One Choice in Iraq

[Vegas]

By Joe Lieberman

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502410.html

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.
Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

This progress is real, but it is still preliminary.

The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.

Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.
That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.
When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week's attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias -- as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.

But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish.

Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.

Certainly al-Qaeda can be weakened by isolating it politically. But even after the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree on a shared political vision, there will remain a hardened core of extremists who are dedicated to destroying that vision through horrific violence. These forces cannot be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. They must be defeated.

The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

[hannitykillspuppies]

By Joe Lieberman

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502410.html

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.
Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."
.
that would be a pretty good point until you realize that this stuff wasn't happening there until we arrived.

[Vegas]

that would be a pretty good point until you realize that this stuff wasn't happening there until we arrived.

Things were worse under Sadam.

[ryr8828]

that would be a pretty good point until you realize that this stuff wasn't happening there until we arrived.

Buying into the democrat's talking points I see.

Were there no mass murders under Hussein's rule? Did the people of Iraq live in harmony together during that time?

I'm not buying it, it's bullshit.

[Iron Jaw]

that would be a pretty good point until you realize that this stuff wasn't happening there until we arrived.

We arrived in 1991 and never completely left.

[Iron Jaw]

Joe continues to sound more like a Republican than a democrat. Of course, he's currently listed as an Independent but knows fairly well that he owes a huge percentage of his reelection to the Republican voters in Connecticut.

Perhaps, with his current state of mind and the recent comments from the senate majority leader, Joe will finally jump ship, join the Reps and make Harry Reid's tenure as SML short-lived.

[LSU]

Joe continues to sound more like a Republican than a democrat. Of course, he's currently listed as an Independent but knows fairly well that he owes a huge percentage of his reelection to the Republican voters in Connecticut.

Perhaps, with his current state of mind and the recent comments from the senate majority leader, Joe will finally jump ship, join the Reps and make Harry Reid's tenure as SML short-lived.


HUGE percentage? I think the independents are what got him over the top.

[Vegas]

Joe continues to sound more like a Republican than a democrat. Of course, he's currently listed as an Independent but knows fairly well that he owes a huge percentage of his reelection to the Republican voters in Connecticut.

Perhaps, with his current state of mind and the recent comments from the senate majority leader, Joe will finally jump ship, join the Reps and make Harry Reid's tenure as SML short-lived.

I heard on the radio that Joe said he may endorse a Republican for President in the next election and if it comes to that he will change parties.

I haven't read that nor have I searched for it.

[Iron Jaw]

HUGE percentage? I think the independents are what got him over the top.

70 percent of Connecticut Republican voters supported Lieberman (which probably didn't make Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger feel too good). 33 percent of the state's democrats supported him. 70 percent is a huge percentage of crossover voters. Without the Republicans, Joe would not be in congress. Lieberman was also endorsed by Republicans throughout the country including the likes of Rudy Giuliani.

Joe certainly owes his Independent election to the Connecticut Republicans.

[LSU]

70 percent of Connecticut Republican voters supported Lieberman (which probably didn't make Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger feel too good). 33 percent of the state's democrats supported him. 70 percent is a huge percentage of crossover voters. Without the Republicans, Joe would not be in congress. Lieberman was also endorsed by Republicans throughout the country including the likes of Rudy Giuliani.

Joe certainly owes his Independent election to the Connecticut Republicans.

I know the repubs voted for him. But there are more indies than either side in CT, so the indies made up a large amount...the repubs didn't vote for him because he was a repub...it was because he wasn't LaMont and they knew their candidate didn't have a shot, so instead of not vote, they voted against LaMont. Had Lieberman won the primary, do you think the repubs still would have voted for him?

[Iron Jaw]

I know the repubs voted for him. But there are more indies than either side in CT, so the indies made up a large amount...the repubs didn't vote for him because he was a repub...it was because he wasn't LaMont and they knew their candidate didn't have a shot, so instead of not vote, they voted against LaMont. Had Lieberman won the primary, do you think the repubs still would have voted for him?

I think they voted for Lieberman because he is a conservative and they realized the Republican candidate, Schlesinger, had no chance whatsoever to win the election. Plus, Schlesinger was a somewhat liberal Republican. Joe Lieberman received 23.7 percent of the Republican vote in the 2000 election, so his conservatism has always been attractive to some of the Republican voters.

Independents are Independents. Some lean conservative, some liberal, but tend to be moderated from the hard stream of the two parties. Of course, there are independent voters who vote for the independent candidate no matter, but a higher percentage of them swing towards a Republican or democrat candidate.

In 2000, the Independent voters casted only 1.94 of their votes for a candidate named William Kozak. Thus, the independent voters in that state voted for Lieberman or his opponent for the most part. Lieberman won in 2000 against a very liberal and very crooked Republican named Phil Giordano. An easy landslide. Giordano was later convicted of sexually molesting two girls and was sentenced to 37 years in prison.

[pnkpanther]

Buying into the democrat's talking points I see.

Were there no mass murders under Hussein's rule? Did the people of Iraq live in harmony together during that time?

I'm not buying it, it's bullshit.

mass murder's going on all over part's of Africa....

[Vegas]

mass murder's going on all over part's of Africa....

True, but it was brought up specifically in Iraq that everything was peaches and ice cream until we got there.

[ryr8828]

Lieberman's a liberal with balls.

His stand against terrorism is the only conservative stance I know of him having.
I think of him and Giuliani as being practically identical.

[ryr8828]

mass murder's going on all over part's of Africa....

<searches thread for Africa references that I replied to>

[pnkpanther]

<searches thread for Africa references that I replied to>

why protect iraqi's and not other's?

