Here we go again?

[Azazello1313]

No, he said he would not permit it to happen. That's pretty unequivocable. The only way to guarantee that it does not happen is military action. I said nothing about it being a call to war. It just struck me as out of character for him. I would think "straigh talk" would mandate that he says "There's no way in hell we're going to war with Iran."

 

so you criticize unequivocal statements that we will prevent iran from obtaining nukes, because you want unequivocal statements that we won't attack iran no matter what the hell they do? what benefit could possibly come from telling iran, "hey, no matter what you do to provoke or deserve it, we will never attack you"?

[Bill Swerski]

huh? is it "scary" to have troops stationed in germany or okinawa?

 

We're going to have SOME troops in Iraq for a long time, just like we do along the DMZ in Korea. People need to get used to that fact.

[isleseeya]

We're going to have SOME troops in Iraq for a long time, just like we do along the DMZ in Korea. People need to get used to that fact.

 

 

what will thr troops we leave stationed behind in Iraq do ?

 

help continue to build democracy ?

help deal with terrorists ( who were not there before the wat in anywhere near the numbers there are now ) ?

 

i dont understand what their role will be nor do i wish to have them stuck there is all i am sayin

[Azazello1313]

what would have happened if we just picked up and left europe after hitler was dead?

Oh good God.

oh no u dient

 

 

ton made the argument that since the primary war objective was met (toppling saddam and eliminating the threat, real or perceived, of WMD), we should pull out of iraq entirely. well that is just stupid. you want me to use a different example? ok. what would have happened if the US just completely left korea after thwarting the communist advance toward seoul? what would have happened if UN troops just up and left after milosevic was arrested? what would have happened if we just completely left kuwait and saudi arabia after kicking saddam out of kuwait? what would have happened to japan if we just dropped the bomb, forced them to surrender, and left for good? what would have happened to the south if the north just kicked the crap out of the confederate army, burned all the cities, and left for good?

Edited February 8, 2008 by Azazello1313

[The Irish Doggy]

if this is what happens, then yes, i'm up for it. here's the fear talking again. this fear of all hell breaking loose and then we have to do something later. if we take all the funds we are flushing down the toilet over the next 15 years by occupying iraq and invest them in smarter military might and energy alternatives, that entire part of the world becomes irrelevant anyway.

 

 

So, we have no moral responsibility to all the civilians in Iraq? What happens to them if we pick up and leave? I'm all for renewable energy as a method to increase homeland security and improve the environment, but if anything a reduced need for oil would most likely increase the instability in the area.

 

You'll created a poor country full of people with no hope ruled by warlords and a memory of Westerners putting it all in motion. This isn't an opinion based on fear, we've seen it happen. When the Russians and US left Afghanistan in the 80s, the Taliban took over a war ravaged country - what a great bunch they were. I don't want to see Iraq become the next Afghanistan.

[isleseeya]

So, we have no moral responsibility to all the civilians in Iraq? What happens to them if we pick up and leave? I'm all for renewable energy as a method to increase homeland security and improve the environment, but if anything a reduced need for oil would most likely increase the instability in the area.

 

You'll created a poor country full of people with no hope ruled by warlords and a memory of Westerners putting it all in motion. This isn't an opinion based on fear, we've seen it happen. When the Russians and US left Afghanistan in the 80s, the Taliban took over a war ravaged country - what a great bunch they were. I don't want to see Iraq become the next Afghanistan.

 

 

so what do we do ? keep putting young american soldiers lives at risk ? keep spending billions ( we dont really have ) on this war while we have major problems in our own country ?

 

i am not saying i have the answers but i dont like some of the options for sure

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

So, we have no moral responsibility to all the civilians in Iraq? What happens to them if we pick up and leave? I'm all for renewable energy as a method to increase homeland security and improve the environment, but if anything a reduced need for oil would most likely increase the instability in the area.

 

You'll created a poor country full of people with no hope ruled by warlords and a memory of Westerners putting it all in motion. This isn't an opinion based on fear, we've seen it happen. When the Russians and US left Afghanistan in the 80s, the Taliban took over a war ravaged country - what a great bunch they were. I don't want to see Iraq become the next Afghanistan.

