| Author | Post |
|---|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 08:05 pm |
|
Oh but the borders are wide open. They use excuses to take away our
rights, and privacy, but they will not even attempt to secure the border
except for a little window dressing. Major banks got kudos from Vincente Fox
for going easy on illegals in the US, but we law abiding citizens are always
suspect.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
Interesting way to highlight...
One of the standards, John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says, may “require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries — and not suspected of anything — to send their prints to the feds.”
One of the standards, John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says, may “require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries — and not suspected of anything — to send their prints to the feds.”
With absolutely no facts to back it up, other then a bunch of conspiracists who are shining up their tin hats....
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12th, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2617
Obama Sponsors Fingerprint Registry Bill
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 11th, 2008 01:57 am |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: Fred, I believe you internalized the comment "you got what you wished for" . I intended it as a general comment on the 52% who said they'd duck and run. I don't believe you are in that category as your latest post seems to indicate but I don't back off the disdain for those who got us involved and now think it time for the movie to conclude with a happy ending. Losing people in war is terrible but so is having people killed at their desks.
I think MOST of the 52% think like I do...just like most were all for the war when we were winning, and yes, I agree about those who are switching sides. I feel the same way about Scott McClellan....yeah, you are confirming what all us lefties were saying for the past 5 years, but it is a little too little, a little too late...and even then it is a spin show to make oneself look good.
I'm sorry, but I also don't buy that they will follow us home. I'm going to throw a few of your arguments against you, but if they really, really wanted to attack us here, it would be ridiculously easy. Sneak across the border (either one) and take your choice of how they would take us out....be it guns, homemade bombs, or something more ingenious.
The fact that they have not done it yet (and the cases that have made the news have been of the ridiculous knd) does not mean they are all fighting them over there. It means they have not made a serious attempt since 9/11. One argument is that Osama did 9/11 to get us involved....and he and his cronies were crapping in their shorts after we kicked their butts in Afghanistan.
I refuse to say that either plan is garbage. I've read them both (not just the sound bites), and believe that both genuinely believe that this is the best course. Their plans are not theirs alone, and has been developed by a lot of people who know a lot more about this stuff than we do. I think, given the right circumstances, either could work...I just think Obama's is the better one for our country, and gets Iraq on their feet doing the hard work sooner.
Last edited on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 12:10 pm by Fred
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 11th, 2008 12:29 am |
|
An interesting articlae about the women of the candidates. Maybe another reason to vote for McCain instead of Obama.
I checked it out on Snopes and can't find anything incorrect.
Actions should speak louder than words, she should be very loud.
More on Cindy McCain, John McCain's Better Half .
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, Posted Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:20 PM
PT Election 2008:
Cindy Hensley McCain has been disparaged as a trophy wife, a
Barbie, an heiress with fancy purses, even the Paris Hilton of
politics.
But there's more to the picture than meets the eye. Yes, Mrs.
McCain is the perfectly coifed blonde standing dutifully behind the
senator during his speeches. And yes, she wears stylish clothing and
carries a Prada purse. And it's true she doesn't say much. But
feminist critics who write her off as a 'stand-by-your-man'
shrinking violet are selling her short. In many ways, Cindy McCain
stacks up sturdier than Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama. And she'd
make a more impressive first lady. Mrs. McCain: More than meets the
eye.
While Obama's wife has been hating America , complaining about the
war and undermining our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan ,
McCain's wife has been worrying about her sons who actually are
fighting or planning to fight in the war on terror. One, in fact,
was until a few months ago deployed in Iraq during some of the
worst violence.
You don't hear the McCains talk about it, but their 19-year-old
Marine, Jimmy, is preparing for his second tour of duty. Their
21-year-old son, Jack, is poised to graduate from Annapolis and also
could join the Marines as a second lieutenant. The couple made the
decision not to draw attention to their sons out of respect for
other families with sons and daughters in harm's way.
Cindy also says she doesn't want to risk falling apart on the
campaign trail talking about Jimmy, who was so young when he
enlisted she had to sign consent forms for his medical tests before
he could report for duty and potentially upsetting parents of
soldiers who are serving or have been killed.
The McCains want to make sure their boys get no special
treatment. Same goes for their five other children, including a
daughter they adopted from Bangladesh . During a visit to Mother
Teresa's orphanage there, Cindy noticed a dying baby. The orphanage
could not provide the medical care needed to save her life. So she
brought the child home to America for the surgery she desperately
needed. The baby is now their healthy, 16-year-old daughter,
Bridget.
Though all seven McCain children including two Sen. McCain
adopted from his first marriage are supportive of their father,
they prefer their privacy to the glare of the campaign trail.