[pnkpanther]

True, but it was brought up specifically in Iraq that everything was peaches and ice cream until we got there.

no, no it wasnt, but prior to that Iraq was one of more moderate mid east countries (which says a lot) and ranked high in health care and education for that region.

[pnkpanther]

truth be told, iraq has been a hotbed since well, forever.

there is evidence that suggests President bush didnt even know there where different groups within Iraq, shites and what have you. and he still went over there, hell's bells on it...

after 9-11, he assumed Iraq was behind it and went looking for a link, and that is bad science.

[ryr8828]

why protect iraqi's and not other's?

Why not ask that question of your beloved UN?

[ryr8828]

truth be told, iraq has been a hotbed since well, forever.

there is evidence that suggests President bush didnt even know there where different groups within Iraq, shites and what have you. and he still went over there, hell's bells on it...

after 9-11, he assumed Iraq was behind it and went looking for a link, and that is bad science.

Hussein defying the resolutions was all that was needed, nothing had to be looked for.

I challenge your statement that Bush didn't know about different factions in Iraq. That's just silly.

[IBC]

Things were worse under Sadam.

How.

[Jiddy78]

True, but it was brought up specifically in Iraq that everything was peaches and ice cream until we got there.

I'd say it's been strawberries and ice cream since we've got there....

[IBC]

True, but it was brought up specifically in Iraq that everything was peaches and ice cream until we got there.

No it wasn't. you provide absolutely no evidence that is was better under Saddam. Just a BS "it was worse under Saddam." Unfortunately, that is not true.

Now tell us again how some US cities are more dangerous?

[IBC]

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein
January 3, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.

The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.

There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention.

In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group’s findings in the United States, and Hussein’s execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."

Polling Data

Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?

Better today


5%

Better before


90%

Not sure


5%

Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

[ryr8828]

More evidence that liberals will do anything in any situation to prove that the good old US of A is always at fault in any situation.

If Saddam weren't already hung I'd expect the Free Saddam chants to begin any minute now. He probably has a martyr banner hanging at the DNC.

[Jiddy78]

More evidence that liberals will do anything in any situation to prove that the good old US of A is always at fault in any situation.

If Saddam weren't already hung I'd expect the Free Saddam chants to begin any minute now. He probably has a martyr banner hanging at the DNC.


Liberals hold the majority of the good ol' U...S...of A...Thus...They are more representative of the good ol' U...S...of A...

So...Does that mean they're b*tching about themselves?

Hmmm....

[IBC]

More evidence that liberals will do anything in any situation to prove that the good old US of A is always at fault in any situation.

If Saddam weren't already hung I'd expect the Free Saddam chants to begin any minute now. He probably has a martyr banner hanging at the DNC.

You said it, you were wrong. Then you appela to patriotism. Typical.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

[ryr8828]

Liberals hold the majority of the good ol' U...S...of A...Thus...They are more representative of the good ol' U...S...of A...

So...Does that mean they're b*tching about themselves?

Hmmm....

You should clarify.

As you know, a lot of people don't bother to vote.

Political power runs in cycles.

[ryr8828]

You said it, you were wrong. Then you appela to patriotism. Typical.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

I have offered proof. I've seen no defense of the treason the people you support committed, not from you. Not yet.

[IBC]

I have offered proof. I've seen no defense of the treason the people you support committed, not from you. Not yet.

Where. You haven't offered anything to say it is better now. Nothing.

[ryr8828]

Where. You haven't offered anything to say it is better now. Nothing.

I offered proof as to the treason. That's what I'm referring to.

[IBC]

I have offered proof. I've seen no defense of the treason the people you support committed, not from you. Not yet.

I do not have to defend myself against ridiculous denunciations of the opposition as traitors. You keep the blood of innocent civilians on your hands. You keep spreading propaganda for murderers. The people I support want death to stop. How about yours? You have alot of balls to call me and the people I support traitors.


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[IBC]

I offered proof as to the treason. That's what I'm referring to.
You offer no proof to say Iraq was better, because you can't. There is none.

[ryr8828]

I do not have to defend myself against ridiculous denunciations of the opposition as traitors. You keep the blood of innocent civilians on your hands. You keep spreading propaganda for murderers. The people I support want death to stop. How about yours? You have alot of balls to call me and the people I support traitors.


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

We have been attacked. We don't need to make this up. It's happened. Under the Democrat's appeasement policies it will happen again.

[IBC]

We have been attacked. We don't need to make this up. It's happened. Under the Democrat's appeasement policies it will happen again.

What a joke. Not even worthy of debate.

[ryr8828]

You offer no proof to say Iraq was better, because you can't. There is none.

Too many threads going on here with nearly the same line of debate.

I stated my feelings in your other thread.

I'll take the word of my fallen friend in a letter before he was killed, the word of his parents as to their correspondence, the word of several other soldiers whom the media doesn't talk to.

[ryr8828]

What a joke. Not even worthy of debate.

We weren't attacked?

Kuwait wasn't attacked?

Israel hasn't been attacked?

Muslims haven't sworn to wipe us off the face of the earth?

[IBC]

Too many threads going on here with nearly the same line of debate.

I stated my feelings in your other thread.

I'll take the word of my fallen friend in a letter before he was killed, the word of his parents as to their correspondence, the word of several other soldiers whom the media doesn't talk to.
Yes, trust your gut when you have no facts to support what you say. That way, you can really feel anything and actually believe something you know to be untrue. Doublethink.

Have a great day.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Things were worse under Sadam.

there were more suicide bombings in downtown baghdad than there are presently? that's certainly news to me.

[ryr8828]

Yes, trust your gut when you have no facts to support what you say. That way, you can really feel anything and actually believe something you know to be untrue. Doublethink.

