O/T Reality Check Sad and Insane May be Hung Soon [Archive]

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:27 PM

Posted By: David SmithSaddam's death will only cause a worsening of the Civil War in Iraq. It will, however, fulfill President Bush's Second reason for ACTUALLY going to war. His First reason, was, obviously OIL, just like his Dad's reason in 1991. George the First said in 1991 it was about Democracy in Kuwait but after the war ended, what happened? Gas prices went down, American companies were given large contracts to clean up and rebuild Kuwait and HOW MANY Democratic elections have been held in Kuwait since 1991? W's Second reason (wanting Saddam dead) relates to the Gulf War. During that war, Saddam said some mean things about George the First and I think I remember Saddam also issuing death threats against the President. After the war, many criticised Bush for not finishing the job and taking Saddam out of power. This obviously hurt little George W's feewings. So, once it looked like he was going to be elected President in his own right, W and his henchmen (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) started planning a war with Iraq, the only problem, how to take action without looking like a bully? The answer dropped in their laps with the terrorist attacks. (That is why some conspiracy theorists say the US didn't act or might have even helped the attacks to happen). I can't remember if it is International Law, United States law or just common sense, but I think there is a rule about not being able to kill a leader of a foreign country. This prevented W from an out-and-out assassination of Saddam. So, the next best thing would be to take over his country and then have the Iraqi justice system kill Saddam. Once Hussein is dead, watch for some type of shift (maybe major) in foreign policy as far as Iraq goes because at that point, President Bush will have no more personal feelings about the situation because HIS goals will have been acheived; 1) to make his friends in the oil business even more money and 2) Saddam Hussein to be dead. David PS, Dan I know what you are talking about. My cousin had two weeks left in a semester in college when he was called to duty to fight in the Gulf War. The bad part was, he didn't leave the country for a month and just sat around with his Unit for that time. He lost out on that semester and didn't get a refund of his tuition. He fought in the war (he wont talk about what he saw or did) and then came back home. On top of having to retake the courses he missed out on, he also had Gulf War Syndrome to boot.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:31 PM

Posted By: anthonyi recently read that the military or pentagon (one in the same) have started up the "draft machine"...which to my understanding compiles a list of possible men/women in certain demographical areas. once they finish with the list, they target those areas with recruiters to build up our forces...it hasnt been used since 1999. i dont think this is a good thing for our future troops but regardless i will support them, our president and our country regardless of who is in charge. Semper Fi USMC - Cpl 1986-1991 edited to say that i wont get into it but i disagree with 98% of what david just wrote, sorry david but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:32 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanSome of you guys sound a lot smarter when you're limited to discussions of baseball cards solely. As Clint would say, "A man needs to know his limitations." I'm sure the moment Bush gets the word that Saddam is dead he will have a press conference and suggest that the war has been won.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:34 PM

Posted By: E, DanielJeff, wouldn't be the first time he's said it though, right....? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> Daniel

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:35 PM

Posted By: BrettThe Americans won't be leaving Iraq any time soon. If they pulled out, the country would have a civil war and be even more screwed up than it already is.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:36 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI get the NY Times delivered to my door every morning...good crossword puzzle. And the best news around (I know it is biased, that is why they invented the editorial page).

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:37 PM

Posted By: joe brennanThe Americans won't be leaving Iraq any time soon. If they pulled out, the country would have a civil war and be even more screwed up than it already is. SO? In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:39 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaExactly Joe. It is time for the Iraqi people to stand on their own. Democracy is not handed out, it is earned.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:40 PM

Posted By: David SmithAnthony, if there is any Draft or other military build up, I hope it is to go and take out the bad guys in Syria and Iran. Remove those trouble makers and the Middle East will calm down for a while. The United States should stop pussyfooting around and take care of the root of the problem over there. Also, if they want to get Bin Laden, then they should drop a large nuclear bomb over those mountins in Afghanistan close to the Pakistani border. If it doesn't out right kill Bin Laden and his men, it might make them sick. It would also send a message to Pakistan to not harbor or aid and abet Bin Laden and his supporters. David

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:42 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDan, Suppose Iraq doesn't want to be a democratic country. Remember, other middle east countries fear democracy more than anything. Would it be okay if Iraq reverts back to a dictatorship. Peter

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:43 PM

Posted By: joe brennanI could care less what happens to Iraq AFTER we a long gone. As long as not one more American Child is killed in that cess pool it can fall off into the gulf for all I care. In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:51 PM

Posted By: Joann"Do you guys all subscribe to the New York Times or what?" Just the editorial page. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> I get the headlines delivered via email daily, and usually all I have time to read are those editorial items that I don't have to pay extra for - and I'm still meaning to send in a check for those! Joann

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:52 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaPeter, I don't really care. Nation building is not the job of the United States Military. Our presence in the ME is nothing more than pouring fuel onto a fire. The best way to deal with the theocratic America haters is to ignore them. Stop buying their oil, stop positioning one country against another, stop selling arms to them...just plain stop. Instead of pouring my tax dollars into building schools for future America haters we should spend that money protecting our own borders.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:57 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI agree that if the Iraqis can't work out their own affairs and are set on killing each other, why should we care? They don't want a democracy; each faction just wants to wipe the other out. I say let them, and bring all those American kids home who are losing their lives and getting horribly maimed for nothing.

Archive

12-30-2006, 01:59 PM

Posted By: steve fDavid, I don't believe the a-bomb is a feasible option any longer. To many other countries have a red button now.

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:10 PM

Posted By: David SmithSteve, True, but if the intelligence organizations have an area where they think Bin Laden is it would be a better option than sending in more troops to scour the (desolate) area trying to find him. Then again, my idea rests on the concept that the United States has intelligence organizations that are capable, see WMD assertions before the Iraq War.

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:11 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanBarry, if only it were so easy to let the various bloodthirsty Muslim sects just kill each other off while we mind our own business. Alas, while a great theory, eventually one remaining bloodthirsty Muslim sect will fill the vacuum in the middle east, grab all the oil (i.e. money) and use the area as a launching ground against the great Satan, America.

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:20 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJeff, That is exactly the problem the U.S. caused by destabilizing the area. The terrorists who use to be isolated radical factions within states now have the opportunity to dominate a country of their own. Bin Laden and other terrorists will have legitimacy and a platform for bashing the U.S. and rally other Islamic countries. Peter

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:22 PM

Posted By: barrysloateNo Jeff, it certainly isn't easy and in fact it is quite sad. But we are really helpless to do anything about it.

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:27 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonI think this is bigger than just Iraq. Some people feel it's WWIII and other people think we should just pull out of the whole region. Either way, get ready for some craziness.

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:37 PM

Posted By: peter chaoGuys, The hanging is set for 10 PM EST. Looks like Saddam is toast. Peter

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:38 PM

Posted By: anthonynot to cross borders or anything, but iraq is the least of our problems...north korea is a lot worse situation than the people are lead to believe... their president, leader or whatever he is...is truly insane, far more insane than saddam.... also, everyone with the exception of n. korea that has a "red button" is either an friend or a semi-friend... n. korea is neither and has no potential to be either, if the bomb is to be used anywhere it is on top of his house.

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:41 PM

Posted By: barrysloateHi Leon, how are you?...how's the weather in Dallas? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:46 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPeter, somehow I think the area's instability - permitting the likes of murderous muslim terrorists to run unchecked in their plots against American interests - existed prior to the war in Iraq. You've heard of 9/11, right?

Archive

12-30-2006, 02:56 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJeff, That's true to some extent. However, crazy as he is, Saddam was the one person who could control Iraq and keep the terrorists out. Peter

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:07 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanOut of Iraq, maybe. But hindsight is 20-20, remember. Had Saddam not wanted to scare all the other Muslim countries in the middle east by making them think he had WMD - by refusing to allow the inspectors in to poke around - he wouldn't be swinging in a few hours. Certainly, Saddam's own bloodthirsty actions, although legendary even amongst other bloodthirsty despots in the Middle East, had no impact on terrorism directed at America and our interests.

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:08 PM

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis.....in your own words....."That is exactly the problem the U.S. caused by destabilizing the area." WELL..... Are you old enough to REMEMBER.....the Iran hostage of Americans in 1979 ? Do you REMEMBER.....Sadaam attacking Kuwait in 1990 ? Do you REMEMBER.....the 1993 attempt by terrorists to blow-up the Twin Towers in NYC ? Do you REMEMBER.....our Marines murdered and dragged in the dirt in Somalia in 1993 by Al Queda terrorists ? Do you REMEMBER.....the two American Embassy bombings in Africa in 1996 ? Do you REMEMBER.....the USS Cole being damaged with the loss of our precious Navy man in 2000 ? Do you REMEMBER.....that terrorists on September 11, 2001 murdered 3000 people in New York City, Washington DC, and Shanksville, PA ? Do you REALIZE.....that all these tragic events occurred before we went into IRAQ ? ? ? ? ? I am very interested in your answer to this last question ? TED Z

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:11 PM

Posted By: peter chaoTed, Your points are well taken. I'm only referring to Iraq. Because of Saddam's Dictatorship he was able to maintain control of Iraq and keep the terrorists out of power in Iraq. That's all I'm saying. Peter

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:15 PM

Posted By: DylanIn todays world we have smart bombs and precision strikes all to limit collateral damage. But let's remember in warfare an enemy has to be literally brought to its knees to stabilize a foreign occupation and government transistion. Fighting a war cannot be police work. It seems that we've learned little from Vietnam. The nature of warefare is a dirty business and it must be treated so. A fervent enemy must be completly and utterly destroyed. However warefare of that nature seems to be a thing of the past and now operating a police state is the humane but IMO ineffective strategy. Dethroning Saddam has done nothing but unleashed sectarian violence which was suppressed by Saddam due to his brutality. Now rival factions have been given the oppurtunity to fight and attempt to consolidate power in Iraqs new government which is unstable and decentralized. Did it ever occur to anyone that it takes an authoritarian regime to govern such a fractured country with old hatreds of one another? Unfortunatly the capture of Bin Laden will likely have little effect if any on the capacity of al queda. These guys work in a organizational structure of covert cells that is intended to limit the harm that can be done if members are captured and interrogated. Bin Laden has long had the oppurtunity to prepare for his eventual death or capture. Although a symbolic victory it would be, tactically little would be accomplished. I am optimistic that positive change can happen, but truths need to be addressed and not swept under the rug.