Another daughter, Meghan, 23, helps him behind the scenes. Cindy
McCain not only cherishes her children, but also her country, which
in an election year filled with America-bashing, is a refreshing
novelty.
She seethed when she heard Michelle Obama's unpatriotic remarks
that she only recently grew proud of America . 'I am very proud of my
country,' Mrs. McCain asserted. She also may be tougher than the
other women in the race. While Hillary thinks she's come under
sniper fire on mission trips abroad, Cindy has actually seen
violence. She witnessed a boy get blown up by a mine in Kuwait
during a trip with an international group that removes land mines
from war-torn countries.
Mrs. McCain also is a hands-on philanthropist. She sits on the
board of Operation Smile, which arranges for plastic surgeons to fix
cleft palates and other birth defects. She also has helped organize
relief missions to Micronesia .
During a scuba-diving vacation to the islands, Mrs. McCain took a
friend to a local hospital to have a cut treated. She was shocked,
and saddened, by what she saw. 'They opened the door to the OR,
where the supplies were, and there were two cats and a whole bunch
of rats climbing out of the sterile supplies,' she recalled. 'They
had no X-ray machine, no beds. To me, it was devastating because it
was a U.S. trust territory.' As soon as she returned home, she
arranged for medical equipment and teams of doctors to be sent to
treat the island children.
Michelle Obama may contribute to CARE, which fights global poverty
and works to empower poor women. Cindy sits on its board. While
the Democrat women talk about helping the poor and needy, Cindy
McCain actually rolls up her sleeves and does it. Who's the
out-of-touch elitist?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
Fred, I believe you internalized the comment "you got what you wished for" . I intended it as a general comment on the 52% who said they'd duck and run. I don't believe you are in that category as your latest post seems to indicate but I don't back off the disdain for those who got us involved and now think it time for the movie to conclude with a happy ending. Losing people in war is terrible but so is having people killed at their desks.
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 09:57 pm |
|
I recently watched "RECOUNT" the movie based on the Florida FIASCO.
I am hoping that before November, each state has reliable voting equipment.
If this scenario occurred with Obama & Mc Cain, there would be rioting in the
streets. I know it is highly unlikely BUT, it certainly is a scary thought.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 06:08 pm |
|
That is the point though Fred, do we want to really have to go back later and attack them again? I would prefer we take care of the situation now versus later. A lot can change in just several years and the next time may prove t be even harder.
I also want a stable government that can stand on its own and handle all situations that may arise. I do not mind leaving a force behind to back up the iraqis if they should need help. But I do not want it to e a sizeable force.
We differ on how long it will take for the government to step up to the plate. I think they have had 3 years to start the process of molding people into a democratic society but that it may take 4 or 5 more years to completely solidify. The first 2 years of the war people were still in hiding and trying to figure out what to do. I believe most people think if we leave to soon the "bad" guys will take over. And if they do it will cause even more trouble over there.
I do not trust Obama when he says he wants stability, it seeems more like a ploy to ease the smart peoples worries about the future over there. I believe he is more than willing to set a date and leave regardless of the consequences. He does not seem to have a backbone and caves into his perception of what he thinks the American people want to hear. Politics at its best.
I believe only McCain has shown a willingness to stay the course and work at a solution even it means changing tactics to do it. He seems the best choice for solving the problem.
If we had to chose the president just on the war I would vote McCain. But thankfully there are plenty of other issues to consider when deciding who to vote for in the election. This election seems more about choosing the least evil versus the most qualified. Anyone else feel that way?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 05:08 pm |
|
No, HB, that is not our wish; it would be just as wrong for me to say that what you want is to kill another 4000 of our troops for an endless war. That is certainly a possibility of McCain's platform (something he has actually said), but is that what you wish for? I hope not, so don't tell me what I hope for.
Do you at least see that the President squandered his enoromous popularity and standing AND support of the Iraqi War by his blundering? That if he had better people in charge who had better policies and had done things differently we wouldn't be having this discussion?
What I want is simple. I want an Iraqi government that can stand, even weakly, and handle it's own affairs. I want to think the American people have given those clowns 5 years to get their act together, and it is time. I want to think that they can do it, but feel that as long as we are there they have a chance to sway us to their particular side....and I want to believe that if they have a period of time, they will work together.
What I want is a rebuilt military that can requip, that can rearm, that can reconstitute, relearn, and defend our country, AND, yes, if necessary, go back. It may be necessary, but while we are giving the Iraqis the change to do it their way, we do not have to be idle, either. We can be training and resupplying and rebuilding our Army and Marine Corps....and we can be prepared to do it right if it comes to that again.
Much of our losses were NOT in coming into Iraq; I am confidant that we can get back in any time we want with even less loss of life next time.