Have a great day.

Why does trusting the word of someone who was there have anything to do with my gut?

You have biased media reports and "polls" from the region that you and your ilk would have us believe is a bombed out, bullet ridden hellhole.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Buying into the democrat's talking points I see.

Were there no mass murders under Hussein's rule? Did the people of Iraq live in harmony together during that time?

I'm not buying it, it's bullshit.

it's a shame we don't know exactly how many civilians were killed under sadam's reign. there has certainly been a shitload killed since we invaded and began our occupation.

and no there probably wasn't perfect harmony among the shias and sunnis during his reign. but you can't deny that his presence put the fear of god in those people. they didn't pull the shit they are pulling now.

[hannitykillspuppies]

True, but it was brought up specifically in Iraq that everything was peaches and ice cream until we got there.
it was? i don't remember posting that.

[IBC]

Why does trusting the word of someone who was there have anything to do with my gut?

You have biased media reports and "polls" from the region that you and your ilk would have us believe is a bombed out, bullet ridden hellhole.

And you have nothing. An anecdotal story. Didn't this get us in trouble before? Oh yeah, smoking gun a mushroom cloud. No facts, just scare tactics. Well it won't work. You can parrot the same fuckin idiots that screwed up and let 9/11 happen only to use it to fight wars against countries who had nothing to do with it. Of course, you probably believe Saddam and AlQaeda were working together right? Most Fox News viewers do. They are easily lied to and will believe almost anything. By the way, when did your friends get to Iraq? Before the war began?

[Jiddy78]

it was? i don't remember posting that.


Peaches and cream
I need it cause you know that I'm a fiend
Gettin' freaky in my Bentley limousine
It's even better when it's with ice cream
Know what I mean

Peaches and cream
I need it cause you know that I'm a fiend
Gettin' freaky in my Bentley limousine
It's even better when it's with ice cream
Know what I mean, peaches and cream



When you play this backwards on the lp, it says "Iraq is fun...like Disneyland."

[hannitykillspuppies]

We have been attacked. We don't need to make this up. It's happened. Under the Democrat's appeasement policies it will happen again.

when were we attacked by iraq?

[IBC]

when were we attacked by iraq?

Silly facts.

[ryr8828]

And you have nothing. An anecdotal story. Didn't this get us in trouble before? Oh yeah, smoking gun a mushroom cloud. No facts, just scare tactics. Well it won't work. You can parrot the same fuckin idiots that screwed up and let 9/11 happen only to use it to fight wars against countries who had nothing to do with it. Of course, you probably believe Saddam and AlQaeda were working together right? Most Fox News viewers do. They are easily lied to and will believe almost anything. By the way, when did your friends get to Iraq? Before the war began?

You're hilarious. Parrot the same fuckin idiots who let 9/11 happen?

Bush had been in office for mere months.

Lance Cpl Aaron Pickering died in Iraq on Nov.10, 2004. You do the math.

[ryr8828]

when were we attacked by iraq?

You really should read my posts in the context they were made, or who they were replying to.

[hannitykillspuppies]

You really should read my posts in the context they were made, or who they were replying to.

as long as you're admitting we weren't attacked by iraq.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Silly facts.

when do we invade saudi arabia?

[IBC]

You're hilarious. Parrot the same fuckin idiots who let 9/11 happen?

Bush had been in office for mere months.

Lance Cpl Aaron Pickering died in Iraq on Nov.10, 2004. You do the math.

My point is this. Your friend told you things were getting better. In 2004 they probably had improved since right after the war. That is not what anyone is saying today. I am sorry you lost somebody close to you over there. You should be proud that you know someone with the courage to serve. I also have friends in Iraq. Two are involved in fairly heavy fighting, two are in the Navy aboard carriers. I respect what they are doing. I don't think it is treasonous to want them away from a pointless war. In fatc, I think dissent is a form of patriotism.

[IBC]

We weren't attacked?

Kuwait wasn't attacked?

Israel hasn't been attacked?

Muslims haven't sworn to wipe us off the face of the earth?

Great. The reasons to attack Iraq keep developing don't they.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Great. The reasons to attack Iraq keep developing don't they.

throw enough shit on a wall, eventually some will stick.

[IBC]

We have been attacked. We don't need to make this up. It's happened. Under the Democrat's appeasement policies it will happen again.

Tell me how our policies have worked. Show me the reduction in terrorists. Show me how we have more allies Middle East. Show me world opinion. Give me some proof of your statements Ryr. Thats all I ask for.

[pnkpanther]

according to former US ambassador, Bush didnt know shiite and sunni muslims were different, he saw muslims as muslims

[ryr8828]

Tell me how our policies have worked. Show me the reduction in terrorists. Show me how we have more allies Middle East. Show me world opinion. Give me some proof of your statements Ryr. Thats all I ask for.

World opinion means nothing to me. Everyone always finds fault with the big dog but they're still content to let him fight their fights for them. Which allies in the middle east would you like to have? We have Israel. We supposedly have the Saudis, I don't trust them.

I'll just put it all out there right now. A certain faction of people want us and Israel dead. Wiped off the face of the earth. Your kind believe that talking to them or looking the other way is the solution. I don't.

Many other countries pretend to believe in your way of thinking while making huge profits off of the terrorist factions and rogue countries. They oppose us for profit.

I'd be happy enough to live here in the US and tell everyone else to get fucked, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. This is a world economy, and regardless of whether we fight or withdraw into ourselves, the terrorist faction will come here and try to wreak havoc.

See, I contend that it isn't always the United States' fault.