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:23 PM

Posted By: leonThe weather is crappy in Dallas. It's rainy and balmy. My personal belief on this matter is we should be happy Sadamn (sic) is going to hang and we should leave the region and let them all kill each other, if that's what they want to do. I was for the invasion at the time we did it but at this point it's a no win....again, we all have our views. Lets (see Barry no apostrophe <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) keep this to one thread please....best regards

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:29 PM

Posted By: barrysloateUh-oh..."let's" has an apostrophe, short for "let us." Keep at it, you'll have it down before the troops leave Iraq <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:33 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanDylan, you're right in the sense that if we really wanted to 'win' the war, we'd drop a two ton bomb on the next crowd that forms to support Al-Sadr. And instead of being terrified of scratching a mosque or hurting someone who is hiding a terrorist in his house, we'd probably be better off cleaning house, so to speak, in all of the muslim/terrorist hot spots. But then we'd just anger the French and the apologists in America who actually can say with a straight face that the hanging of Saddam is a bad thing.

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:43 PM

Posted By: leonMy wife, or you, never told me of the "let's" being possibly "let us".....party foul...or in this case "apostrophe foul" .....that was bad...

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:53 PM

Posted By: barrysloateYou are forgiven (or should I say "you're" forgiven) <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-30-2006, 03:59 PM

Posted By: E, DanielMmmh, interesting Jeff that you think only the French and a couple of apologists would find mass murder somewhat hard to stomache. I think if America indeed did drop massive bombs and killed tens of thousands of people at once - in some sort of strategic measure to further an ability to dominate a nation of different peoples, it would not have a single friend in the entire world who would stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Not Australia, not Israel, no-one in todays world belives in such indiscriminate slaughter. That you find it a good line of thinking is disturbing.... And, as I discuss with friends and family regularly, all one has to do is imagine a foreign force sitting on our red white and blue shores, militarily dominating the American people and running its goverment, and wonder how many young and old americans would be more than happy to blow themselves up in order to cause pain to the interloper. And we would all call them brave, and patriots, and not the adjectives we use to describe these fanatical nationalists we encounter in Iraq. That they seem crazy in their religious and nationalist zeal shouldn't be a stretch, just imagine the rest of the world looking on to american t.v and viewing prayers by players before and after basketball and football games, actors thanking their god for the good fortune of getting golden statues, a president who says god has guided him in making these world decisions he so hopelessly fails at, and everywhere the red white and blue flags hang on cars, houses and government buildings, and the USA with a standing army over a million and with bases on every continent and country...... Saddam should die by his people's hands for his acts of murder and deprivation, but it would have been nice if his own people cared enough to bring him down themselves. And 911? Gee, when will everyone leave 911 and Iraq as the 2 COMPLETELY seperate issues that anyone and everyone who has done any investigation has absolutely sworn to be the case. Bin Laden, Al Quieda, Taliban, Afghanistan. Saddam, Iraq, Oil and personal vendetta. Daniel

Archive

12-30-2006, 04:44 PM

Posted By: Max WederBarry The only thing I can contribute on a meaningful level to this thread is: shouldn't the verb in the title be "hanged" rather than "hung"? <a href="http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000278.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000278.htm</a> Yours apostrophetically, Mack's

Archive

12-30-2006, 04:48 PM

Posted By: JoannHahahaa. Post of the day goes to Max. "Apostrophetically"? Mack's? haha. Thanks for those. I laughed right out loud. J

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:03 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanDaniel, your sensitivity towards suicide bombers is really impressive. You are quite the sensitive man. I award you the Rachel Corrie Award for trying oh so hard to humanize those sad, suicide bombers. I guess Bin Laden and his bunch felt so unfairly treated by Americans that they thought it was simply a cry for freedom to kill 3000 Americans on 9/11. Also, your attempt to equate athletes' prayers before games to homicidal maniacs screaming "God is greatest" before cutting off the heads of innocents is also quite the impressive leap in logic.

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:05 PM

Posted By: peter chaoMax, My bad, but I was running out of room on the Topic space. Now, I'm starting to sound like Barry. Oh no. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:10 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisYour reply..... "But then we'd just anger the French and the apologists in America who actually can say with a straight face that the hanging of Saddam is a bad thing." Jeff, you will only become more frustrated in trying to convince a certain segment of this country of your rational thinking with respect to the Middle East. You will never be able to conduct a civil debate with 1/3 of the people who are diametrically opposed to your thoughts. Another 1/3 don't give a crap, and 1/3 do AGREE with your thinking. This breakdown is representative of human nature, today....as it was when George Washington fought the Revolution. History books will tell you that only 1/3 of the Colonists were supportive of the Rev. War....1/3 were loyal to England....and 1/3 could care less. You just can't fight it, guy.....it's just the way people are constituted. Have a very HAPPY NEW YEAR.....everybody. TED Z

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:12 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanTed, can you email me your email address?

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:17 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffI'm with Jeff, it's amazing how many savants we have on this board who actually sound sane and intelligent when talking about baseball cards, but are apparently mentally challenged in non-card discussions. America, f**k yeah! -Ryan

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:19 PM

Posted By: barrysloateMax- you are correct...but if they do a good job would you then say Saddam was well hung? (sorry guys, I know it's bad but I couldn't resist. Please forgive me).

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:20 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanBarry, no steak for you due to that last pun. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:26 PM

Posted By: JimBDo you remember the Crusades? Do you remember the colonial occupation of the middle east? Do you remember the arbitrary drawing of national borders and the propping up of despots as rulers? Do you remember the American arming of Sadaam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War?('The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a very dangerous foreign policy.) Do you remember the CIA training of al-Quaeda in Afghanistan to help fight the USSR? ('The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a very dangerous foreign policy.) I could go on. Most Muslims in the Middle East hold these historical events quite clearly in their minds. I would never claim that Muslim responses to Western actions have been ethical or appropriate. They have been aweful and condemnable! But it would certainly be a mistake to think that Muslim terrorist actions against the West have come out of nowhere or arose out of some historical void where there was no wrong committed to provoke anything. JimB

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:27 PM

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman"Do you remember the Crusades? Do you remember the colonial occupation of the middle east? Do you remember the arbitrary drawing of national borders and the propping up of despots as rulers? Do you remember the American arming of Sadaam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War?('The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a very dangerous foreign policy.) Do you remember the CIA training of al-Quaeda in Afghanistan to help fight the USSR? ('The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a very dangerous foreign policy.)" Jim, and what does any of this have to do with the daily slaughter of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq today? Or the fact that more Muslims have been killed by Muslims than those which were killed by Israel and America over the past 25 years?

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:28 PM

Posted By: barrysloateJim- I agree that it is a two way street and that the west has no concept of the Muslim world. But after 9/11 any hope of a mutual understanding vanished forever.

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:32 PM

Posted By: Chris CountsSo when do pitchers and catchers report? Late February? It won't be soon enough ... I guess it's just a matter of time before someone links Saddam's execution to the rise in prices of "E' cards ... I'm reminded of that wonderful saying by Rogers Hornsby when he was asked about what he does in the off-season ... "I sit and stare out the window and wait for spring to come ..."

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:45 PM

Posted By: JimB "Jim, and what does any of this have to do with the daily slaughter of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq today? Or the fact that more Muslims have been killed by Muslims than those which were killed by Israel and America over the past 25 years?" Jeff, Nothing other than that the brutality that is commonplace in that part of the world seems to fly in every direction. In no way do I condone any of the attrocious actions that have taken place in the name of Islam - either towards Americans or other Muslims. I find them utterly appalling and I wish there were some Muslim leaders with enough courage to stand up and condemn them, but I have seen far too little of it. At least in America you find people who are willing to voice dissent. That is one of the great things about democracy. In fact, that is what makes democracy work. I think most people in most Middle Eastern countries are so afraid that if they did voice dissent, they would lose their lives and the livelihoods for their families. Transition to democracy will be very slow there, if it every takes off. We would be naive to think otherwise - though I think our rulers expected there to be a democratic party in the streets of Bagdad about three years ago when our mission was accomplished. Though I teach a bit on Islam in my World Religions class, I am no Islamic/Quaranic scholar. My impression however is that the extremists like al-Quaeda are twisting the message of Islam. But I think that twisted message is unfortunately becoming more broadly accepted. When we continue with the sorts of policies in that region that we have, it only encourages it. JimB

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:48 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldYour reply..... "But then we'd just anger the French and the apologists in America who actually can say with a straight face that the hanging of Saddam is a bad thing." Jeff, you will only become more frustrated in trying to convince a certain segment of this country of your rational thinking with respect to the Middle East. You will never be able to conduct a civil debate with 1/3 of the people who are diametrically opposed to your thoughts. Another 1/3 don't give a crap, and 1/3 do AGREE with your thinking. This breakdown is representative of human nature, today....as it was when George Washington fought the Revolution. History books will tell you that only 1/3 of the Colonists were supportive of the Rev. War....1/3 were loyal to England....and 1/3 could care less. You just can't fight it, guy.....it's just the way people are constituted. Have a very HAPPY NEW YEAR.....everybody. TED Z Wow talk about hitting the nail on the head Ted. As usual "we" seem to be outnumbered. But i think most of our peers just choose not to get into an impossible argument with the libs and lefties. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Jeff. As usual i am in complete agreement. Please keep up the good fight. I just don't have the time right now. ......Wow, to think i agree with a lawyer.... See anythings possible. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:48 PM

Posted By: Dan Kotelesthere isn't any reason to be in Iraq ,one of our soldiers life is worth more then Bin Laden's period ! Sad situation.

