCain.
He wants lower taxes. period.
Obama wants to raise taxes. period.
McCain wants to continue the war on terror. period.
Obama wants to end the war on terror. period.
McCain wants to shrink government and cut pork spending. period.
Obama already has made it clear he wants to grow government and increase spending. period.
McCain wants the United States to keep her sovereignty. Period.
Obama wants the world to dictate our policy. period.
If Obama wins, the whole world will think more highly of our country. Look at polls of European countries, the numbers are astounding with how many people support Obama over McCain.
www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/uspolls2008/Election_Story.aspx
Switzerland
Obama - 83%
McCain - 7%
Britain
Obama - 64%
McCain - 15%
France
Obama - 69%
McCain - 5%
Poland
Obama - 43%
McCain - 26%
If Obama wins, the whole world will think more highly of our country. Look at polls of European countries, the numbers are astounding with how many people support Obama over McCain.
www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/uspolls2008/Election_Story.aspx
Switzerland
Obama - 83%
McCain - 7%
Britain
Obama - 64%
McCain - 15%
France
Obama - 69%
McCain - 5%
Poland
Obama - 43%
McCain - 26%
Here is a little something "for the world"
Slythe, the tax plan is going to be for people making FAR LESS than 250k. You're being sold a lie.
Besides, let's say you're right...just for argument's sake...
The amount of individuals making 250k could never EVER hope to pay for the proposals Obama has suggested. Not even HALF of them. So where is that money coming from? ....Business. But... Guess what, it's not just big business.....it's SMALL business. making LESS than 250k as a business is not the same as an individual.
My father has a corporation, but he never made 250k with it. But because he's a corp, BAM. taxes go UP.
Small business can't absorb such pain, so they'll lay off...you guessed it... employees. or they'll close up shop and move to....insert any other nation here...why? because the US has the SECOND highest corporate taxes ON THE PLANET. That's why.... so bye bye jobs. bye bye money. Bye bye working man, you're laid off.
.....................
war on terror.
you just said in your response, "we can't win...." well I say you're wrong. And about half this country thinks you're wrong. And ALL/EVERY military person out there says you're wrong. Tell a Marine he can't win...I dare you. Think about this position from any other topic point of view... you're saying "don't bother trying, it's futile...." cmon man you're smarter than that.
.....................
on what other nations think of us.....
Do you know why the UN world headquarters is in NY? the United States really is the world's greatest nation in the history of the world.... here's some facts for ya... No nation has created more wealth. No nation has liberated more people into freedom. No nation has protected more of the world with no strings attached. No nation has given more of it's wealth away to aid other nations....the list goes on and on...and no republican thinks we're perfect....that whole "nationalist" bullshit argument is for the birds and they know it. libs call names when they have no valid retort.
Obama wants us to feel like we've failed at being humans, well that's pure bullshit. We haven't failed. we've succeeded far beyond anyone could ever have thought possible as a nation. despite years of democrats trying to poision our military and water it down, we're STILL the most powerful nation on theplanet and do you see us out there bullying the world? hmmm... I see Norh Korea bullying. I see Iran bullying. I see China bullying. What do we do? We impose sanctions to try and sway policy.
If the Iraq war was about oil as libs still to this day say, then why havn't we just taken all that oil to pay for our war? answer: America has class and respect.
I'm sure there are some on here ready to post links and youtube vids on how evil the us is and how much they are hated by all the planet.
It's easy to hate. Courage....that takes backbone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502011_pf.html
This article says so much more than it's title.
"They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States' falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments."
I never heard a lib say Bush expanded the UN in the world. I never heard them say he did more for AIDS than any other person on the planet either.
"Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."
John Bolton nailed them on the head.
"For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain -- only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator -- life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. "I keep my mouth shut," said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain. "Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington," in search of jobs in an Obama administration.
"It will be devastating if Obama loses," the official said. "There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome."
The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration's lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia."
Note how McCAin got credit for responding with the Russian issue. Obama had no clue how to deal with it.