I contend that liberals believe this is all one huge candyland world where if we're nice everyone else will be nice back. Well that's not correct. There is pure evil in the world and the liberals are aiding and abetting it.

[pnkpanther]

World opinion means nothing to me. Everyone always finds fault with the big dog but they're still content to let him fight their fights for them. Which allies in the middle east would you like to have? We have Israel. We supposedly have the Saudis, I don't trust them.

I'll just put it all out there right now. A certain faction of people want us and Israel dead. Wiped off the face of the earth. Your kind believe that talking to them or looking the other way is the solution. I don't.

Many other countries pretend to believe in your way of thinking while making huge profits off of the terrorist factions and rogue countries. They oppose us for profit.

I'd be happy enough to live here in the US and tell everyone else to get fucked, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. This is a world economy, and regardless of whether we fight or withdraw into ourselves, the terrorist faction will come here and try to wreak havoc.

See, I contend that it isn't always the United States' fault.

I contend that liberals believe this is all one huge candyland world where if we're nice everyone else will be nice back. Well that's not correct. There is pure evil in the world and the liberals are aiding and abetting it.


not really, we see reality, conservatives have their blinders on for many social issues.

look at history of Iraq and middle east, it's NEVER been peaceful

well, that short stint clinton was in office.

[ryr8828]

not really, we see reality, conservatives have their blinders on for many social issues.

look at history of Iraq and middle east, it's NEVER been peaceful

well, that short stint clinton was in office.

Blinders on for social issues?

Only to socialists and those who see nothing wrong with babies being killed while raising 9 kinds of hell if some obscure salamander has to have it's life interrupted for a water project or oil drilling rig.

[IBC]

You know, this conversation should have been over when you called liberals treasonous. You can't support your point so you use the must bullshit bush-league crap like calling me and other liberals a traitor. You can't win because you can't prove any of the things we have been doing in respect to foreign policy are working. You know America doesn't agree with you. You know this president is very, very unpopular. So you go to the lowest common denominator. Desperation is a difficult thing.

[Vegas]

not really, we see reality, conservatives have their blinders on for many social issues.

look at history of Iraq and middle east, it's NEVER been peaceful

well, that short stint clinton was in office.

If you think Iraq was peaceful during the Clinton years, you're delusional.

And as far as saying that conservatives have blinders on for many social issues, I maintain that's simply not true. Just because conservatives see different solutions doesn't mean they don't care.

[LSU]

World opinion means nothing to me.


As evidenced by your thread regarding what the PM of Australia thinks.

[Vegas]

As evidenced by your thread regarding what the PM of Australia thinks.

The PM of Australia is the whole world?

[pnkpanther]

Blinders on for social issues?

Only to socialists and those who see nothing wrong with babies being killed while raising 9 kinds of hell if some obscure salamander has to have it's life interrupted for a water project or oil drilling rig.

yes blinders

"lets tell kids not to have sex and they wont, lets make them feel shame about it"

their dream world of the 50's where women didnt have a voice

[ryr8828]

You know, this conversation should have been over when you called liberals treasonous. You can't support your point so you use the must bullshit bush-league crap like calling me and other liberals a traitor. You can't win because you can't prove any of the things we have been doing in respect to foreign policy are working. You know America doesn't agree with you. You know this president is very, very unpopular. So you go to the lowest common denominator. Desperation is a difficult thing.

You really should get off that tangent and actually read my posts.

I don't have the time to go and quote the several cute little threads you and Yank have had together about parrots and such.

I've stated my opinion. I've given evidence. The fact that you disagree with it makes it no less valid.

If Bush or any other conservative stated today that the sun will come up tomorrow you'd find something out of order with it.

[LSU]

The PM of Australia is the whole world?


No, but it's part of it.

So, basically, what the world thinks means nothing, except when some part of the world feels the same...then it does mean something.


Sounds like BULLSHIT again.

[Vegas]

yes blinders

"lets tell kids not to have sex and they wont, lets make them feel shame about it"

their dream world of the 50's where women didnt have a voice

Make them feel shame about it? You're stretching there.

Again, Conservatives see different solutions to social problems. That hardly means they don't care.

[ryr8828]

As evidenced by your thread regarding what the PM of Australia thinks.

Sorry I posted that news article, I'll try to refrain.

Maybe I should say negative world opinion means nothing to me.

I apply that to individuals in my personal life as well, believe it or not.

[pnkpanther]

Make them feel shame about it? You're stretching there.

Again, Conservatives see different solutions to social problems. That hardly means they don't care.



yes shame. SOme conservatives feel we should be "ashamed" of who we are.

there was recenty study showing that premartial sex really hasnt increased over past hundred years, we're just more open about it now.

hididng it, doesnt mean it's not there

[ryr8828]

yes blinders

"lets tell kids not to have sex and they wont, lets make them feel shame about it"

their dream world of the 50's where women didnt have a voice

Asking people to do what's right isn't having blinders on. It also doesn't mean they will do it. Some may do the right thing. The popular thing is not always the right thing.

[pnkpanther]

Asking people to do what's right isn't having blinders on. It also doesn't mean they will do it. Some may do the right thing. The popular thing is not always the right thing.

you'll never here see me say abistence SHOULDNT be taught...

it should be taught in addition to what sex is, and how to protect yourself. ABistence teaching hasnt reduced sex, it has however increased unprotected sex in youths, which increase's those abortions you hate.

[pnkpanther]

FYI, i hate abortions too

my CHOICE is life.

[LSU]

Sorry I posted that news article, I'll try to refrain.

Maybe I should say negative world opinion means nothing to me.

I apply that to individuals in my personal life as well, believe it or not.