Archive

12-30-2006, 05:56 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJim, well-said. And I agree with everythng you've said. I think the problem is that there is only a limit to how long you can sit idly by while the Muslim fanatics go about trying to destroy us. Consider what is going on in Israel and Gaza now. Israel has agreed to a ceasefire only to be bombarded by Muslim rocket fire every single day. Indeed, the rocket launchers have said that they are simply trying to goad Israel into attacking them and scotching the ceasefire. One party to the cease fire, Hamas, is taking no action in stopping the launching of rockets from its side. Should Israel move out of the West Bank completely probably 75% of all surrounding Muslims will not stop their daily attacks until Israel ceases to exist. Should Israel cease to exist, it is fairly clear that the various sects of Muslims contained in that area will then turn their weapons on each other. The sad solution is to either build a wall to contain the homicidal maniacs on the other side or obliterate them all.

Archive

12-30-2006, 06:04 PM

Posted By: JimBJeff, I agree with you and I have no idea what the solution, if there is one, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. Unfortunately I think it is going to continue for a very long time. As long as there is a significant group of Palestinians who sabotage all efforts at cease-fires and a peace process out of conviction that Israel has no right to exist at all, there will be no peace. It is a very sad situation. Jim

Archive

12-30-2006, 06:10 PM

Posted By: BrianI am still trying to figure out what is wrong with subscribing to the NY Times. Is this code for something--perhaps a liberal left-wing conspiracy? I don't get that comment..... Oh, by the way, I am a subscriber. Best newspaper around. Brian

Archive

12-30-2006, 06:22 PM

Posted By: barrysloateSome people feel that if you read the NY Times you are a liberal, a communist, or god knows what. The fact that they have the best reporters in the world doesn't seem to matter much.

Archive

12-30-2006, 06:26 PM

Posted By: Max WederBarry I thought it was the fact that the Sunday edition is really heavy, and the ink got on your hands. Who knew the real reason? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> Max

Archive

12-30-2006, 06:35 PM

Posted By: BrettJoe, I don't think you understand... If the Americans leave Iraq, they'll have a civil war. When Iraq has their civil war, the country might end up with a "dictator" thats even worse than Hussein. He'll most likely be anti American because im betting most of the people in Iraq hate the Americans... He'll then let in as many terrorists into the country as he can... then Iraq will be the headquarters for Al Qaeda... planning more attacks against the western world ( mainly the US ) They'll smuggle WMDs into the country and thats the ball game. But then again, according to Joe "who cares?" Also, the Americans were the ones responsible for Hussein taking power, so basically, blame your own government. I could go on more of a rant, but I don't feel like getting into a useless flame war. Have a good night.

Archive

12-30-2006, 06:36 PM

Posted By: anthonydo you remember ty cobb 1911? do you remember joe jackson 1919? do you remember cy young 1905? do you remember walter johnson 1904? do you remember christy mathewson 1910? do you remember the last time we talked about these guys? hehehehe this is/was a good o/t post...it is obvious that there is a wide variety of opinions on this subject and it seems that the majority of us support our troops which is always good.

Archive

12-30-2006, 06:37 PM

Posted By: BobSome of you are too young to remember but Ronald Reagan gave Iraq a huge military arsenal to use against our "enemy" Iran. Old Teflon Ronnie got a pass when it all blew up in his face and Saddam was no longer our "buddy." I vote we get out now, we shouldn't have gotten in in the first place. Bush said there were "weapons of mass destruction" despite all the observers who said there weren't. We "had" to do something after 9-11 so we lashed out at GW's dad's enemy under the pretense of destroying those WIMDs which were proven never to have existed. Once he had egg all over his face, GW conveniently turned the war from a preventive strike and punishment of Saddam to a war to free Iraq and democracize Iraq. What bull hockey. We need to quit trying to be the world's policeman and turn our attention to all the problems which exist here. I thought we learned our lesson from Vietnam but apparenlt the old idiom "those who can not remember history are doomed to repeat it" is never so true. If we offered huge financial incentives, which would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we have spent in Iraq, to develop non-gasoline powered automobiles, we would no longer need to be dependent on mideastern oil or need to rape the environment in Alaska. I guarantee if the incentive were great enough, the technology would be found, but the corporate powers who make so much money off petroleum based products will fight it tooth and nail...

Archive

12-30-2006, 07:03 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI'm with Tbob. We need to leave and let them decide how they want to run their own country. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. We've done more harm than good.

Archive

12-30-2006, 07:17 PM

Posted By: Steve M.Some of you are too young to remember but Ronald Reagan gave Iraq a huge military arsenal to use against our "enemy" Iran. Old Teflon Ronnie got a pass when it all blew up in his face and Saddam was no longer our "buddy." I vote we get out now, we shouldn't have gotten in in the first place. Bush said there were "weapons of mass destruction" despite all the observers who said there weren't. We "had" to do something after 9-11 so we lashed out at GW's dad's enemy under the pretense of destroying those WIMDs which were proven never to have existed. Once he had egg all over his face, GW conveniently turned the war from a preventive strike and punishment of Saddam to a war to free Iraq and democracize Iraq. What bull hockey. We need to quit trying to be the world's policeman and turn our attention to all the problems which exist here. I thought we learned our lesson from Vietnam but apparenlt the old idiom "those who can not remember history are doomed to repeat it" is never so true. If we offered huge financial incentives, which would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we have spent in Iraq, to develop non-gasoline powered automobiles, we would no longer need to be dependent on mideastern oil or need to rape the environment in Alaska. I guarantee if the incentive were great enough, the technology would be found, but the corporate powers who make so much money off petroleum based products will fight it tooth and nail...

Archive

12-30-2006, 07:18 PM

Posted By: barrysloateSaddam Hussein has just been executed. He is dead and gone. Good riddance.

Archive

12-30-2006, 07:18 PM

Posted By: DylanJim we are all aware of the arming of Afgahnistan taliban and Iraq during the Iran Iraq war but lets not forget the context of those agendas. There was a much larger threat looming that took priority over all other and that was the cold war with the Soviet Union. U.S. priorities and interests change with are enemies. These shifts in policy are a neccesity to balance power in regions of instability. Now in hindsight perhaps the soviets would have failed in Afgahnistan without covert CIA weapons and perhaps Iraq and Iran war would have ended in a stalemate without our intervention, but what if they didnt? What if most of the middle east oil production was under the control of the Iranians? Or the Soviet Union prevailed in Afgahnistan? Sometimes the end result justify the means.

Archive

12-30-2006, 08:18 PM

Posted By: Anonymous......??? (oops, that was a few years ago.)

Archive

12-30-2006, 08:22 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethAny suggestion that all Muslims are fanatics who only refrain from killing each other because they can kill Israelis seems a gross oversimplification to me.

Archive

12-30-2006, 08:30 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffAgain, I'd like to recommend the excellent documentary "Team America - World Police" which chronicles our country's righteous history of democratizing the planet. A must-see for anyone interested in U.S. foreign policy. -Ryan

Archive

12-30-2006, 08:36 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaAmerica F*ck Yeah!!!! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjQYSIoU4-k" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjQYSIoU4-k</a>

Archive

12-30-2006, 08:46 PM

Posted By: JKwhy is it that every 30 days or so we have to have a 5000 post thread on Iraq? worse part of it is that nobody has anything new to say. I already know what jeff, barry, tbob, scott, peter and pretty much everyone else has to say about the matter (hey all). opinions havent changed since the first time this topic was debated and are unlikely to have changed three years from now. can we please get back to baseball - this thread has really run its course (for about the 10th time). oh, and barry, that post about the NY Times having the greatest writers - man that was funny. of course, if you were referring to the greatest writers of fiction, I guess then I would agree. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-30-2006, 09:09 PM

Posted By: David SmithDid Saddam have any cards in the Desert Storm series???? Better start selling them now if he did... See, that post was card related. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> David

Archive

12-30-2006, 09:41 PM

Posted By: JimBDylan said, "What if....the Soviet Union prevailed in Afgahnistan?" Uh, there would be no Taliban, no al-Quaeda, and probably no 9/11. You can't honestly be arguing that we would be worse off if we had not funded and trained al-Quaed in Afghanistan. As for Iran controlling all the oil in the middle east, it is quite a leap to presume that if they had won the Iran-Iraq War that the world would have just stood by as they rolled over other countries in the region. You prefer the Bush-backed Saudi royal family - those great voices for moderation and liberal democracy in the middle east? Did you happen to notice that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia but we have not so much as waved a disapproving finger at them? I wonder if the Bushs have any oil relationship with the Saudi Royal Family. JimB edited for grammar

Archive

12-30-2006, 10:22 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1167459706.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1167459721.JPG">

Archive

12-30-2006, 11:53 PM

Posted By: DylanBin Laden hand picked those terrorists from saudi arabia in the hope it would fragment are relationship with the Saudis. Had the U.S. done what you suggest it would have played right into Bin Laden's hand. no Iran would not have rolled over the entire middle east but if they controlled both their own and Iraqs oil reserves they would have massive power in the energy market. And are you so sure the Afgahns would have been better off with the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan(a soviet puppet state) which was pretty much ran by terrorists too btw. I dont agree with the Bush doctrine. I also dont agree with the idea that the reason terrorism exists in the form it does today is simply because of who weve given weapons and aid too in the past either.