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 06:14 pm by Fred
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 04:42 pm |
|
I'm not sure about the 'vast majority' but the latest Rasmussen poll said 52% of the people polled wanted us to duck and run and get out regardless of what it left behind. I'm saddened by that lack of support for the issue and believe it will provide a lot of news footage later of people being killed by the return of the bad guys but, hey, you got your wish and we are out. Of course then , the Dems will spin it that if we had only exited 'properly' that would have never happened and find some way to pin it on old George who will by that time be back in Crawford clearing mesquite on his ranch.
I'm damn sure going to fight against Biden getting us involved in Dafur after seeing the staying power of our politicians. The military has never lost , it's always been the politicians who have caved.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 03:52 pm |
|
Skjuda, you connect the dots with invisible ink that can only be seen with your magic glasses. The majority of the citizens in this country have a clear vision of the Iraq debacle and want us out ASAP. While Obama's plan may not be ideal if the election was to be decided on the issue of Iraq alone he would crush McCain. As I have stated before I am not an Obama supporter. The only candidate that had a majority of original views for "change" that I would support was Ron Paul. The two presumptive candidates are both just 5 lbs. of shz#* in a 1 lb. bag that I will never support.
The alternative has been laid out for you many times. Try removing those magic glasses and your vision may clear up enough to see it. Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 04:01 pm by counting coup
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 08:46 pm |
|
A few good issues...
No, they won't run out of suicide bombers. As I said elswhere, there are an awful lot of Muslims in this world, and most of them are in poor countries...and they are breeding like rabbits. There will always be another generation to get one's martyr's from.
As for whether or not they have success...there are 4,091 reasons they can point to that they would call success.
As for Obama...you are only hearing the sound bites from Fox News, I guess. Here is a bit of a speech he made recently....
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15761/obamas_speech_on_iraq_march_2008.html
In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month.(This is where Fox News and the Republicans stop the tape.) If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.
My plan to end this war will finally put pressure on Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future. Because we’ve learned that when we tell Iraq’s leaders that we’ll stay as long as it takes, they take as long as they want. We need to send a different message. We will help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconciliation. We will engage with every country in the region – and the UN – to support the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq. And we will launch a major humanitarian initiative to support Iraq’s refugees and people. But Iraqis must take responsibility for their country. It is precisely this kind of approach – an approach that puts the onus on the Iraqis, and that relies on more than just military power – that is needed to stabilize Iraq.
Let me be clear: ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure. Senator Clinton has tried to use my position to score political points, suggesting that I am somehow less committed to ending the war. She makes this argument despite the fact that she has taken the same position in the past. So ask yourself: who do you trust to end a war – someone who opposed the war from the beginning, or someone who started opposing it when they started preparing a run for President?
I think Obama's plan is better, and is much more complex then you say it is. AGain, what you leave out is that he wants those troops back in action....in Afghanistan, to finish the job. We don't have enough troops to do both right now, and I think of the two situations, Afghanistan is more winnable.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 08:31 pm |
|
Fred, if they are using Iraq as a training ground then i am all for it. Let them kill themselves in suicide bombers over there and not here. I have always wondered how long they can keep up suicide bombers, they are going to run out of people sooner or later. The more people see how little it is actually effecting anything the lesss chance they will want to do it. People in my experience want something out of something and if you take away the effects then you take away the reason.
Another point is if they are training now wont they train after we leave especially if we leave in defeat? Thye will have even greater motive to attack the US and will see it as a potential to defeat us everywhere. Give them an inch and they take a mile is just plain wrong.
When I listen to Obama speak I hear a constant lets get out of Iraq as soon as possible while I hear from McCain a constant lets win before leaving. It just seems like 2 different strategies to me. McCain knows we must use some force to win while Obama does not seem to consider the effects defeat will have on the US. I am all for handing off the leadership to the Iraq government but I just want it to be on stable ground first.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 08:15 pm |
|
dhamlin, I believe we are trying to address the issues about Obama without regard to race or religion. We are currently discussing the Iraqi war and which candidate has the better plan. Previously we have discussed financing, gas prices and Obamas wright connection.
I agree though that those who bash Obama for color, religion or anything else not related to the issues are generally regarded on these forums as little impact or bearing on the discussions. Thye usually go away quickly or like a guy named Les kicked lol.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 08:10 pm |
|
Skjuda wrote: . I connect the dots from defeat to terrorists attacking us again in the future. If you can not connect the dots then I ask what alternatives do you offer?
Perhaps that is the crux of the matter.
I don't see that. My theory is that if you put them over there, they will either figure it out, or they will exterminate each other. Iraq has proven one thing, and that most groups prefer to kill each other to us.