I'm not complaining that you post it. But when you post an article giving the opinion of one leader in the world, then follow it up with a post that says you don't care about world opinion, it just doesn't jive with me that the two are compatible.

As for negative world opinion, it's a bit relative, don't you think? The Aussie's opinion is negative, to me at least, so in the same respect as you, I can disregard it and say it means nothing?

Sounds like a recipe for nothing more than petty bickering than a good faith discussion about issues.

[Vegas]

yes shame. SOme conservatives feel we should be "ashamed" of who we are.

there was recenty study showing that premartial sex really hasnt increased over past hundred years, we're just more open about it now.

hididng it, doesnt mean it's not there

Some conservatives? I can make all kinds of derogatory statements about SOME liberals and you'd likely take great offense. There are SOME people with crazy ideas in any group.

But yet again, just because conservatives see different solutions doesn't mean they don't care.

[IBC]

You really should get off that tangent and actually read my posts.

I don't have the time to go and quote the several cute little threads you and Yank have had together about parrots and such.

I've stated my opinion. I've given evidence. The fact that you disagree with it makes it no less valid.

If Bush or any other conservative stated today that the sun will come up tomorrow you'd find something out of order with it.

You were way off base. I contend it is bullshit. I think most here agree with me. To put me in with Yank is not fair either. We share views, we don't share the same argument style at all. You called me and other liberals traitors. It is bullshit, and that is all.

[pnkpanther]

but back to subject, the reason's for Iraq change constantly, Bush mislead this country

and any non supporter has been attacked for not being a patriot.

I think this is an unwinnable war, they've killed more us citizens by us gonig there...

[LSU]

But yet again, just because conservatives see different solutions doesn't mean they don't care.


I think you mean Liberals. Or maybe Libertarians. Or maybe those of some other ideology that are true Patriots, but don't believe the same as you or I.

[pnkpanther]

Some conservatives? I can make all kinds of derogatory statements about SOME liberals and you'd likely take great offense. There are SOME people with crazy ideas in any group.

But yet again, just because conservatives see different solutions doesn't mean they don't care.

well, many conservative leaders voice that opionon and they speak for conservatives (in theory)

not all conservatives are homophobes but many of the guys they elect are.

[LSU]

but back to subject, the reason's for Iraq change constantly, Bush mislead this country

and any non supporter has been attacked for not being a patriot.

I think this is an unwinnable war, they've killed more us citizens by us gonig there...



I'll one up you. This war is unwinnable AND unlosable.

(loss doesn't include lives and money, however, just the grand scheme of things)

[Vegas]

well, many conservative leaders voice that opionon and they speak for conservatives (in theory)

not all conservatives are homophobes but many of the guys they elect are.

Many conservative leaders want people to be ashamed of themselves? There you go again.

[pnkpanther]

Many conservative leaders want people to be ashamed of themselves? There you go again.

Yes.

[IBC]

I'll one up you. This war is unwinnable AND unlosable.

(loss doesn't include lives and money, however, just the grand scheme of things)
I agree.

[ryr8828]

This war is lost.

That statement would be unacceptable in any era up until partway through the Vietnam war. How would it have went over against the Germans or Japanese?

[pnkpanther]

I'll one up you. This war is unwinnable AND unlosable.

(loss doesn't include lives and money, however, just the grand scheme of things)

well we've alraedy accomplished our mission


i think president bush should mock the troops and look under his desk for the WMD's again, that was hilarious.

[LSU]

Many conservative leaders want people to be ashamed of themselves? There you go again.


I agree with Pnk.


Thus, all the "unpatriotic" "treason" "cut and run" "giving up" "losing" and other things like that that pops up in interviews, press conferences, etc.


You associate an ideology with a negative connotation, that's qualifying it as something to be ashamed of...

And before you try to turn it around, yes, the libs do it, too.

Petty bickering doesn't get them anywhere, it's certainly not going to get US anywhere.

[IBC]

This war is lost.

That statement would be unacceptable in any era up until partway through the Vietnam war. How would it have went over against the Germans or Japanese?

When do we win? Define victory for me.

[LSU]

This war is lost.

That statement would be unacceptable in any era up until partway through the Vietnam war. How would it have went over against the Germans or Japanese?


This war is nothing like WWII or any other war as referenced by Dubya saying (and I paraphrase) 'this will be unlike any war we've ever fought.'


The only thing I can see as relevant is that we're going against an ideology we disagree with...the similarities end there. There are not clear cut governments and armies to fight...

[ryr8828]

When do we win? Define victory for me.

The war in Iraq has already been won, I've stated that already.

The war against terrorism may not end in my lifetime, or before the rapture. That doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting.

[IBC]

or before the rapture.

And here we go

[pnkpanther]

The war in Iraq has already been won, I've stated that already.

The war against terrorism may not end in my lifetime, or before the rapture. That doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting.

then why are we in Iraq?

I'm pretty sure the US wouldnt tolerate Canada hunting down para military groups in US

[LSU]

The war in Iraq has already been won, I've stated that already.

The war against terrorism may not end in my lifetime, or before the rapture. That doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting.


If the war is won, why are there so many troops left over there? Because now the Iraq War has turned into the war on terror? Why wasn't it the war on terror to begin with? Or was it? Is there more terrorism now than before? Did we upset some sort of balance (as perverse as it may sound) by acting in good faith to liberate people? People there now are certainly taking liberties that they didn't have before...like when a high school kid that lived under strict rules at home gets to college and suddenly doesn't have the "oppressive" force lingering over them anymore...they go crazy...


I just don't get it.