Archive

12-31-2006, 04:08 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJosh- Could you please elaborate on your comment that the NY Times has the best writers of fiction? And if you feel that's true, could you kindly recommend a new newspaper for me so that I can really know what is happening in the world? I could switch to the NY Post- at least that way I can find out where Paris Hilton partied the night before. That would be useful information. Thank you in advance for your help. Barry

Archive

12-31-2006, 04:36 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanBarry, the New York Sun, of course!

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:06 AM

Posted By: barrysloateMy grandmother used to read the Forward, but it was written in Yiddish and they went out of business. As such, I'll have to cancel my subscription.

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:18 AM

Posted By: steve fBarry, Like our old beloved Boston Herald, seems that Murdoch "Enquired" the Post too.

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:34 AM

Posted By: barrysloateWhen I lived in Boston during college, I read the Globe. Seemed like a good paper, but I'm not sure I got too much past the sports section in those days.

Archive

12-31-2006, 06:58 AM

Posted By: Andrew Parks1) We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used WMD's on the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own people. The UN found them after the Gulf War in 1991 all the way up to 1998 when Saddam threw them out. In fact, to support his impeachment-day bombing, Bill Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." If there were no WMD's then why did Hussein continue to dodge the weapons inspectors? Yet certain people continue to say they had no WMD's when we KNOW they had them! Bush and his administration were right! 2) We know that Saddam had a working relationship with bin Laden, too. The London Telegraph reported that documents were found linking bin Laden to Hussein. They had a working relationship as far back as 1998 based on their feelings towards US and Saudi Arabia. The files showed that the Iraqis were working hard to establish a "future relationship" with Osama and to set up a "direct meeting with him". Yet people say Saddam and 9/11 are two seperate issues. Not so. Hussein may not have planned the 9/11 attacks, but all evidence points to Hussein and bin Laden eventually joining forces to take out Americans. The war allowed us to get the demonic dictator before that happened! 3) Now we have to stay and finish the war as well as get bin Laden. If we get out now, civil war breaks out and some other demonic-possessed soul gets into power and its Saddam Insane all over again. Some of you ask, why should we worry about them killing each other? Let's get out now and just let them do it. Because not only do they enjoy killing each other, but they also have a strong affinity to killing people who look a lot like us and live between these borders. *They believe they will be rewarded in the after-life if they take out Christians. Although the majority of the people in this country are not Christians, they are either too stupid to know or to lost to realize it. And since they can't tell who's a Christian and who isn't, they just try to kill as many as white people as they can. (*-Not all people who claim to be Muslim believe this)

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:12 AM

Posted By: Joe D.I would have preferred if each member of his victim's families had a chance to come by and kick him in the nuts. One by one, kick by kick.... and then hang him. just my opinion.

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:13 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJoe, I think I saw that on South Park.

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:15 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJoe- good idea, but that line would be longer than the one at my post office. Besides, if you were at the end of it he'd be dead before it was your turn.

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:19 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisExcellent post Andrew......well stated...... And, as far as Bin Laden is concerned.......he may be dead already. We have not seen his gaunt-looking, evil face since Oct of 2004..... His cohort, Al Zawhari, has for the past 2 years done all the talking for these terrorists. And, he too, looks like he is in bad shape. He used to have a robust-look about him, but now he is quite gaunt looking, himself. They are all dying a slow and tortuous death.

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:27 AM

Posted By: JKBarry, While I think the times is very heavily biased, my comments were really a tongue and cheek (as should have been apparant from the <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ) reference to the Jayson Blair plagiarism debacle.

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:35 AM

Posted By: BrianGood, then we all agree that the NY Times is the best newspaper around. Brian (aka, that commie-liberal-NY Times reading guy) PS How about those Caramels in the Mile High Auction!

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:46 AM

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth"Some of you ask, why should we worry about them killing each other? Let's get out now and just let them do it. Because not only do they enjoy killing each other, but they also have a strong affinity to killing people who look a lot like us and live between these borders. *They believe they will be rewarded in the after-life if they take out Christians. Although the majority of the people in this country are not Christians, they are either too stupid to know or to lost to realize it. And since they can't tell who's a Christian and who isn't, they just try to kill as many as white people as they can." You don't REALLY believe it's this simple, do you? I mean seriously, have you read books on this subject? Or even newspapers?

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:49 AM

Posted By: barrysloateHey Josh- I saw the smiley face but didn't make the Jayson Blair connection. Yes, he was a bad egg and he destroyed his career. Hey, every industry has a few scoundrels, except amazingly, the baseball card hobby. Somehow we have managed to remain scoundrel free. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Edited to add of course the Times is biased, it is written for a mostly liberal audience. All papers are biased. The Daily News caters to Republicans, and the Post writes for the lightheaded (and I believe it is "tongue in cheek"- I'm a stickler for those things).

Archive

12-31-2006, 08:36 AM

Posted By: JimBI like the NYT and agree that it is an outstanding paper, though the Sports section sucks. However, for my money, I would take the LA Times in a second. JimB

Archive

12-31-2006, 09:00 AM

Posted By: barrysloateThe problem with the NY Times sports section is we never get the west coast games, because they end too late to make the deadline. In LA, all the results are in at press time. Big advantage.

Archive

12-31-2006, 09:15 AM

Posted By: Max WederBarry If you're concerned about the late scores, don't do as I did and go to school on the East Coast of Canada, which is one hour later than EST. And Newfoundland, to be even worse--and certainly different, is an hour and one half later. But back to newspapers themselves, how could you forgot the Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1841-1902! With such offers as free baseballs! <img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/338586452_bb24dafc20_o.png"> (The Daily Eagle is searchable on line at <a href="http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/</a>) Max

Archive

12-31-2006, 10:17 AM

Posted By: CatI thought the other guy was suppose to have the hood on? <img src="http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/Cosbro/2006_12_30t100612_450x298_us_iraq1.jpg">

Archive

12-31-2006, 11:46 AM

Posted By: APPeter, I have read books on the subject; I have studied backgrounds of religions and I have read articles on it. It's not too much more complicated than that. To really break it down: 1) They are Muslim. 2) The extremists who care to interpret the Koran literally believe they are called to Holy Jihad - war against non-Muslims --- mostly Christians. 3) They believe the more non-Muslims they kill in the name of Allah, the more rewards they get in "their heaven". 4) Since they believe the US is a mostly Christian nation, then they consider all Americans to be Christians, therefore, non-Muslim, therefore enemies in Holy Jihad. 5) Their heaven consists of eternal sexual pleasures involving young virgins among other things. I don't think it includes possessing a PSA 9 Wagner T206, though. 6) So they like killing us. 7) That's the honest to Allah truth and not very complicated... Hussein chose not to wear the hood during his hanging. I'm very thankful for this as that one decision most likely decreased by half the number of conspriacy theories that Saddam wasn't really killed thus saving us from video documentaries on YouTube claiming that he's still alive.

Archive

12-31-2006, 12:19 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethAndrew there is a big difference as you surely know between describing the views of a handful (admittedly perhaps a big handful but still a very small minority) of Muslim extremists and describing Muslims in general. Your prior post despite its footnote was much broader --"they" enjoy killing each other etc. etc. By the same logic you could ascribe to all Jews the views of a few militant extremists.

Archive

12-31-2006, 12:26 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethBy the way there is some pretty good stuff in the Old Testament not just the Koran about smiting infidels -- check out parts of Ezekiel for example. Or Exodus for that matter.

Archive

12-31-2006, 12:39 PM

Posted By: barrysloateSamuel Jackson quoted Ezekiel 25:17 in "Pulp Fiction" and the passage is in fact filled with violent metaphors.

Archive

12-31-2006, 12:52 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethAnd I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.

Archive

12-31-2006, 12:58 PM

Posted By: barrysloate"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them"...one tough dude that Ezekiel

Archive

12-31-2006, 01:10 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanYes, but no one is walking around with the Old Testament these days instructing citizens that if they don't pray 5 times a day they'll have their heads cut off.

Archive

12-31-2006, 01:32 PM

Posted By: davidcyclbackI don't know why folks malign France. As a country with much experience in the Middle East (read about Algierian independance), the French recommended that the US not invade Iraq in the way it did as they felt, in part, it would be a mistake for the US. Looking back, it's likely that a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Indepenants now consider the advice good.

Archive

12-31-2006, 01:38 PM

Posted By: David SmithAny one have any "Freedom Fries"? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> David

Archive

12-31-2006, 01:46 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanDavid, I think Syria also officially stated that it would be a mistake to invade Iraq.

Archive

12-31-2006, 02:02 PM

Posted By: SoxFanI have to say that I agree with my buddy "The Guy From Boston" click on "Americans"..........Have a Happy and Safe New Year's everyone....<a href="http://www.theguyfromboston.com/video_menu.asp" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguyfromboston.com/video_menu.asp</a>

Archive

12-31-2006, 02:19 PM

Posted By: Darren9/11 may we never forget.

Archive

12-31-2006, 02:42 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth<a href="http://costofwar.com/index.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://costofwar.com/index.html</a>

Archive

12-31-2006, 02:49 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethYou are failing to consider all the costs saved by virtue of preventing Saddam from waging war on us with all his WMDs. What's that you're saying? We didn't find any? Our intelligence was wrong? Are you kidding me? No way, I don't believe it. I bet they are all underground someplace, or in Syria. Or maybe in Paris.

Archive

12-31-2006, 03:03 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI guess in the circles some travel in, the French are "adored"......but, most Americans have a different opinion of the French. And, why would the French have ever supported us against Sadaam, it would have been contrary to their self-interests......they were profiting MILLIONS and MILLIONS with their FOOD-for-OIL deals with this madman. And, the poor people of Iraq were suffering because of this. Perhaps, you were uninformed of these "nasty & dirty" deals. And, I could understand this, if you only read the NY TIMES; and, didn'tt seek other sources of information. This paper has been "guilty by omission" these past 5 years in much of it's coverage of significant events. Is it because they have an "agenda" ? West and South of the Northeast, most people in this country consider the NY TIMES a "propaganda" tool very akin to the old USSR's PRAVDA. Just think of all the trees that would be saved if this so-called newspaper ceased and desisted ?