The dots are that we are CREATING more terrorists then we are killing with our actions in Iraq. That ain't Fred, that is the National Intelligence Council, the CIA's think tank. They are using Iraq as a training ground....and now YOU connect the dot what they are training for.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
counting coup wrote:
Skjuda, Again you have no logical point. In one sentence you say we had no idea what Saddam was or wasn't doing and in the next sentence you say we had plenty of reasons to go to war with him. You continually reference the twin towers in an attempt to connect Iraq to it with no evidence what so ever to back it up except your rhetoric. The mistake now is staying in Iraq and asking our military to do Iraq's dirty work.
You claim I want to generalize everything when the majority of your reasons for going into Iraq and staying in Iraq are total generalizations and fabrications of things that could have happened in the past and might happen in the future.
I disagree with Obama on many issues but bringing our troops home ASAP from Iraq is not one of them.
King Bush made a grave mistake that is costing us now. The McCain continuation of that policy would be a grave mistake that will cost us in the future.
I can say Saddam gassed 200k kurds and have the proof to back it up now but before the war all I had was second hand accounts of it. Noone knew for sure if it happened or not. That is what I mean by we had reasons but no ideal what really happened. I reference the twin towers because i believe terrorists will take over the country should we take Obamas plan of defeatism and leave now and will strike against us given the opportunity.
Before the war how many people believed Saddam capable of financing terrorists or allowing them use of his country for training? I bet a far cry more than believe we should leave now. But you still miss the point and I do not believe I can convey my ideal enough on here to get the point across to you. We attacked Iraq and can not go back and unattack them. We must be adults about it and not make a second mistake by withdrawing to soon or we risk losing a lot more than a few brave soldiers. I connect the dots from defeat to terrorists attacking us again in the future. If you can not connect the dots then I ask what alternatives do you offer?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1200 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 07:16 pm |
|
dhamlin wrote: GROW UP, THIS IS NOT THE 50s. ITS TIME FOR CHANGE. A change to what? Not one candidate has offered us any solutions. With either candidfate, get ready to embrace socialism in its fullest form. With Obama, a rapid completion of the Roosevely dream of a soviet America. With McCain, a slower, steady pace, but socialism nonetheless. Bigger government, higher taxes, and a massive transfer of wealth and the destruction of a free economy. We wilol also see a drastic change in the demographics of this nation with open borders and many steps closer to a one world government and us becoming a vassal state under the UN.
|
dhamlin
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
| I read the sound off section on a daily basis. The individuals that bash Obama, discredit his character, and imply that he is African American and not bi-racial are the ones that do not want true change. They complain about the war, the economy, and healthcare but when it comes time for the general election you have so-called loyal democrats saying they will switch to Republican to vote for McCain. Many are upset because Hillary Clinton's plan to steal the democratic nomination didn't work. Both Clinton and Obama have almost identical views, so why switch to McCain. See, I will call you out, it's because Obama is not a white male, with gray hair, with old school views, predudiced and racist, and will not just cater to your families, your gender, race, etc. He is for everyone. You people need to grow up and teach your children that your way of thinking is what divides our country. Hillary Clinton put together one of the most deceitful campaigns I have ever witnessed. She deserves to lose. She is not a role model for my young daughter. The lesson to teach to your kids is the best person wins, whether they are black, white, male, female, or green. Your work ethic and character is what counts. This whole process was broken down by race, gender, and social class, not the issues. If you have some racist down in West Virginia saying that they would never vote for a black without even hearing his stance on issues, how is this election process fair. People like you made this same mistake 8 years ago, if you can stomach 4 more years of war, poverty, and a sinking economy, vote McCain. I hope you are still in your home by then. GROW UP, THIS IS NOT THE 50s. ITS TIME FOR CHANGE.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 03:55 pm |
|
Skjuda, Again you have no logical point. In one sentence you say we had no idea what Saddam was or wasn't doing and in the next sentence you say we had plenty of reasons to go to war with him. You continually reference the twin towers in an attempt to connect Iraq to it with no evidence what so ever to back it up except your rhetoric. The mistake now is staying in Iraq and asking our military to do Iraq's dirty work.
You claim I want to generalize everything when the majority of your reasons for going into Iraq and staying in Iraq are total generalizations and fabrications of things that could have happened in the past and might happen in the future.
I disagree with Obama on many issues but bringing our troops home ASAP from Iraq is not one of them.
King Bush made a grave mistake that is costing us now. The McCain continuation of that policy would be a grave mistake that will cost us in the future.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 03:30 pm |
|
No relevance, PTG. We went into both of those conflicts knowing what we were getting into, and I don't recall too many people (except conservatives) who didn't think that this was a good idea (conservatives didn't like the UN involved in both cases). Furthermore, we had a wartime military at the beginning of each of the long term conflicts (and a draft for the majority of both of them).