The article is long, ..and good.
Not true, I have two friends who are Marines stationed at Twentynine Palms here in Cali, and one of them agrees with me on this. He isn't against the war mind you, in fact he would probably agree with you on every thing that you said in your post (they are both Republicans) except for us winning. He doesn't think we are going to lose mind you, but the war on terror itself is simply not winnable because there will always be terrorists.Those are almost his exact words, and to be honest before he told me that I agreed with you.
My buddy Matt (I would post his last name for credibility purposes, but I feel wrong doing it) is a Staff Sergeant who is a combat marksmanship instructor. Very fun guy to go shooting at Lytle Creek Range with, when he has the time.
I would reply to the rest of your post Faxxer but honestly, I don't have the energy anymore. Talking about this crap for the last month has drained me, and I'm sure you feel the same way. Not to discredit what you said in your post or anything.
And about that article, that's an interesting read. So Bush has actually improved our relations with the UN? Hopefully Obama will keep that support going if he wins because he is not Clinton, any more than McCain is not Bush.
WOW ......I guess the biggest problem with this is the idea that going to War with Iraq is a good way to effect this outcome. I wish anyone could explain to me how making Iran the dominate player in the Middle East (The only real effect of this War) is good for anyone other than Iran. We went to War in Iraq for two reasons. Bush was a psychopath and Blair was weak. The outcome has and will continue to be a disaster.
Still, the Islamic fundamentalist have made out pretty well over the deal. Hey Bush note to self when you have two equally strength, sized and diametrically opposed groups in a enemy region.....leave them alone. They tend to fight it out among them self. You destroy one, they just become one bigger enemy.....dummy.
I say it again, failure of this magnitude must be punished or our system of government losses all credibility. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Actually, that kind of realpolitik was what LED to 9/11. That has to stop. America needs to be a consistent friend to liberty, not stability. Well, in that liberty and rule of law is in the long run the only stable form of government, one ends up with what one wanted.
Iran is not stronger due to our actions, in fact, it is now surrounded, it;s economy is in shambles -- far worse than ours, and Israel has the free fly zone she needed. Look at the map. Then you will see our strategy, First Iraq, then Iran, the Syria - meanwhile we need to encourage Saudi Arabia to liberalize along with the rest of that part of the region.
the biggest mistake we've made is not pushig liberty enough in Pakistan, but that's still coming along.
Then, slowly but surely continue to fight the Jihad in the Phillipines, and africa as well. This is world war three. may as well get used to it -- and realize we are not telegraphing our punches or our strategy. This is a new, long war, and we have to stop thinking in the cold war boxes you seem to still be thinking of.
9/11 wasn't caused by any (relevant) type of thinking, or anything else the West did. It was caused by ignorant hate filled religious (conservative) terrorist. They are the only ones to blame
.
Iran is in-fact much stronger as a result of our actions. Iran is a religious state. Iraq was a secular state and was Iran's biggest threat. Remember that recent eight year war, and with who you might ask (Iraq/Iran). This simple fact alone makes Iran much stronger, but the real problem is much deeper. As a secular police state, Iraq controlled and isolated a large portion of the regions Shi'a population. What is the dominate religious persuasion in Iran you ask. Thats right grasshopper, it's Shi'a. This mean Iran is now a much stronger religious state with much more influence in the region and Iraq is completely destabilized.
Don't believe me just ask George Bush Sr., he was smart enough to realize this and pull our forces out the first time. His son, on the other hand, was a weak minded fool trying to outdo his father, and now Americas children will be paying for his stupidity for a very long time.
So, I say for the third time now, failure of this magnitude must be punished or our system of government losses all credibility. VOTE DEMOCRAT!
BTW...You want to save the world thats fine.....Just don't use my tax dollars to do it...If I want to see a crusade, I'll go to a museum.
read what I wrote, I didn't say any kind of thinking caused 9-11. just that it LED TO 9-11. I have been studying militant Islam since before it happened, and I know who and what COMMITTED Those acts. I am talking about what could we have done to prevent it.