Archive

12-31-2006, 03:04 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthYou are current Peter. I failed to overlook the fact that the US was months away from having groups of 35 Iraqi adults charging up a hill and hurling missiles at our country. We narrowly averted millions of deaths on our soil. Long live Halliburton!!!! Greg

Archive

12-31-2006, 03:13 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethThat's a great analogy. Give me a break.

Archive

12-31-2006, 04:29 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Now maybe we can focus on the myriad of problems we have on our own soil.

Archive

12-31-2006, 04:31 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI agree. Like how to prevent 9/11 again. Or the Egyptian murder of an El Al ticket agent in July of 02. Or the Muslim attack at the Seattle Jewish Center. Or the Muslim attack at UNC-Chapel Hill. Or the Muslim attack....(repeat).

Archive

12-31-2006, 04:36 PM

Posted By: E, DanielI'm always astounded that you never hear people in the news or in society really stop to think about the human, not monetary, cost of wars - in particular the one we wage currently in Iraq. And it sure a sh@# still is war, ask any soldier over there. One humble number to think about, perhaps Mrs Bush and Teddy Z could ponder it as they somehow try to make this hell that has been created some sort of phantom propoganda by news agencies... Just excluding all others to die during the initial invasion, and combat deaths of American troops and iraqi/foreign resistance since: The smallest number verified for civilian deaths (by body count in morgues) since the invasion is over 50,000 people. Not the missing or unaccounted for. Just so as to give it greater proportionality for us living in the USA, Iraq has a population of roughly 27 million people. If the same proportion of Americans were killed comparable to population, it would equal over 550,000 dead. Over 1 million Iraqi people have fled their country. Proportionally in the USA, that would be the same as over 11 million people scrambling over the borders to Canada or South America in fear of losing their lives. This thing is an absolute disgrace, and the justifications for it are absurd. And that has zero, ZERO to do with the NY Times, or lefty liberals, or any other scapegoat this government and its supporters seek to dump their morally bankrupt war on. Daniel

Archive

12-31-2006, 04:44 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanDaniel, you are so right. Wars really need to be fought in a proportional sense. You should really run for president. You can run on the platform of elimiating pregame prayer circles because that seems to have convinced the Islamic facists running around cutting off heads of women who dare to learn to read that their behavior is just the same as their athletic, American counterparts.

Archive

12-31-2006, 04:53 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI think Daniel was merely making the sound point that people underestimate the enormous human impact of the war on the Iraqi people.

Archive

12-31-2006, 04:57 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonOf course that's only 1.9 million fewer than Saddam killed himself.

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:10 PM

Posted By: Miguel DanielsonI agree with the person who said that these threads tend to be redundant and usually do not involve much new material -- people here tend to believe today what they believed yesterday (at least with regard to Iraq). These types of threads make me wonder what each side of the debate would say in response to the following question: are there circumstances which, if they occurred, would lead you to say that your position in this debate is incorrect? If the answer to this question is no, then I don't believe you have a principled position (because a position which does not change under any circumstances is not informed by reality and is therefore not logical). If you can name circumstances which, if they occurred, you would consider your position to be ill-conceived, then you at least have a principled position. For those who are against the Iraq war, I would expect that circumstances meeting the above criteria would be: (1) weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and/or (2) a successful military campaign in Iraq concludes with a stable, self-run government in Iraq. Neither of these has happened, though it is at least plausbile that each might (though, clearly, each has grown less and less plausible over the past four years). I am at a bit of a loss, however, as to what those who are pro-war would list as circumstances meeting the above criteria. Put another way, is there anything that could (plausibly) happen which would make supporters of the Iraq war admit that their position is wrong? I fear that the answer is no, because many things that, two or three years ago, I would have thought would qualify as such circumstances, have in fact occurred, and yet most of the pro-war people here and elsewhere seem to be unwilling to admit that their position is incorrect -- that the Iraq war was not a good idea. (Some examples of conditions that, three years ago, I might have said would "convert" pro-war supporters would be: (1) the death of over 2,000 U.S. soldiers, (2) the failure to find any WMDs after a three year period, (3) the occurence of civil war in Iraq, or (4) the death of more civilian Iraqis at the hand of the U.S. military than divilian Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's regime -- all of these things have happened and yet those here who support the war seem not be changing their position on the propriety of the war. Thus, I put it to those who support the Iraq war: (1) Are there any concrete, plausible circumstances which, if they occurred, you would admit that the Iraq war was ill-conceived? If so, what are the circumstances? Perhaps the answer here is just that war supporters would put the "limit" of acceptable solider fatalities at something more grim -- say, 10,000. Or perhaps there is some other plausble circumstance that still may yet occur and which would make war supporters finally agree that the war was not a good idea, and I am simply missing it. I am intersted to hear from those supporting the war on this narrow question that, I hope, will help all of us better understand your position. Regards, Miguel

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:10 PM

Posted By: barrysloateHey Ted- I read the NY Times every day and all those stories were there. They aren't missing anything- they reported all these covert deals you were talking about. Are they just a bad paper because their readership are people like me- those dreaded liberals? (you know I am just busting your chops). <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:17 PM

Posted By: BrianNY Time=Pravda Now that one really blows my mind! History will show that this administration is the most inept and immoral one to ever serve in office. It is too bad that a newspaper that reports the truth (in that sense, equating it with Pravda is correct, because I believe that means Truth) is condemned by those who cannot understand this. I find it completely incomprehensible that the same group that abhors stem cell research because it destroys human life (read embryos, incapable of making decisions about going to war) finds it acceptable that 3,000 US soldiers have died needlessly (how many returned maimed?) and countless other innocent non-combatants (yes, there are innocents in Iraq) have died. Besides that, $400 billion could have done a lot of good, like feeding the homeless or educating those less fortunate, something I know about in NY (maybe that is not a problem in the south or west?). What a complete and utter waste of life and resources. Maybe someday you guys with NY Times conspiracy theories will wake up and smell the coffee (but I doubt it). Brian (aka Pravda-reading socialist liberal)

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:19 PM

Posted By: CatThese political debates always piss me off and I normally try not to interject any of my own thoughts. I believe that most people who speak up, especially in the media, are pushing some sort of agenda and can’t even remotely be objective. The whole idea that Bush didn’t find WMD so we shouldn’t be/have been there is absolute Bulls—t. If Tim McVeigh taught Americans anything is that WMD do not have to be complicated. Any county with a plane and oil products have weapons of mass destruction. One napalm (you can learn how to make napalm on the internet) drop over the densely populated areas in his region would kill many hundreds of thousands of people. Napalm is just a very simple example…my point is that chemical warfare is really pretty simple to accomplish. Saddam proved himself, almost daily, to be a nut and had to be stopped. We had Hitler in Europe from the early 30s to the mid 40s and our government didn’t do a thing about it until it was way too late. But we shouldn’t be the Worlds Police…Oh No!!! People just cry out: “How can you compare the atrocities from Hitler to Saddam." Well that is just the point. YOU CAN’T !!! Hitler went unchecked for years and WE KNEW what he was. At least Daddy Bush let Hussein know early that there would be repercussions. GW, at least acted. There are no crystal balls with these issues. What GW did was the right move, but history will write the story differently. As a comparison, history has us believing FDR was a great president. In reality he was the most pathetic, nutless, ill-brained excuse of a president this county ever had. Sure he was taking care of business at home – developing social programs to pull us out of a depression that we were coming out of anyway – of which we are still paying for. In the mean time, Hitler was invading countries and we did not spend one extra dollar getting ready. We were so ill equipped when FDR made his “day of infamy” speech. Bush will be known, years from now, as a below average President. It’s hard for people to relate to things that don’t happen. Without a doubt he saved lives in the World, but it is unfortunate that American lives have been lost to accomplish that. Maybe some of you would rather have FDR back. If a President does nothing, then is it his fault. I guess to many Americans the answer is “No!”

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:30 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthWell thought through Daniel. I was merely trying to give the dollars and cents of the war. I did not touch on the human cost factor as that is clearly something that the board's war advocates might not understand. Since this is not on our soil, with bombs and gunfire going off and body parts strewn in our streets next to our morning papers, many are simply unable to comprehend from the comfort of their surroundings what it is really like. How many of those who are for this war have family or children fighting in Iraq? How many of you would go if asked to fight? Jeff L. are you willing to risk your life for this noble cause of yours? Not sure I could actually see you putting your money where your mouth is. Could you really go 2 weeks or 6 months without buying cards for your collection while you are protecting America from our "enemy." Just curious. For those of you who have not seen it yet, watch Baghdad ER. I am sure many of you will write it off as left wing propaganda. But the injuries sustained and death of American servicemen and women and Iraqi civilians are quite real and very sobering. Although I have never been in favor of the invasion, I can understand being convinced by the government at the onset of the necessity of our being there. At this point, given the lies, loss of life and costs, it is hard for me to understand how educated people can still be supporting our being there. Greg

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:34 PM

Posted By: barrysloateThanks Brian, that was eloquently stated. Cat- I think we did one great thing- we took down Saddam's horrific regime and as of today he is dead and gone. The problem is we very quickly lost our way. We could have done good things in Iraq but the whole war effort was handled abysmally. The planning was poor and the leadership, from the president on down, was totally inept. Now we are stuck there for years, kids are dying and getting blown to bits, the whole country is in chaos, and nobody has a clue how to fix it. Going in may have not been a bad idea, killing Saddam was an heroic deed, but that's about the only good that has come from this mess. It's very sad but I think we will see the whole Middle East implode, and if they ever take Israel out, we are looking at World War III.