If what you are talking about is a long term occupation, then call it that. Don't pretend that all we need is another Friedman unit (the 6 month time unit that every warhawk says is needed from any point in time they are asked)...then take the necessary steps, including the long term buildup of the military, and the plan to pay for it.
The problem, of course, is that the vast percentage of Americans don't want that. It is easier to pretend that all we need is one more weapons system, another 10K worth of troops, or suspension of human rights and we'll triumph.....over what, and for what, is never said.
Yes, we have to clean up the mess, and there is NO clear path out. I truly believe that both may or may not work....Baker-Hamilton said it best (and obviously better then any of us in regards to knowledge of the sitaution) when they said that even if we did everything recommended, the outcome was still uncertain.
Obama's plan might work, or it might not. McCain's plan might work, or it might not...and both plans will be changed substantially from now and on January 20th. Anyone who thinks differently, who doesn't think that things can change on either side of the equation shouldn't even be thinking, let alone, talking about the issue.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 02:43 pm |
|
If the Powers that be had any intention of ever pulling out of Iraq why did they build 14 permanant bases? Congress voted to give them the money to do it.
Oh yea then there is that whole pesky Petro Dollar thing
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 558 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 02:25 pm |
|
How much more time are you going to allot to North Korea, Afghanistan, Germany and Japan, before we close out our military presence there?
Fred wrote:
We will have to disagree on Obama pulling out pronto skippy. What one has to do is listen to his whole speech, not just the first line of it. I do TRULY believe that if things were going to hell in a handbasket, he would slow down the pull out. You don't think he would, I do. I also think that logistics will keep it at a fairly slow (3 year) pace. That will give the Iraqi goverment time...and if they can't do it by then, they never will.
I don't think you can rush the Iraqis, but I do think you can pressure them. They have had 3-5 years, depending on how you count, to get it together. Time is up.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 01:55 pm |
|
The decline in violence has been done, in part, by the surge, but there were other parts of the plan that has as much, if not more so, in the decline of violence. Paying the Iraqis in Anbar, which started before the surge, was the main reason for the decline in that very violent area, and it proves that there are different answers then simply throwing more troops at it..and the best way to solve the Iraq problem is to make it an Iraqi problem, which is why I think we do need to start handing if off.
We will have to disagree on Obama pulling out pronto skippy. What one has to do is listen to his whole speech, not just the first line of it. I do TRULY believe that if things were going to hell in a handbasket, he would slow down the pull out. You don't think he would, I do. I also think that logistics will keep it at a fairly slow (3 year) pace. That will give the Iraqi goverment time...and if they can't do it by then, they never will.
I don't think you can rush the Iraqis, but I do think you can pressure them. They have had 3-5 years, depending on how you count, to get it together. Time is up.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 12:51 pm |
|
That is where we disagree, I think Obamas plan is to cut and run as fast as possible. He will not care what happens after as long as we pull out. I do not like that plan. With McCains plan at least the Iraq government will have time to step up to the plate and reconcile. They will be able to get everyone on the same page.
As far as McCains plan to add more people I can say this much. How many times in the last few months have the Iraq police station been bombed or police officers killed? They are gettting fewer and fewer. This is because we are getting better at protecting them but that takes troops. Under Obama we would let them die and in doing that the old racial ties will come back, it will be the only way people will feel safe. We must give them time to set up so they can stand on thier own 2 feet eventually. People must feel secure or the violence will never stop.
I believe we can not rush the Iraq government or we risk losing them entirely. We must give them time to come together and create friendships and loyalties beyond the racial divide. I also do not believe that will take that long to accomplish given the right amount of soldiers and political backing.
War is expensive but it is far cheaper to deal with it now than later. a stable place in the mid east with a government who is against terrorists and actively pursueing them is well worth the cost.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 12:32 pm |
|
I don't see that, SK. We've been there for 5 years, so we certainly have't run at the first sight of an issue, and it really wasn't a problem until more and more people realized that maybe, just maybe, that having the bigger army and the bigger guns isn't going to solve this problem. In fact, if you read Galuga, or even Petrius' Field Manual on combating counterterrorism, more is usually the wrong answer.
I don't see Obama's plan as "cut and run", or getting out when the going gets tough. I do see it as a way to pressure the Iraqi goverment and people to take responsibility. I see regional diplomacy (which is NOT just talking nice; it involves arm-twisting, maybe some bribes (I mean, "aid"), and power sharing. I am a firm believer in the "a nice word and a kick in the pants is better then just a nice word" school of diplomacy. Part of both guy's plans is to press the Iraqi's to reconcile; I am not sure they want to, however. All sides want 51% of the pie...and you've got other outside agents whom I am convinced want us to continue to fight because it weakens us.