 

Then we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

[Ursa Majoris]

 

ton made the argument that since the primary war objective was met (toppling saddam and eliminating the threat, real or perceived, of WMD), we should pull out of iraq entirely. well that is just stupid. you want me to use a different example? ok. what would have happened if the US just completely left korea after thwarting the communist advance toward seoul? what would have happened if UN troops just up and left after milosevic was arrested? what would have happened if we just completely left kuwait and saudi arabia after kicking saddam out of kuwait? what would have happened to japan if we just dropped the bomb, forced them to surrender, and left for good? what would have happened to the south if the north just kicked the crap out of the confederate army, burned all the cities, and left for good?

Or you could use the obvious example of what actually DID happen when we pulled out of Vietnam.

 

Thank me later.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Or you could use the obvious example of what actually DID happen when we pulled out of Vietnam.

 

Thank me later.

 

Or when the British pulled out of the colonies.

[billay]

so you criticize unequivocal statements that we will prevent iran from obtaining nukes, because you want unequivocal statements that we won't attack iran no matter what the hell they do? what benefit could possibly come from telling iran, "hey, no matter what you do to provoke or deserve it, we will never attack you"?

 

 

Did I say I had any preference for what McCain would say? I only said that, taking both Romney's and McCain's speeches into context yesterday, and the opinions of some that McCain will continue to pursue Bush's neoconservative agenda in the Middle East, it could certainly be inferred that he intends to initiate military action against Iran so long as they continue their nuclear program, which we have no reason to believe that they will do otherwise.

[tonorator]

 

ton made the argument that since the primary war objective was met (toppling saddam and eliminating the threat, real or perceived, of WMD), we should pull out of iraq entirely. well that is just stupid. you want me to use a different example? ok. what would have happened if the US just completely left korea after thwarting the communist advance toward seoul? what would have happened if UN troops just up and left after milosevic was arrested? what would have happened if we just completely left kuwait and saudi arabia after kicking saddam out of kuwait? what would have happened to japan if we just dropped the bomb, forced them to surrender, and left for good? what would have happened to the south if the north just kicked the crap out of the confederate army, burned all the cities, and left for good?

 

um, we've been in iraq for years now.

[AtomicCEO]

obillary do have an adequately detailed plan for "success" -- pulling everything out within 60 days. the lack of detail and nuance is not the problem here, but the willingness, correct that, eagerness to capitulate and surrender to the forces that oppose us in iraq.

 

Obama's plan is not to pull everyone out in 60 days.

 

When you deliberately tell lies, it kinda undermines any credibility you pretend to have... and it makes baby Jesus cry.

 

Here's my balanced response:

McCain's goal is to send every man, woman, and child in America to Iraq for the rest of their lives to patrol the streets.

 

See, I can lie too. Isn't McCain a terrible candidate because of it?

[tonorator]

 

ton made the argument that since the primary war objective was met (toppling saddam and eliminating the threat, real or perceived, of WMD), we should pull out of iraq entirely. well that is just stupid. you want me to use a different example? ok. what would have happened if the US just completely left korea after thwarting the communist advance toward seoul? what would have happened if UN troops just up and left after milosevic was arrested? what would have happened if we just completely left kuwait and saudi arabia after kicking saddam out of kuwait? what would have happened to japan if we just dropped the bomb, forced them to surrender, and left for good? what would have happened to the south if the north just kicked the crap out of the confederate army, burned all the cities, and left for good?

 

oh, and there was no invasion to stave off in iraq. carry on.

[billay]

Just for giggles, guess who said this?

The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

[AtomicCEO]

Just for giggles, guess who said this?

 

Give me a hint, did that person decide that the solution was to recklessly invade that country and depose it's leader without any forethought for what the plan beyond the first 2 weeks would be?

 

Did whoever said that cost our country trillions of dollars in military waste to meet his goal, souring relations with our allies around the world in the process?

 

Because depending on your hint... I bet I can tell you whether that person was a leader, or a complete f'ing idiot.... and that will narrow it down.

[billay]

that speechwriter gets a lot of work

[billay]

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.

Edited February 8, 2008 by billay

[Perchoutofwater]

It's not like they are taking away school lunches, doing away with SS and medicare.

[moneymakers]

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training -- and they also deserve another pay raise.

 

A few days before Christmas, an airline flight attendant spotted a passenger lighting a match. The crew and passengers quickly subdued the man, who had been trained by al Qaeda and was armed with explosives. The people on that plane were alert and, as a result, likely saved nearly 200 lives. And tonight we welcome and thank flight attendants Hermis Moutardier and Christina Jones.

[bushwacked]

And tonight we welcome and thank flight attendants Hermis Moutardier and Christina Jones.