Archive

12-31-2006, 05:47 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Does anybody really think that any government can put a stop to what has been going on in that area of the world for THOUSANDS of years? Some humility please, or, an acknowledgement that outside nations are not there for "humanitarian" purposes, but rather purely for financial gain?

Archive

12-31-2006, 06:28 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanActually Greg, I think Bush has botched the war horribly. I also think, in hindsight, the war against Iraq was a mistake -- there are worthier countries that support terrorism against the US which should have been attacked, Syria and Iran the two that come to mind. I have also never voted for a Republican my entire life in a single election. That being said, I believe that Bush's head is/was in the right place and the war against terrorism needs to be taken to the terrorists instead of waging a defensive war. I, for one, believe that Bush has not been nearly aggressive enough in Iraq in order to complete what now needs to be done. Bottom line: the war may have been a mistake but now that we're in it we need to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. As for putting my money where my mouth is, not sure what the point of your comment is. For what it's worth, I have publicly stated (and I don't mean at a bar or on a chat board like this, I mean publicly in the tri-state area to hundreds of thousands of people listening) that I would give significant sums of money -beyond my paid taxes- to fight terrorism. Perhaps you had to live through 9/11 instead of watching it on a TV to understand this. I don't make my living buying and selling cards. Frankly, as much as I love this hobby, it is nothing but a hobby to me. I could give it up tomorrow if I had to. And if I could use the money to ensure that my children will be free from the next Islamic fundamentalist on our soil screaming "Allah Akhbar!" before exploding himself then I would. What about you? Have you given sums of money to any peace movement? And on that note, I'm done discussing this on this board. Frankly, as I said before, once the topics veer from baseball cards I can't fathom a single reason to discuss these important issues here. There are much more productive venues for such a discussion than the Net 54 board.

Archive

12-31-2006, 06:36 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethJeff: what is it exactly that you think needs to be accomplished?

Archive

12-31-2006, 06:41 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI partly agree and partly disagree with Cobby. I think Bush is genuine if misguided in his beliefs and is not acting simply because of oil or to create money-making opportunities for American corporations, but at the same time think it is sheer folly, and incredibly hubristic, to believe that the US through military force or otherwise can create a Western-style democracy in Iraq or can control sectarian (or anti-US) violence.

Archive

12-31-2006, 06:53 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisWhat many in Washington DC and many who have posted on this thread fail to realize, that since the 1993 bombing in NYC (World Trade Center) we are in WW III. Most of the news "media" doesn't get it. We are not allowed to call these BABARIANS "terrorists"....they are "insurgents" or "freedom fighters". Iraq is a caldron of "sectarian violence" or is in the throes of "civil war"..Bull-Crap..it's a "religious war" that they are engaged in and no one in the media really wants to acknowledge this. It would be politically incorrect to admit this fact. And, this goes for our politicians, also. And, until this fact is realized, no one will be able to resolve it. But my friend....WWIII is here....there is no doubt about it

Archive

12-31-2006, 06:57 PM

Posted By: AnonymousTed -- sectarian violence means violence of one religious sect against another. That's what it is and that is what the press calls it. And who the hell has been calling Al Qaeda freedom fighters rather than terrorists?

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:19 PM

Posted By: barrysloateTed- It's a fair point that we may be in the early throes of a 21st century WWIII. As far as religious vs. sectarian, that is just a semantic difference. Both share one thing in common- complete intolerance for anyone else's way of life, religion, or philosophy...sort of like Net54 in a way <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:31 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffZell is right, WWIII is upon us and the NY Times = Pravda. Any other absurd exaggerations, I mean words of wisdom, for us? -Ryan

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:43 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthJeff, Maybe you should ask your President, if he is able to answer, why he supports a country whose citizens were involved with 9/11. Isn't that where we should be hunting down terrorists since we know for a fact that those involved were from Saudi Arabia? I do not need to live in NYC to feel the pain of that event and understand the severity of the problem and the threat. However I do not see how the war in Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. I do sell cards for a living, not sure what you were implying other than possibly it not being nearly as important as what you do for the community as a defense attorney. Also not sure I follow your question as to what I have contributed towards peace movements. You say you COULD give sums of money but never said that you had. Wondering what the relevance is of your asking if I had. If we are going to tell other country's governments how to behave we should lead by example. We are in no position to be telling anyone what to do or how to do it as long as ours conducts itself as it has. Greg

Archive

12-31-2006, 07:49 PM

Posted By: BobAndrew- I am not sure how old you are and how old you were between 1967 and 1972 but if I changed a few names in your post to Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung and a few group names to Viet Cong and NLF I would have sworn I had just read a defense of the Viet Nam war. We can agree to disagree but unless you honestly believe that sending your own children to Iraq or the children of family and friends is worth it, I can only remember the words to "Fortunate Son" by Credence Clearwater Revival and shake my head in sadness at the spilling of the blood of our children for what? You say that there will be a civil war unless we continue the killing and lose more young men and women to the madness? There IS a civil war going on now and even old GW has finally had to admit it. No one has profited from this war but Halliburton and its ilk. We can not make Iraq over in our image and have it become a shining example of freedom and democracy. The best we can do is leave and let them determine their own course and destiny. BTW-Edward R. Murrow once said you should never confuse dissent with disloyalty. Bob

Archive

12-31-2006, 08:00 PM

Posted By: E, DanielThat was a terrifically written and thoughtful post. I hope it receives some of the honest responses it deserves. For myself, finding a way to peace and understanding amongst various peoples on this earth has been harmed by this war. But perhaps, in the way you have described of what could change one's opinion regarding the necessity of this war......... By ripping off the scab of human intolerance and lack of respect for difference, and exposing it to the world as a cause needing extraordinarily urgent attention and rules of conduct ALL on this earth must adhere to, good could come of tragedy. Will it happen, I sadly doubt it. But if it does, I will say maybe there was a purpose - be it unintended, unplanned, or previously unimaginable, for this war. Would Bush deserve credit for it. No. But he would in retrospect have been necessary, and I could at least say that those who had died had been part of a road to a better future. Otherwise, they were truly taken too soon, unjustly, from people who loved and needed them, for no good reason at all. Daniel

Archive

12-31-2006, 08:04 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethHe who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat its mistakes.

Archive

12-31-2006, 08:46 PM

Posted By: JimBMiguel, I agree with some of what you said. However, I disagree with the following: "For those who are against the Iraq war, I would expect that circumstances meeting the above criteria would be: (1) weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and/or (2) a successful military campaign in Iraq concludes with a stable, self-run government in Iraq. Neither of these has happened, though it is at least plausbile that each might (though, clearly, each has grown less and less plausible over the past four years)." The first criteria of any "just war" theory is that it is a war of self-defense and one does not act as the initial agressor taking the first action. It also must be a last resort. Neither of these are the case when we took the first strike and acted as aggressors. Pre-emptive strike is unjust by any reputable Judaeo-Christian theological standard. That George Bush can call himself a Christian and argue for pre-emptive strikes is mind-boggling. Sadaam Hussein was absolutely contained and of no threat to the United States whatsoever. Even if he had WMDs (which Bush knew he did not), he had no way to get them to US soil, or even Israeli soil. There was no Iraqi military build-up. There was no weapons build up. There was no reason to think he had any immanent plan for attacking the US. They were hardly surviving since the first Gulf War. Bush I probably left him in power because he knew the destablization that would ensue if Sadaam were removed. The consequence has been much worse for most Iraqis. What if we just left him there and relatively powerless until he died a natural death? I guess we will never know. But I am pretty sure there would not have been an Iraqi attack on American soil. And Iraq would not be anything like the breeding ground for terrorists that it is today. JimB Edited for spelling.

Archive

12-31-2006, 09:59 PM

Posted By: APWhere do some of guys get your information? Let's review: 1) 1979 - Muslim extremists take Americans Hostage. Carter cancels Iranian visas and orders a poorly planned rescue attempt. 2) 1982 - US Embassy in Beirut bombed by Muslims extremists. Reagan sends Marines to Beirut. 3) 1983 - US Marine barricks in Beirut bombed by Muslim extremists. Reagan wants to continue but Democrats cried and demanded our troops out. Regan caved in an election year. On the way out he ordered the bombing of Somalia - Dems bitched about that too. 4) 1985 - Italian Cruise ship is seized and a 69 year old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists. Reagan ordered a mission to capture the hijackers - conceived by Ollie North - they capture the hijackers and we turn them over to Itlay who lets them go. 5) 1986 - West Berlin discoteque frequented by American servicemen is bombed by Muslim extremists. Ten days later Regan bombs Libya even though our "ally" France disallows the use of airspace. Kaddafi's daughter killed. 6) 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim Extremists. Bush says he will continue Reagan's policy of retaliation but does not. 7) 1990 - Saddam invades Kuwait. 8) 1991 - Bush goes to war with Iraq the way liberals like - with permission from UN and all of the US "allies". Democrats demanded that our troops stop at Baghdad. Then after 9/11, they bitched that Bush didn't "finish the job". 9) 1993 - World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim Fanatics. Clinton did nothing. 10) 1993 - 18 American troops killed in Somalia. One American corpse was dragged through the street as Somalians cheered. Clinton ordered our troops home. 11) 1995 - five Americans killed and thirty wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. 12) 1996 - US Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. 13) 1996 - Saddam attacked the Kurds in Erbil. Hussein has WMD's which he used on the Kurds and others. IT'S A FACT! Clinton bombed Iraq - hundreds of miles from Saddam's troops. 14) 1997 - Iraq refused to allow UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs and threatened to shoot one of our planes down. Clinton did nothing. 15) 1998 - Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the UN said no. 16) 1998 - US embassies were bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. 17) 1998 - Lewinsky appeared before grand jury. Clinton bombs Afghanistan and Sudan. 18) 1998 - Clinton being readied for impeachment. Clinton orders major strikes against Iraq. 19) 1999 - Clinton attacks the Serbians who were fighting Muslim extremists. 20) 2000 - The US Cole is bombed. Clinton did nothing. 21) Bush comes into office telling Condoleeza he's tired of swatting flies and wants to get rid of Al Qaeda. 22) September 11 - World Trade Center and Pentagon hit. 23) John Q. Soldier joins the army. 24) Bin Laden is linked to Hussein. 25) Bush wins wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, captures Saddam, immobolizes bin Laden (and possibly kills him), destroyed Al Qaeda's base and begins the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. 26) Johnny trains to be prepared to go to war if he is called. 27) Johnny knows that he could die. Joins anyway. 28) Johnny dies fighting for country. 29) Now - Democrats are outraged that in the months before 9/11, Bush did not do everything they opposed doing after 9/11, as well as questioning Bush's faith because "real Christians don't order pre-emptive strikes" (apparently they skipped the Old Testament and went straight to the New Testament). What a world we live in!