I am honest enough to say that I don't know if Obama's plan will work, but I don't think McCain's plan is a slam dunk, either, and has the probability of dragging this out for another 8 years.
As for the expenses.....no. War is many things, and expensive is one of them. Training for war can be expensive too, but we are spending a whole lot more then we would if we were not at war. Salaries of troops are one thing, and would be roughly the same...except you are talking about the National Guard and Reservists on active duty. Equipment costs are skyrocketing; after a vehicle spends a year or two in Iraq, it is just about worthless. The Guard and Reserve are especially hard off....rather than giving each unit their equipment, they started "pooling" the equipment so that you can draw it from a central source. On the one hand, this is good, as it allows better and more up to date equipment (theoretically). However, it glosses over the fact that we simply don't have the equipment to go around like we once did.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 12:15 pm |
|
CC, again you miss the point I was making. It is easy to say Iraq did not have this or that but before the war noone and I mean noone knew for sure what Saddam was up to. We did not know if he was harboring terorists or providing funding or if he had WMD. Only after did we know for sure what was happening in Iraq.
I was saying there was plenty of reasons to go to war with Iraq before war broke out. But now that we are there it is easy to be a back seat driver and say should have done this or should have done that. We did it and now we need to be an adult about it and deal with the now. Making a mistake now will not erase the mistake we made going in.
There is a big difference between Russia, China, and Israel in obtaining Nuclear weapons and Iran getting it. Iran is a lunatic state run by religious fanatics. If they get the capability how long before some nutcase decides god said to drop the bomb? You notice I did not include Korea in my assumption to attack because at least I feel Korea will act responsible with nuclear capability.
You want to generalize everything but every country is different and that difference must be taken into account. Because I say we should attack Iran before they get nuclear capability does not translate to attacking anyone who is attempting to get it. Some may be getting it for other reasons like power.
I will gladly send my sons and daughters to Iraq with the proper training. I know they will be well trained and given a chance to survive. They will be able to fight back. Can you say that about the innocent people who were killed in the twin towers?
I believe most of us can think Bush has done some bad things but I think most of us do not want to compound the error or make it worse. History will decide how bad or good Bush really was and what his fate is to be. I personally think Clinton was a far better president than Reagon and history is starting to lean that way. We are now learnig that his policies do not work and reagonomics was a disaster. With Obama we will be making a grave mistake that will cost us later.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 11:59 am |
|
Fred wrote: Didn't Germany declare war on us in WWII after Pearl Harbor? I also believe that Japan also dropped the declaration of war on us right after Pearl Harbor (and intended to do it right before it dropped).
The point being that, well, there is no point. No relevance. IF you believe that catastrophic things will happen to us if we try to turn the mission over to the Iraqi people as we draw down our overextended troops, then you need to say what, if ever, we can draw down Iraq, or what alternatives for troop levels and reconstitution of the military you have....and how you are going to pay for it.
I believe we can eventually hand over the reigns to the Iraq government but it will take time and only McCain will give them the chance they need to be able to survive. Obama is all about admitting defeat and pulling out ASAP without regard for the safety in the area. Given 2 choices, 1 - stay longer and stop any terorist buildup in the region, 2 - admit defeat and pull out now with a chance terrorists will take over and attack the US later. I choose 1 because I do not like the odds that terrorists will take over. Even 1 percent is to high a cost to bear if it happens.
Noone knows for sure what will happen under OBamas plan of defeatism but we must look at the possibilities and go with the plan that least kills innocent people. I prefer to go with the plan that is proactive in stopping terrorists in the region now versus doing it later.
As for paying for it I can say that 50 percent of it we would be paying for anyway. In the figures that are given they include regular military pay that would be paid whether we are in iraq or not. Whether a soldier is training in fort benning or in Iraq the cost is the same. The remainder we add it all up and ask the Iraq government to pay us back from the oil sales. I also think we need a president who will build a coalition and ask other governments to help cover the cost. Only McCain will be able to do that.
I also would like to add do we as Americans want to be compared to the French and spanards who with the first sign of terorist activity cave in and admit defeat without so much as a glance. I do not think so.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 558 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 12:38 am |
|
So why are we still in Korea, Japan and Germany????????????????????
Fred wrote:
The point being that, well, there is no point. No relevance. IF you believe that catastrophic things will happen to us if we try to turn the mission over to the Iraqi people as we draw down our overextended troops, then you need to say what, if ever, we can draw down Iraq, or what alternatives for troop levels and reconstitution of the military you have....and how you are going to pay for it.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 09:49 pm |
|
Playing the game,
If you don't consider that Japan attacked us, I really have nothing to discuss with you. Fred's response about Germany is all that needs to be said. We attacked the English to remove them from our homeland much as the people of Iraq are attempting to do to us.