 

You forgot to send me the invite.

[Azazello1313]

Or you could use the obvious example of what actually DID happen when we pulled out of Vietnam.

 

Thank me later.

 

right, the communists took over and the people who supported us were killed. thankfully for the US, the effects of that defeat only decimated that country and a few of its closest neighbors, like cambodia and laos.

 

Or when the British pulled out of the colonies.

 

another defeat and retreat. hey i'm with you guys....when one side surrenders and pulls out, the other side wins. that is sorta my point.

[Ursa Majoris]

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training -- and they also deserve another pay raise.

Agree with most of this but you cannot tell me that the amount we spend on defense is in any way efficient. Not even remotely close.

 

A few days before Christmas, an airline flight attendant spotted a passenger lighting a match. The crew and passengers quickly subdued the man, who had been trained by al Qaeda and was armed with explosives. The people on that plane were alert and, as a result, likely saved nearly 200 lives. And tonight we welcome and thank flight attendants Hermis Moutardier and Christina Jones.

This was the Richard Reid incident which took place in 2001 and cost nothing. What has this got to do with anything, aside from correctly asserting that all individuals need to remain alert?

[billay]

Well, I guess this answers my question. Bring on the fear and divisiveness!

Offering a preview of the general election campaign, President Bush sought on Friday to unify the Republican Party behind its presumptive nominee and said the contest would present the country with a stark ideological choice at a time of war...

 

As the party began to coalesce around Mr. McCain, Mr. Bush’s remarks were part of a broader Republican move over the last day and a half that has set the stage for a campaign focused on the nation’s security.

 

Beginning with Mitt Romney, who withdrew from the race on Thursday, warning that he would not abet “the surrender to terror,” Republicans, including Mr. McCain and Vice President Dick Cheney, have warned darkly that the Democrats were ill-suited and ill-equipped to protect the nation, the same theme that Mr. Bush struck in his successful 2004 re-election campaign.

 

On the first day as the likely nominee, a status he achieved when Mr. Romney withdrew, Mr. McCain on Friday turned his attacks toward the two Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, not his remaining major Republican challenger, Mike Huckabee.

 

“I guarantee you this: If we had announced a date for withdrawal from Iraq and withdrawn troops the way that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton want to do, Al Qaeda would be celebrating that they had defeated the United States of America and that we surrendered,” Mr. McCain said at a rally in Wichita. “I will never surrender.”

 

For Mr. Bush, Friday’s speech presaged a role his aides said he would play all year: using the power of the presidency to shape the agenda, defend his own record and attack his Democratic critics on national security as relentlessly as he has since the 2002 midterm election.

 

“Listen, the stakes in November are high,” Mr. Bush told the boisterous audience in Washington. “This is an important election. Prosperity and peace are in the balance.” Some of Mr. Bush’s closest associates have already begun officially to fall in behind the McCain campaign.

 

Mr. Cheney joined the assault on Friday at a Republican Party fund-raiser in Harrisburg, Pa., saying: “The important thing for all of us to remember is that six and a half years after 9/11, the war on terror is still very real, that it will not be won on the defensive, and that we have to proceed on many fronts at the same time.”

 

Mr. McCain acknowledged that he needed to work to unify the party, and the issues of national security and taxes appeared to be the means of doing that. He said that he had spoken to Mr. Romney and also another erstwhile rival, Fred D. Thompson, who, he said, pledged “to do whatever it takes to help me win.”

 

“We also understand that once the dust settles, then we all join together,” he said in Wichita, appearing beside Senator Sam Brownback, another conservative former rival for the nomination, because “we all know what will happen to the United States of America if the wrong party wins in November.”

 

What happens if the "wrong party" wins John? We gonna see that mushroom cloud? I said awhile back that if Hillary got the Democratic nomination that I would probably vote for McCain. I rescind that statement.

 

Republicans set to focus on Security. NY Times

Edited February 9, 2008 by billay

[The Holy Roller]

If God wanted the world to end, He wouldn't have let New Kids on the Block reunite.

 

This was one of the signs of the end time's approach.

[Chavez]

well you can't take that off the table, but there are lots of other ways to bring pressure on that regime and to make pursuing nuclear weapons disadvantageous. there are both carrots and sticks, and not all of the sticks involve military action.

We should attempt to isolate them politically and economically. Oh, wait, that's our CURRENT policy. How's it working so far?