Archive

12-31-2006, 10:10 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisVery well presented.....you beat me to what I was going to say so I'll condense it in my next post. Ted

Archive

12-31-2006, 10:18 PM

Posted By: Bretttbob, About the vietnam thing... the international communist conspiracy to rule the world had to contained <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-31-2006, 10:22 PM

Posted By: BrianQuestion: you guys that justify and rationalize the war in Iraq--do you also believe Vietnam was justified in any way, shape or form? I have heard some Ronnie Reagan Republicans do so, and it makes my blood boil. Brian

Archive

12-31-2006, 10:47 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisDec 7th 1941 we were attacked by Japan......did we retaliate against them alone ? No, we fought WWII on 4 fronts....Japan....Germany....Italy....Africa. This War (and make no mistake), it is WWIII is similarly being fought on multiple fronts....Afghanistan, Iraq, and who knows where next ? These radical fundamentalist have no alliegance to any country. They are "jihadist-without-borders". I don't understand why most of you do not realize this. I guess your deep-rooted idealogy and your disdain for George Bush blinds your ability to think rationally regarding the real threat we face. A threat that really 1st started in NYC in 1993. I would really like to know how most of you felt when Clinton bombed Yugoslavia to oblivion in 1999 ? Clinton LIED and innocent Serbs DIED...... There were never any 100,000 mass graves verified. The 1000 (or so) graves that were found, no one could ascertain if they were Serb atrocities or Moslem atrocities in Kosovo. What is it going to take to shock your thinking back into reality.....another tragic event like 9/11.....?

Archive

12-31-2006, 11:22 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonI was there. It is a sh*thole of a place to be sure. It's like taking a step back about 500 years. I think it is similar to Vietnam in that we don't know who the enemy is, but to compare it to a "conflict" where we lost over 50,000 men/women is a little absurd. I'm sure some of you who were around in the 1960's may have a different opinion and I can respect that. We may have lost that battle, but we did end up winning the war in a sense when "Big Red" collapsed. These terrorists know what our weakness is and they take advantage of it. They know we hate to see our soldiers coming home in body bags. The "shock value" they get from their suicide bombers and IED's is almost too much for us to overcome. Our strategy of "search and destroy" is poor to say the least. It didn't work in Nam and it really doesn't work now. All that being said, I still think it is worth it. Wouldn't you rather be fighting them over there than over here? Because whether you like it or not they want to fight and they will not stop. It is not about just Iraq here folks. Did we find any WMD's in Iraq? Hell yes we did. Every friggin terrorist we kill is one less WMD in my eyes. Just because we didn't find a silo with a bunch of missiles in it doesn't mean we didn't find anything. I mean if you want to find that sh*t just go to Iran. They would absolutely love for us to pack up and leave. Then what? How long do you think Israel would last after that? It's pretty convenient that Iraq is between Iran and Israel don't you think? What's the REAL reason we are over there? It's pretty clear.

Archive

12-31-2006, 11:40 PM

Posted By: E, DanielAP, thanks. Maybe we should just hang democrats instead of your hated muslims. Or perhaps you would prefer side by side? Seems as though you believe one to be in either cahoots with the other, or an enabler of the other. Clearly, both are satan on earth for you. Clinton, ovbiously chief of all wickedness known to have touched these lands, perhaps all that ever will go wrong in the future will also be his dark handywork...... And thanks for the lovely elucidation. Obviously there are no democrat voting soldiers, or generals, or perhaps those that are have no gonads, and just spend their time crying. Clearly if it were up to people you call democrats this country would wear tutus as its national dress. Perhaps you would just like to pause and consider that with a roughly 50-50 voting split in this country, the men and women of the united states fighting forces are made up fairly equally of the flesh and blood of both political persuasions. As are the parents who must receive home their dead, their burned, their disfigured, their children missing limbs, all acting on the orders of their commander in chief. And those kids would do it again for whoever gave the orders, whatever the administration, because they are the best of us and bravest amongst all. But they don't get to question, do they? So as you carry on demeaning political persuasions outside your own - it equally demeans them, even as they make the ultimate sacrifice for perhaps causes they would not even support. But perhaps as parents, or merely citizens, we also should not question such sacrifice. We should just follow your notes. Listen to your exasperation at our lack of understanding... Because again, no one else but you has a sense of history or justice. Clearly we need your education on this. Again. Thank you. Daniel Ps. Oh, but, there is just one problem. None of what you describe as a good old caning given to those crazy muslims by Reagan, or anyone else, has done squat to put them all in line.......has it. In fact, from the early times of the PLO and other muslim terrorist organizations, its members drew paltry support and numbered in the tens and hundreds. They were supported by piss ant countries like libya, and the African giant nations of - who again?. As my 3 year old son would say, hooooooooo, scary! So from tiny groups attempting hijackings and bombings that found it difficult to get state sponsorship, and where we garnered world wide coordination with most countries in tracking them down and prosecting them, and having them clearly as the enemy of most in this world, and certainly not openly supported largely by muslim populations in various countries..... Now, we have this. We have Hezbollah, and its tentacles in Lebannon, Syria, and Iran. Myriad Palestinian terrorist groups. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Egyptian Brotherhood, and others. Oh, and we've managed to make miserable the lives of all Iraqi's who wouldn't identify themselves as Kurds, directly assisted in the hanging of a Sunni leader who is beloved in many other Sunni dominated countries, and even the Shiites aren't particularly grateful - even as they display their bloodlust and eat sweets in celebrating his swinging. No doubt they'll be back to trying to kill us tomorrow! Here are the words of one lady reported in Iraq - Um Abdullah, a Sunni and teacher in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad, said she would wear black to mourn the city's favorite son. "Saddam will be a hero in our eyes," she said. "I have five kids and I will teach them to take revenge on Americans." Ah, your right AP, this whole kill the crap out of them thing is going to go down swimmingly for us. We just need to keep finding a bigger and bigger stick. Daniel

Archive

01-01-2007, 12:01 AM

Posted By: Cobby33How can this money-guzzling and human life-taking exercise be considered a "world war," if virtually all U.S. allies refuse to take part in it?

Archive

01-01-2007, 12:14 AM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffCobby, You're forgetting Poland. -Ryan

Archive

01-01-2007, 12:27 AM

Posted By: Josh AdamsPaul, According to you, what is the "real" reason then? Just wondering. Go Go White Sox 2005 World Series Champions!

Archive

01-01-2007, 12:30 AM

Posted By: Cobby33Ryan-Oops! My bad! Also, allow me to offer the following soldier casualty figures: U.S.: 2998 (over 22,000 wounded) U.K.: 127 Other: 123 (incl. 18 Polish) These, of course, do not include the thousands of civilian (U.S. and other) deaths which have taken place (and yes, including women and children). Is this still considered a "world war?" Stop the madness. Now.

Archive

01-01-2007, 04:52 AM

Posted By: barrysloateThis thread proves what we've known all along- our own country is completely split and neither side is willing to tolerate anyone else's point of view. The Pro-Bush crowd hates the dissenters and anti-Bush throng hates the war, and if this thread went a thousand posts nobody would back down and accept anyone else's opinion on where we went wrong. If there is so much dissension right in our own backyard, we have a quandary that will not get resolved. I have my own point of view as to why this war is a disaster, but as I scroll down this thread and see how inflexible we all are (I suppose I'll include myself in that group) I just see how far this country has fallen. I'm actually afraid to see a Democrat elected in 2008 because he/she will just become a punching bag for all of our myriad problems. Maybe we should just let Bush have a third term so at least we could keep kicking him in the butt and say it was all his fault. Forget the civil war in Iraq- we have an ideological one here in America. It's not about making the world better, it's about who to blame for everything that has gone wrong.

Archive

01-01-2007, 05:20 AM

Posted By: APIt's nothing personal, Daniel - just the facts.

Archive

01-01-2007, 06:40 AM

Posted By: Tom Boblittremove the word Democrats from your original post and the facts are the facts. I think some people would rather sit by and just HOPE another 9/11 doesn't happen. I'm not sure the war in Iraq is/was the right thing. Originally 'for' it, I get more against it day by day here but if we do nothing, it WILL happen again on US soil. Even if we do something, it WILL happen again on US soil. Democrat or Republican, these people see ONLY Americans. The Biblical cries are great as we all know you can find any passage in the Bible to either become a pacifist (....turn the other cheek....) or an activist (....an eye for an eye....). About time to lock this one down and move on to our little cardboard pictures of men again........