Just a reminder, we also had a civil war with countrymen fighting and killing each other and no other nation was foolish enough to waste their own resources by getting in the middle of it. We managed to eventually work it out ourselves without any outside help.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 08:57 pm |
|
Didn't Germany declare war on us in WWII after Pearl Harbor? I also believe that Japan also dropped the declaration of war on us right after Pearl Harbor (and intended to do it right before it dropped).
The point being that, well, there is no point. No relevance. IF you believe that catastrophic things will happen to us if we try to turn the mission over to the Iraqi people as we draw down our overextended troops, then you need to say what, if ever, we can draw down Iraq, or what alternatives for troop levels and reconstitution of the military you have....and how you are going to pay for it.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 558 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 05:58 pm |
|
| Germany never attacked us, Japan never attacked us (Hawaii was not a State), England didn't attack us either. Where would the world be if we hadn't defended our way of life against each of them?
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 04:54 pm |
|
Skjuda, China, Russia, Korea, Iran or IRAQ have never attacked this country with a plane or any other weapon. If you can prove IRAQ attacked us with anything even a peashooter I'm sure this administration and this country would love to see it, I know I would. I am not in favor of any type of nuclear proliferation. Your reason for attacking Iran is the possibility they may get nuclear weapons and then you ask me my reasons to attack countries like China, Russia....... I have no reason to attack any of them. Following your "logic" we should have attacked all the countries that now have nuclear capability before they attained it (India, China, Russia, France, Israel) to name a few.
Again you associate the Bush folly in Iraq with protecting us from terrorists here, yet there is no proof that Iraq ever attacked us in any way. The Bush-McCain strategy of being the world bully/police with little or no thought to protecting this countries sovereignty is what invites a terrorist attack
.
For every thousand people you can recruit to stand beside you I can provide three thousand that want us out of Iraq and that would include many Republicans and Independents all with sons, daughters, wives or husbands.
Where my kids work is up to them, maybe you and yours should try a stint in Iraq.
We do have a well trained courageous volunteer military that have done everything and more than has been asked of them. I wonder how many would have signed up had they known we would have a lunatic as commander and chief?
You say you prefer to be proactive and not wait for something to happen that cost peoples lives, yet everyday we are in Iraq the death toll rises.
You speak of logic but none of your rebuttals contain any.
You should answer your own final question with regard to the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq.
|
aflyonthewall
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 7th, 2008 07:11 pm |
|
Fred wrote: No, Flyspeck, you are the pot calling the stainless steel dishwasher black.
You posted a bunch of untruths, and you don't even have the guts to try to back it up, or admit that what you had was crap. The best you can do is say, "Well, regardless of the facts, I still think this way..."
Now there you go. I did not say "Well, regardless of the facts, I still think this way..." Please, you are the pot and I am the kettle. You can't even get an old saying correct. It is the pot calling the kettle black. Fred, go back to bed and get out on the right side next time.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 7th, 2008 05:22 pm |
|
CHina Russia Korea and a host of other countries have never attacked our country with a plane killing innocent people either. Iran is a different story and I believe we should attack them as soon as possible. If they ever get nuclear capablility the mid and far east is in dire trouble and you know it. I would like to know what reasons they have given to go to war in your mind?
I will stand toe to toe with any family member who lost a loved one and I will bring with me the thousands who have not lost an innocent son father daughter wife to terrorism. Thye knew the risk when they signed up for the military and have been trained to fight back. Of those military men who died I beleive have killed 3 to 1 if not more insurgents. How many innocent civilians have killed an insurgent? None it is 0 to 1 for them. Not odds I like. I prefer to take the fight to them instead of having it here on our soil. If we take Obamas defeatist strategy and leave how long before another terrorist attack occurs here on our soil? If you do not think it will may I suggest you get your kids to work in high risk buildings for terrorist attacks like the worlld trade center. When they die may god grant me an audience with you.
So even if a WMD had been found you would still believe Bush planted it, lol. Watch out for them ghosts and goblins. Your mind is closed on this subject which is your right and no matter what anyone says you refuse to listen to logic. Like most people you are short sighted and only when something happens to you or your family will you change your tune. It is your right but one I personally do not prefer. I like the words of the 80's proactive versus reactive. I like being proactive and not wait for something to happen that costs peoples lives.
For everyone I ask this question:
What is the value of one life over another if it is a senseless killing and could have been stopped?
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 7th, 2008 02:33 am |
|
Skjuda, you seem to have caught a sidestepping affliction from another poster on here. Now you return back to "there was plenty of reasons to go to war with Iraq without pigeon holeing a single statement" I will in turn go back to where does it end? Why not attack China, Russia, Korea, Iran or a host of other countries that have given us plenty of reasons to go to war? With Bush and his neo-con buddies in office I suppose Cuba is fortunate they don't have proven oil reserves. Even the King doesn't claim Iraq had anything to do with the twin towers. If memory serves, that was bin Laden which by the way the incompetent in the White House has still done nothing about bringing to justice. Your cavalier "small leap to go to war" remark tells me all I need to know on this subject.