I've said it before, I was fully supportive of Afghanistan...but that job was left unfinished. The job in Iraq, IMO, has done more harm than good for our country, and for Iraq for the most part. At the same time, it has strengthened support for the crazies in the mid east and elsewhere, given Iran a spine to stand up against the US because they no longer have to worry about Saddam. Not to mention other things trickling about such as waning support of America in the world (except when it comes to our money...everyone always has and always will love that) but as soon as someone has more, well, then who really needs the US.

And there we sit depleted of resources (money) and everyone in the world pandering to someone else because they have the goods.

Hey, maybe in that respect, the terrorists focus on someone else.

[ryr8828]

If the war is won, why are there so many troops left over there? Because now the Iraq War has turned into the war on terror? Why wasn't it the war on terror to begin with? Or was it? Is there more terrorism now than before? Did we upset some sort of balance (as perverse as it may sound) by acting in good faith to liberate people? People there now are certainly taking liberties that they didn't have before...like when a high school kid that lived under strict rules at home gets to college and suddenly doesn't have the "oppressive" force lingering over them anymore...they go crazy...


I just don't get it.

I've said it before, I was fully supportive of Afghanistan...but that job was left unfinished. The job in Iraq, IMO, has done more harm than good for our country, and for Iraq for the most part. At the same time, it has strengthened support for the crazies in the mid east and elsewhere, given Iran a spine to stand up against the US because they no longer have to worry about Saddam. Not to mention other things trickling about such as waning support of America in the world (except when it comes to our money...everyone always has and always will love that) but as soon as someone has more, well, then who really needs the US.

And there we sit depleted of resources (money) and everyone in the world pandering to someone else because they have the goods.

Hey, maybe in that respect, the terrorists focus on someone else.

Labels.

[hannitykillspuppies]

The PM of Australia is the whole world?

lame.

[LSU]

Hey ryr...

Regarding your sig...


Would that include people that don't send enough troops to do the job to begin with, then extend their stays 3 months and other such things that damage morale and pretty set up the military for strenuous circumstances?


Or is it only if their liberal and they do things...

[ryr8828]

Hey ryr...

Regarding your sig...


Would that include people that don't send enough troops to do the job to begin with, then extend their stays 3 months and other such things that damage morale and pretty set up the military for strenuous circumstances?


Or is it only if their liberal and they do things...

You should ask Abe. He's honest.

[LSU]

You should ask Abe. He's honest.



He's also dead. I'm asking you because it's your sig, and based on this morning's conversation, it's your point of view. So since you're an honest guy, I figured you would answer the question.

[Reagan Smash]

You should ask Abe. He's honest.


Actually, and here I go with history again, Abe really wasn't quite honest, and did alot to control dissenting newspapers in the north. But, that's here nor there.

[pnkpanther]

Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.

~Senator Robert M. La Follette


After every ''victory'' you have more enemies.

~Jeanette Winterson

[pnkpanther]

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

~George Washington


Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official...

~Theodore Roosevelt


Military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy...

~Abraham Lincoln
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.

~Noam Chomsky

[pnkpanther]

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

~George Washington


Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official...

~Theodore Roosevelt


Military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy...

~Abraham Lincoln
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.

~Noam Chomsky

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~Benjamin Franklin
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

~James Madison

The dangerous patriot...drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions.

~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps


It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.

~Theodore Roosevelt

[Reagan Smash]

"We learn from history that we never learn anything from history." - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

"My toast would be, may our country be always successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right." - John Q. Adams

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - Abe Lincoln

A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one. - Alexander Hamilton

[pnkpanther]

Look at you in war...There has never been a just one, never an honorable one, on the part of the instigator of the war.

~Mark Twain

[Reagan Smash]

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it. - Robert E. Lee

Only fools are positive. - Moe Howard

The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mills

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. - Winston Churchill

We make war that we may live in peace. - Aristotle

Let him who desires peace prepare for war. - Flavius Vegetius Renatus

[Ed Who?]

McCain Calls Iraq War 'Great Tragedy' (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOKR200&show_article=1)

If only Arizonans could decide that the Senate career of John McCain was a "great tragedy," maybe this country wouldn't have to listen to his wishy-washy bologna. And his time in Congress has been a great tragedy. From urinating on our 1st amendment rights with McCain-Feingold, to his continual playing of the "veteran" card while undermining our efforts overseas. I can't wait to listen to the old coot conceding defeat in his Presidential Campaign.

[LSU]

McCain Calls Iraq War 'Great Tragedy' (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOKR200&show_article=1)

If only Arizonans could decide that the Senate career of John McCain was a "great tragedy," maybe this country wouldn't have to listen to his wishy-washy bologna. And his time in Congress has been a great tragedy. From urinating on our 1st amendment rights with McCain-Feingold, to his continual playing of the "veteran" card while undermining our efforts overseas. I can't wait to listen to the old coot conceding defeat in his Presidential Campaign.


Most recently on The Daily Show...strangely enough in defense of the current overseas efforts.

I'm boggled at how one can pander and end up with nobody.

[Jiddy78]

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it. - Robert E. Lee

Only fools are positive. - Moe Howard

The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mills

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. - Winston Churchill

We make war that we may live in peace. - Aristotle

Let him who desires peace prepare for war. - Flavius Vegetius Renatus

The only way to peace is war, eh?

Where's NZ and that intrinsically good argument??? Matter of fact...Where's NZ period???

[Ed Who?]

Most recently on The Daily Show...strangely enough in defense of the current overseas efforts.

I'm boggled at how one can pander and end up with nobody.

Hey we agree. This guy is universally disliked. He somehow is playing the "Bush has run the war wrong, yet we should continue to let Bush run the show" card. Which makes absolutely no sense to anyone who can add whole numbers. It's just amazing that this guy will get any votes.