Archive

01-01-2007, 07:45 AM

Posted By: leonI am coming to agreement with my good friends Tom Boblitt and Barry. It's very interesting to see what others think about this subject. There are really good points on both sides (pro and anti war). If you don't see that then you are somewhat closed minded, imo. I gave my very long winded (about 2 sentences) opinion about 150 posts ago. I was for it and now I am becoming against it, or at least against our troops getting killed in a no win situation. Something has to be done I just don't know how/what. Obviously no one has figured that out yet. One thing I will say is that if you think Bush enjoys what is going on you are dead wrong. Does anyone in their right mind think that he likes facing the thousands of families who have had someone give the ultimate sacfrifice for our freedom? That has to be horrible. Let's let this thread go a few more hours and lock it down. As with anything I think moderation is a good thing. Also, if anyone has to get in one more opinion, after locked, they can always email me and we can chat about it. I want to let everyone speak their mind but also do want to get back to our little gems pretty quickly. After all that is what this board is for. Please pray our troops will be safe too. Take care and Happy New Year....

Archive

01-01-2007, 07:59 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethNoone has suggested he "enjoys" this or has even questioned his good intentions. What has been questioned is his strategic and political judgment -- doesn't it say something to you hawkish folks when even James Baker seriously questions that judgment? In all the rhetoric I have yet to hear a plan for how we can "win" this conflict, or how such a "win" is going to put an end to terrorism. Indeed, one might think the presence of the American military in Iraq is a useful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

Archive

01-01-2007, 08:04 AM

Posted By: BrianPaul, I am still waiting to hear the "real reason" we are in Iraq. Going there does not give you an excuse to make veiled comments about Israel "goading" the US into this war, which is what I think you are doing. I am beginning to hear this scapegoating more often, and it makes me sick. We are there because your president (I did not elect him) wanted to avenge his daddy's attempted assassination, to make Halliburton rich, etc. Nor is it absurd to compare this conflict with Vietnam. In both cases it was (or became) a baseless desire to "democratize" another nation. Yesterday the reds, today someone else. Getting Saddam out of power was one thing--good riddance is right--but that was several years ago, and it's time to get the hell out. The November elections were a mandate to do so, and most people (at least most that still have functioning brains) in this country agree. Let's see if the newly elected congress has the balls to do it. Face it, it was, and is, a mistake--there were not WMDs, no matter how you spin it (oh, yes, I forgot the metal tubes that were supposed to launch missiles at us and turned out to be anything but weapons). However, there were other countries definitely making REAL weapons (remember the "axis of evil"?) when we invaded, and they are further along now because of this moronic decision. Any half-wit in the administration knew that back when we invaded. Israel provided much of that intelligence, I believe. So be careful who you scapegoat. We are closer to WWIII now than before because the president went after the wrong enemy. Brian

Archive

01-01-2007, 08:10 AM

Posted By: leonPeter- No doubt hindsight is 20/20. I doubt seriously that if Bush knew what he knows today he would do it the same way. I think he did what he thought was best, as you have said, and it didn't/hasn't worked. If our goal is to protect our country maybe we could pull out from over there, in a structured way, and use those resources to protect our own shores better? We could also still support our allies (Israel etc..) with those same resources. Fighting in the streets over there isn't working. regards

Archive

01-01-2007, 08:12 AM

Posted By: barrysloateLeon- there are many things I could wish for in 2007, but if I could pick one that related to this thread it is that there could be a lot more tolerance of other people's opinions. There are clearly two sharply divided sides, and it would be productive if everyone stopped being so close minded and realize none of us has worked out the world's problems. We all have spent some time thinking about these issues. We live in very dangerous times and are all aware another 9/11 is very likely to happen here one day. But nobody on this board, myself included, has THE ANSWER. We are merely expressing personal opinions, but too many of us are pigheaded and believe that only MY solution is the right one, and to hell with everybody else. If we could all make a resolution, let's agree that the Democrats are not the cause of all our problems, the Republicans are not the cause, and it's not a black and white world of liberals against conservatives. This is the small-minded thinking that is slowly destroying the fabric of this country. How about we all agree that the other guy may actually have something worthwhile to say, and it's worth listening? I've been watching this thread closely and you know what- we are all as clueless as the next guy. Let's stop pretending any single one of us has it all worked out. Thank you, and let's have a happy and healthy 2007! Regards, Barry

Archive

01-01-2007, 08:30 AM

Posted By: Cobby33Barry is correct. This is why talking about politics is a waste of time, other than to pass the time at cocktail parties. Sad to say, but neither side is "right," or should I say, "correct." If ~50% of the country doesn't believe a certain viewpoint, it suggests that that viewpoint is flawed in some fashion. If Dems., Libertarians, Greens, etc. compose 50% of more of the population, they're not wrong. Nobody can say with a straight face that this many people (many of whom are very intelligent), are "wrong," simply because they haven't been in "power." Sometimes I do think an IQ test should be a prerequisite to voting. The biggest problem I have is the condascending attitude the current administration has, as does many of its followers. The "if you don't like it, go to Canada" viewpoint is tired. Just because the current admin. and less than 50% of the nation believes this campaign is good, doesn't make it good. We all need to resepct each other's opinions (GOP and Dem.) and work towards a common good. Blaming each other and shoving each other's doctrines down our throats is the reason we're in this mess in the first place and why there are millions in our own country who are suffering, with no way out. Let's have some compassion for each other and those less fortunate, starting on our own soil. This won't make us "bleeding heart pussies."

Archive

01-01-2007, 08:35 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethCobby, Dems and Republicans did work together and came up with the Baker-Hamilton report, but so far the Administration has essentially dismissed it as they know better.

Archive

01-01-2007, 08:39 AM

Posted By: Cobby33I suppose we haven't really learned anything from the report compiled by the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community, other than, don't carry shampoo on airplanes.

Archive

01-01-2007, 08:45 AM

Posted By: barrysloateHey, I've got opinions about everything and I too am totally fed up with our administration. But I also realize I'm just a hack who sells baseball cards and reads the NY Times every morning, so why should I delude myself into thinking I have the answer to all the world's problems? I don't, and it would probably be a good idea if they didn't elect me president, because I would f*** things up even worse. That's why I am willing to listen to what other people have to say, because a lot of people on this board are a lot smarter than I am. I might strongly disagree with an opinion, but no harm with that. It wouldn't be a bad idea if others were willing to listen, too.

Archive

01-01-2007, 09:04 AM

Posted By: API fail to see what the point of this statement is: There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. We may not have found any, but they certainly were there at one time. They never found Jack the Ripper but those women are still dead. Also - what's everybody so worried about? God's in sovereign control of everything.

Archive

01-01-2007, 09:06 AM

Posted By: BrianBarry, I sincerely doubt that you would f*&^%! things up worse...... I propose putting Barry on the ballot for the next Presidential election.

Archive

01-01-2007, 09:11 AM

Posted By: barrysloateFine- put me on the ballot for the Lunatic Party.

Archive

01-01-2007, 09:37 AM

Posted By: E, DanielThis whole two sides to this particular argument thing...... I understand one side. A. This is going horribly, too much death and scarring, too much hate being fostered, has not achieved any desired goals, time to get out and prepare a new strategy for targeting Al Qaeda while perhaps rebuilding a shattered image worldwide. B. ? What could be a measurable reason for remaining? Are we more likely to ferret out Al Qaeda by staying on the ground? How is that going for us and why is it likely to change? Will they all of a sudden start wearing unique patterned scarves or hoods for us to more easily target them? Or will the Iraqi people, if delivered to a solution that involves an agreement to stop killing eachother and living under some sort of agreed upon political and social system, begin to forgive us Americans for any pains we forced them to go through? Seriously? Will they teach love and understanding, or at the very least respect for Western culture in their schools and homes...? I'm just at a complete loss as to what we can deliver to them whilst being there, that we could not support financially, with infrastructure, with all other means from outside the country? This country of extraordinary divisions - perhaps even larger than our own (see AP's and Ted's warm and fuzzy feelings to half the population of this country), will probably need to come to agreement, tear itself up again, come to agreement, tear itself up again, many times before it can reach any long lasting peace. That's a road for them to take, and believe in, NOT OURS!!! Daniel

Archive

01-01-2007, 09:44 AM

Posted By: CatBarry/Leon: You both wrote something to the effect "at least listen and be tolerant of other's opinions." I couldn't agree more. The only thing I really know is that "I don't know." My only other post on this topic, at least my only other serious post, stated. "there are no crystal balls with these issues." Many of our Congressmen (all three of my congress"men" are females oddly enough) have positions based on ability to get elected/reelected and that's not trustworthy to me. Many Republicans ran from Bush like maniacs during election time, I believe, because Bush was getting hammered in the polls. We let polls frame our political landscape in this country (both parties). We let the uninformed determine policy to a large extent. Bush and his cabinet have made mistakes... a lot of mistakes. Most of the mistakes, I believe, have been how they have handled this situation publicly. Attempting to get some stability in the Middle East is the right move for our safety. I don't think doing nothing is an option any longer. I don't think that our intelligence was bad in regards to Iraq. Like someone else said perhaps we didn't find the warheads that we thought we would, but Iraq was the correct starting point for change...maybe we won't get there. I learned at a young age that if you passively let somone take your lunch money every morning on the way to school the only predictable event is that you will have you lunch money stolen each morning. On the other hand if you fight back, you change the outcome. You don't always have to win the fight, you just have to bloody a few noses. Similarly, if we do nothing on a worldwide basis, expect to have our freedom and safety (and lives) slowly taken from us. Based on what happened to Hussein, how do you think other lunatic leaders will act in the future? Do you think our administration has altered future actions by some of these maniacs? Hell Yeah!!! We have cut down our war of terrorism exponentially. Now, to a significant extent, we "just" have to worry about the less organized (and less funded) Bin Laden type of terrorist. That's a big "just" unfortunately. I believe our actions in Iraq have shown the rest of the world that we will not stand passively. This will, I believe, have a very limiting effect for funding of terror warfare against the US. No world leader wants to end up like Hussein. My last post on this thread. I REALLY am on this board to have fun.