You don't believe Bush and his cronies cooked up anything in a dark room. I don't believe they did anything in a dark room either. They could all afford to have the lights on with the fortunes they will have reaped from oil, no bid contracts and weapons sales from this war now, not in 100 years. If you don't believe that, I am sure you still believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
You should try telling the families of our military casualties from this debacle to "get over it" (the war) and see what their response is. I'm sure they would like to see their loved ones living in the "now" verses their sacrifice for King George's blunders of the past.
If one single WMD had been found it would just be an obvious plant to cover the King's butt.
The big picture is, lets not replace one incompetent boob with another.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 6th, 2008 08:53 pm |
|
No, Flyspeck, you are the pot calling the stainless steel dishwasher black.
You posted a bunch of untruths, and you don't even have the guts to try to back it up, or admit that what you had was crap. The best you can do is say, "Well, regardless of the facts, I still think this way..."
|
aflyonthewall
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 6th, 2008 08:04 pm |
|
| No matter how you try to justify his remarks about distancing himself and others, they still read the same. His church affiliations along with rev.wright and the catholic priest prove this. He is a racist and so is his wife, who is probably more of a racist than he ever could be.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 6th, 2008 06:39 pm |
|
CC, I was expanding on my statement there was plenty of reasons to go to war with Iraq without pigeon holeing a single statement.
Military intellegence and civilian intellegence (oxymorons I know) are just quesses based on what people say or did or whatever. It is not a science like math, there has to be interpretations based on the information that flows. In the case with Iraq if you take all the things Sadam did and said and then base that on what hppened to the twin towers I can see where attacking Iraq for WMD and other things could be believed. I can see where it might be a small leap to get to the decision to go to war. Only after we attacked was it discovered some of the intellegence was wrong or misinterpreted.
Before we went to war I do not believe there was a conspiracy at the top to defraud anyone out of oil. I do believe because there is oil in iraq it is an important country more so than the african countries doing the same thing to there civilians. If you want to believe Bush and his croonies went in to a dark room and plotted the next 100 years to steal oil be my quest. I can only speculate you believe in ghosts and goblins too.
Crying fowl after the fact is the easy way out, you really should look at the big picture and youshould try living in the now versus living in the past. We attacked Iraq, get over it and lets move on to how we act like men as a nation and not commit another mistake like Obama wants to do. I have never like defeatist strategy and believe it leads to far damaging relations than anythng else.
My question to you would be if even a single WMD was found would your tune change or has that blinded your opinion?
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 6th, 2008 06:20 pm |
|
Skjuda, Now you claim a justification to go to war was the gassing of the Kurds many years before and seeing the trucks that were used. In your previous post it was "just sadams constant saying he is against America and his constant refusing to allow inspectors in was enough of a cause." make up your mind.
My question about invading other countries was in reply to your previous justification.
While the killing of the Kurds may have been justification for some action when it happened it is not a justifiable excuse to use years later because the actual reasons were erroneous. I'm not hung up on anything but the facts. The fact is that King George used inaccurate information to rush this country to war for his own reasons. You can attempt to justify it with all types of obtuse claims but it doesn't change that fact.
I am in no way a fan of Obama but as far as his plan to "force" them to be nice and the lives it may cost, the Bush, Chaney and now McCain plan has already cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people including our own. More lives than the killing of the Kurds by Sadams cohorts. You seem to have no problem with that as long as our country keeps footing the bill with our most precious resource while the Iraq government continues to take vacations and make little or no progress on internal reconciliation. They are the ones that must do what is necessary to bring about change in their country we have provided them ample opportunity with American lives and treasure. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
As far as reading Bushes autobiography, I'd go out of my way to not be in the same city as him and based on his previous record have no need to read his delusional account of his life. If you want a preview of what a lunatic may write try reading something about Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 6th, 2008 01:59 am |
|
McCain would be a good President to lead the military because of his Congressional experience more so than his POW experience. I think the Repubs have repeated the same mistake they made 16 years ago when they ran a past his prime war hero by the name of Bob Dole. A good man who would have made a good president but had lost a yard or two off his fastball.
McCain knows that we can't maintain the surge for any length of time beyond what we've done, and we've assumed some risks by doing that. He knows that there has to be a different solution, but he has turned into a pander bear for the right wingers.
I think we need a comprehensive plan in Iraq that DOES have either a timetable or a task list so that we can chart our progress. I fail to see how we can say we are winning or losing unless you hav | | |