We could have stopped 9/11 if we had been more involved in Afghanistan. We could have stopped 9/11 if we had been following a policy of freedom instead of coddling dictators.
Iraq was not "secular," it was another Islamic fascist state, even if it was more secular than Iran. Saddam wanted to be the leader of the caliphate as much as bin Laden does, as much as Ahmadinijaad does. I notice you just state that Iran is much stronger, yet provide no evidence. You don't define strength and you don't support it, just make the same unsubstantiated fact. How is Iran stronger,. I see a weaker economy and less respect in theregion, and more and more of the world turning against them.
You seem to be saying all Shi'a muslims want to be ruled by religious fascism -- that is simply not true. Most shia in Iraq want nothing to do with Iran.
George Bush Sr's bungle in iraq exacerbated the problems and didn't help anyone. By betraying the shia in Iraq he broke trust and made or job more difficult.
4000 lives to defeat two countries is a failure? I guess to a Democrat. Historically it is a stunning success and a testament to how great our military is. It's not about saving the world (there's the straw man here), but about defeating a JIhad that will destroy everything. I understand, it is difficult to admit the threats we face, and far, far easier to attack politicians and people on forum boards rather than actually face the people who want to destroy you.
I understand that good people can disagree on this and it is a hard reality to face.
This one is actually pretty easy. The situation on the ground doesn't support your argument. We'll all be dead and buried before that stable, healthy, functioning Iraq (one that is not lost to Iranian influence) ever comes about. Period, end of argument.
What we have here is a situation that has clearly resulted as a result of a failure. W was a dreamer who should have listened to his daddy. Our children will be paying for it for a long time.
Obviously you simply don't know the situation on the ground, or the history of the situation, or warfare in general.
It seems you WANT to lose a war we have won. Interesting.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Not true, I have two friends who are Marines stationed at Twentynine Palms here in Cali, and one of them agrees with me on this. He isn't against the war mind you, in fact he would probably agree with you on every thing that you said in your post (they are both Republicans) except for us winning. He doesn't think we are going to lose mind you, but the war on terror itself is simply not winnable because there will always be terrorists.Those are almost his exact words, and to be honest before he told me that I agreed with you.
My buddy Matt (I would post his last name for credibility purposes, but I feel wrong doing it) is a Staff Sergeant who is a combat marksmanship instructor. Very fun guy to go shooting at Lytle Creek Range with, when he has the time.
I would reply to the rest of your post Faxxer but honestly, I don't have the energy anymore. Talking about this crap for the last month has drained me, and I'm sure you feel the same way. Not to discredit what you said in your post or anything.
And about that article, that's an interesting read. So Bush has actually improved our relations with the UN? Hopefully Obama will keep that support going if he wins because he is not Clinton, any more than McCain is not Bush.
That is because it is not a "War on Terror," it is a war to save civilization from the Jihad against us. I am surprised your friends don't know this. Everyone I know in the military understands this and has been taught this from day one. Naming it the "War in Terror" was merely for the sake of political correctness.
This is a war that has been going on since the 600s, so in that sense it is not "winnable" either, but that's hardly relevant. This is about survival and freedom. The war against tyranny is eternal as well. It's what we do as humans.
fishermage.blogspot.com
War on tyranny my veteran (in the military, not SWG sense) ass.
Islam is no more tyranny incarnate than Christianity is. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism.
Unless, Fishermage, you're a raging atheist out to stomp out all religion. You know, like Stalin was.
Some people will say anything to justify their fear of "the Other".
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
War on tyranny my veteran (in the military, not SWG sense) ass.
Islam is no more tyranny incarnate than Christianity is. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism.
Unless, Fishermage, you're a raging atheist out to stomp out all religion. You know, like Stalin was.
Some people will say anything to justify their fear of "the Other".
I never said Islam is tyranny. I'm also not afraid of anything. Not sure what straw man you are going after now, but it must be a good one.
fishermage.blogspot.com