[ryr8828]

He's also dead. I'm asking you because it's your sig, and based on this morning's conversation, it's your point of view. So since you're an honest guy, I figured you would answer the question.
I don't have time right now, but I promise to answer your question when I do.

[LSU]

Hey we agree. This guy is universally disliked. He somehow is playing the "Bush has run the war wrong, yet we should continue to let Bush run the show" card. Which makes absolutely no sense to anyone who can add whole numbers. It's just amazing that this guy will get any votes.


Give it time. Give it time.

We each dislike McCain for entirely different reasons.

[LSU]

I don't have time right now, but I promise to answer your question when I do.



I believe you Honest Fish.

[Iron Jaw]

If the war is won, why are there so many troops left over there?


Why do we still have soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea? Kuwait? And other nations around the world. Pick a country - some sort of U.S. military presence is probably there, and in some cases like Germany, Japan, Italy and South Korea - on a fairly large scale. We rarely leave completely.

The war in Japan was won after 3.8 years of fighting and the use of two atomic bombs on the Japanese mainland in August, 1945. But the occupation of Japan proper didn't end until the Treat of Peace in November, 1952, 7.3 years after the Japanese surrender. The occupation of Okinawa didn't really end until 1972. Of course, occupation or not, large military bases still exist in Germany, Japan and the island of Okinawa, Italy, South Korea - and smaller bases in various locations around the world. A high percentage of the bases exist as a result of a war, and post-war activities. And in places where we do not have military bases, Naval carriers and subs work the waterways.

I suspect if peace is achieved in Iraq, the U.S. will continue to operate fully functional military bases in Iraq. Our forces have been operating in Iraq since the first Gulf War in 1991. During that war our forces recaptured Kuwait from the Iraqis - and still operate military bases in Kuwait. From 1991-2003, the U.S. and allies (U.K. and France - the latter bailed in 1998) controlled the no-fly zones in Iraq, based upon U.N. Resolution 688. In 1998, Sadaam Hussein proclaimed that his pilots would no longer respect the no-fly zones and offered a reward of 14K to anyone who shot down U.S., U.K. or French aircraft. During that period the U.S. actively attacked Sadaam's forces during planned military operations that protected the Kurds in the north and the friendly forces in the south. The air strikes on Sadaam's military targets were regular and common during the 12 year period the no-fly zones were in existance.

In other words, our forces have been fighting in Iraq since the first Gulf War.

[Iron Jaw]

no, no it wasnt, but prior to that Iraq was one of more moderate mid east countries (which says a lot) and ranked high in health care and education for that region.

During the Shah's regime, Iran was the most moderate of the Islamic nations in the middle east. The Shah was friendly with the west, believed in women's rights (no veils - a pretty ballsy thing to do in the eyes of the Islamic fundamentalists) - and, he recognized Israel's right to exist. Now the latter alone can get someone toppled.....or killed (Sadat) in the Islamic world.

Which is one of the reasons the Islamic fundamentalists eventually overthrew him. That, and his overuse of Savak to eliminate his enemies.

[Hotpapa666]

Why do we still have soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea? Kuwait? And other nations around the world. Pick a country - some sort of U.S. military presence is probably there, and in some cases like Germany, Japan, Italy and South Korea - on a fairly large scale. We rarely leave completely.

The war in Japan was won after 3.8 years of fighting and the use of two atomic bombs on the Japanese mainland in August, 1945. But the occupation of Japan proper didn't end until the Treat of Peace in November, 1952, 7.3 years after the Japanese surrender. The occupation of Okinawa didn't really end until 1972. Of course, occupation or not, large military bases still exist in Germany, Japan and the island of Okinawa, Italy, South Korea - and smaller bases in various locations around the world. A high percentage of the bases exist as a result of a war, and post-war activities. And in places where we do not have military bases, Naval carriers and subs work the waterways.

I suspect if peace is achieved in Iraq, the U.S. will continue to operate fully functional military bases in Iraq. Our forces have been operating in Iraq since the first Gulf War in 1991. During that war our forces recaptured Kuwait from the Iraqis - and still operate military bases in Kuwait. From 1991-2003, the U.S. and allies (U.K. and France - the latter bailed in 1998) controlled the no-fly zones in Iraq, based upon U.N. Resolution 688. In 1998, Sadaam Hussein proclaimed that his pilots would no longer respect the no-fly zones and offered a reward of 14K to anyone who shot down U.S., U.K. or French aircraft. During that period the U.S. actively attacked Sadaam's forces during planned military operations that protected the Kurds in the north and the friendly forces in the south. The air strikes on Sadaam's military targets were regular and common during the 12 year period the no-fly zones were in existance.

In other words, our forces have been fighting in Iraq since the first Gulf War.


The stated agenda of this administration is that we will NOT have a long term presence in Iraq. I hope they are being honest but I suspect you are correct. I really dislike the idea of growing our military abroad for so many reasons... I say that sitting at my desk inside of an Air Force base in Japan.

[LSU]

Why do we still have soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea? Kuwait? And other nations around the world. Pick a country - some sort of U.S. military presence is probably there, and in some cases like Germany, Japan, Italy and South Korea - on a fairly large scale. We rarely leave completely.



It's certainly not for the same reason we currently have them in Iraq.

[Iron Jaw]

It's certainly not for the same reason we currently have them in Iraq.

Take it back to the time period that our forces were originally in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea. A war was on. And after years of occupation, rebuilding, political moves - our forces are still in those nations.

Of course, things are relatively peaceful in Germany, Italy and Japan today. South Korea remains a hotspot, as the threat from North Korea is ever-present and our forces constantly prepare for violations of the cease-fire that took place 53-years ago.

[IBC]

Take it back to the time period that our forces were originally in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea. A war was on. And after years of occupation, rebuilding, political moves - our forces are still in those nations.

Of course, things are relatively peaceful in Germany, Italy and Japan today. South Korea remains a hotspot, as the threat from North Korea is ever-present and our forces constantly prepare for violations of the cease-fire that took place 53-years ago.

There is a difference. They want us there. At least their governments do. Iraq? Not so much.

[hannitykillspuppies]

McCain Calls Iraq War 'Great Tragedy' (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOKR200&show_article=1)

If only Arizonans could decide that the Senate career of John McCain was a "great tragedy," maybe this country wouldn't have to listen to his wishy-washy bologna. And his time in Congress has been a great tragedy. From urinating on our 1st amendment rights with McCain-Feingold, to his continual playing of the "veteran" card while undermining our efforts overseas. I can't wait to listen to the old coot conceding defeat in his Presidential Campaign.

don't worry, he seems to be in line now. the surge is working according to him. cheney must have put a horse head in his bed.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Why do we still have soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen in Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea? Kuwait? And other nations around the world. Pick a country - some sort of U.S. military presence is probably there, and in some cases like Germany, Japan, Italy and South Korea - on a fairly large scale. We rarely leave completely.

The war in Japan was won after 3.8 years of fighting and the use of two atomic bombs on the Japanese mainland in August, 1945. But the occupation of Japan proper didn't end until the Treat of Peace in November, 1952, 7.3 years after the Japanese surrender. The occupation of Okinawa didn't really end until 1972. Of course, occupation or not, large military bases still exist in Germany, Japan and the island of Okinawa, Italy, South Korea - and smaller bases in various locations around the world. A high percentage of the bases exist as a result of a war, and post-war activities. And in places where we do not have military bases, Naval carriers and subs work the waterways.

I suspect if peace is achieved in Iraq, the U.S. will continue to operate fully functional military bases in Iraq. Our forces have been operating in Iraq since the first Gulf War in 1991. During that war our forces recaptured Kuwait from the Iraqis - and still operate military bases in Kuwait. From 1991-2003, the U.S. and allies (U.K. and France - the latter bailed in 1998) controlled the no-fly zones in Iraq, based upon U.N. Resolution 688. In 1998, Sadaam Hussein proclaimed that his pilots would no longer respect the no-fly zones and offered a reward of 14K to anyone who shot down U.S., U.K. or French aircraft. During that period the U.S. actively attacked Sadaam's forces during planned military operations that protected the Kurds in the north and the friendly forces in the south. The air strikes on Sadaam's military targets were regular and common during the 12 year period the no-fly zones were in existance.

In other words, our forces have been fighting in Iraq since the first Gulf War.

how many soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have died in japan, germany, italy, and sout korea since 2003?

[Ed Who?]

don't worry, he seems to be in line now. the surge is working according to him. cheney must have put a horse head in his bed.

McCain's playing the numbers like a liberal. Most Republicans know he's at best a moderate. He's trying so hard to play both sides of the table, and it's going to get him slaughtered in the primary. Nobody likes a guy who has no principles, just ask John "I Voted For Iraq Before I Voted Against It" Kerry.

[hannitykillspuppies]

McCain's playing the numbers like a liberal. Most Republicans know he's at best a moderate. He's trying so hard to play both sides of the table, and it's going to get him slaughtered in the primary. Nobody likes a guy who has no principles, just ask John "I Voted For Iraq Before I Voted Against It" Kerry.

personally i don't care, i've already accepted the fact that we're going to be stuck with another shitty president for at least 4 years after bush no matter which party wins. i just find it funny that conservatives blast this guy primarily because he has repeatedly pointed out what an absolutely godawful job this administration did in planning this war. everyone knows that you can't question W, he can do no wrong.

now, he's had to have lost all credibility with anyone who was supporting him, after the whole baghdad market thing, and has killed any chance he had at the republican nomination.

[Iron Jaw]

There is a difference. They want us there. At least their governments do. Iraq? Not so much.

I'll guarantee those countries didn't want us there in the early days of the occupations either.

[Iron Jaw]

how many soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have died in japan, germany, italy, and sout korea since 2003?

We lost 405,000 in WWII (vs. Germany, Japan and Italy) and 53,000 in Korea (vs. North Korea and Communist China). The occupations in post WWII came after we totally obliterated the enemy - soldiers and civilians alike. The occupation in Korea is part of a cease-fire.....the war has never officially ended. We have never totally obliterated Iraq - even in the 1991 Gulf War. In this day and age our forces take greater care when attacking civilian infested areas. Of course, it doesn't always work and many citizens die. But during those wars, the opposition's civilian forces were basically considered part of the enemy in general.

I presume, in order to make the Iraqi situation peacful we would have destroy it completely without care or concern for civilian casualties (as we did in Japan - the country had no choices after the war but to comply with Americans - an island country that couldn't get supplies for their insurrection - they did have insurgents, but poorly organized and poorly supplied) and force them into a situation where turning our way was the only way they could survive.

[The_swami_sez]

i just find it funny that conservatives blast this guy primarily because he has repeatedly pointed out what an absolutely godawful job this administration did in planning this war. everyone knows that you can't question W, he can do no wrong.

We "blast" or at least why I am not a fan of him because of his baggage and voting record. Hes not very conservative in voting. In addition to the Keating Five incident. And now the "Bomb Iran song". And also on a personal level I do not care for him because of his lack of support for the VFW Museum but when it opened he was treated like Royalty almost as if he gave so much to rebuild the museum. The baggage more so is his downfall, how could someone like him be President.