Stop the war in Iraq
We must stop the US actions in Iraq. This is a civil war and we have no business in a civil war. Let the Iraq people decide their own fate. With American ingenuity, there is no reason to stay and fight for the oil there. We can devise other energy methods.
This letter has not been edited.
Not with Oil people in charge of our country...
Posted by Karl Cheney on October 2, 2007 02:21 PMGo see Aaron Russo's classic film 'America Freedom to Fascism' now playing at the Regency Tamarac Square. It will put a lot of current events into a very sharp focus. It shows how so much of our current events are tied together for a common purpose.
That common purpose is probably not one that any normal American citizen will appreciate.
Karen,
Why do you hate America? You and you're ilk only wish to see America destroyed. You're hatred for Bush has you wishing for the jihad victory, so you and you're communist friends can ruin America, and take our freedom in exchange for sharya law.
But when we are overrun by Islam hordes, you and your immoral lot will be the first to be beheaded.
Go back to your fever swamp and think about how good you have it here in the land of the free.
Posted by Coalbear23 on October 2, 2007 02:38 PMSo, we have no business in a civil war?
Civil war that lead to World War I, civil war in Darfur, civil war in Serbia.
Like the Canadians, British, and Brazilians stayed out of the US civil war?
While you have every right to opine about what the involvement of the US should be in Iraq, your comment "This is a civil war and we have no business in a civil war. Let the Iraq people decide their own fate. With American ingenuity, there is no reason to stay and fight for the oil there." shows your inability to comprehend world matters, to understand the vested interest the US has in that region, and your inability to think for yourself, by commenting that this is only about oil.
You are indeed correct Ms. Conway, that we do have the capability to get our energy resources from other means (not for at least 10 years though by best estimates at an affordable price), and since Iraq, during the reign of Saddam post 1991 COULDN'T EXPORT IT'S OIL (hence the big food for oil scandal in the UN), the idea that this is about oil and nothing more is ignorant at best, and just plain stupid at worst.
GET OFF THE PARTISAN TALKING POINTS and try to think for yourself a little bit. You just may be amazed at the complexity of it all... (but probably not, since you think more with emotion than supported facts)
Now, I know there will be many others that point to Greenspan's new memoirs where it has been reported that he wrote "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," without ever reading anything further than that. Mr. Greenspan then continues he believed that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East which would disrupt the world economy on a scale not seen in the United States since the Great Depression.
It is very easy to use sound bites and quick quotes. It requires no intelligent thought at all. Congratulations Ms. Conway, for being no better than a parrot.
Posted by Dan2 on October 2, 2007 02:53 PMkaren,You are right.We should bring back the troops to wipe out the fu---n liberals.
Posted by Keith on October 2, 2007 03:17 PMShe believes in Lennin's "Peace at any cost" but all of us will pay.
Posted by tj on October 2, 2007 03:34 PMyawn, when will the dumonuts ever get a new song to sing? karen why not call up hanoi jane and ask her how it felt to betray her country and maybe you can get the same feeling she got.
Posted by on October 2, 2007 03:45 PMTraitors,
Keith, An American Coalbear23 etc.,
Since you all believe all Democrats to be traitors and helping the terrorists and accuse them of hating the US don't you think they should be hanged, or shot or at least deported. Shouldn't we be rounding up the Democrats (aprrox. 50% of the US) and deporting them, hanging or shooting them!! Your thoughts?
I just was reminded of a fairly humorous saying:
What is the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative?
A Conservative doesn't want to spend anyone's money, a Liberal only wants to spend yours...
hahaha
It no longer applies, but a funny saying none the less. (must have been tj's post that reminded me of that).
Posted by Dan2 on October 2, 2007 04:09 PMI still ask, is it possible that we caused all this turmoil? Is it possible (or moral) to succeed with a policy that was based on lies?
Posted by Stan B on October 2, 2007 04:12 PMCareful Karl, those loons just may answer you!
Stan,
Not only is it possible that we caused this turmoil, it is probable. But maybe not in the way you are referring?
Those that seek to destroy the West, do so not because of what we have done, but because of who we are (that is why Islamic terrorists target all of Western Civilization). It is our freedoms, our liberties, and our lifestyle that is hated, not the policies and programs of our commerce.
On a much smaller scale, think of the animosity that Democrats and Republicans have for each other, here in the US. The vile hatred of the far left of Bush, and the vile hatred of Clinton on the far right. It is a picture of selfishness and ignorance here, and on the terrorist side, it is a matter of religious indoctrination and brain washing (sounds a lot like the new "republicans" and their moral "themes" doesn't it?), and such a lack of respect for any idea or philosophy outside of what they believe.
It is impossible for rational people to understand the actions of the irrational. We try to rationalize what "we may have done in their eyes," and therefore project our own opinions of what we see as "wrong with America" on the reasons the terrorists are terrorizing. There are MANY examples of this in history. From the slave trade, to the civil war, to the Nazi's in Germany, to Manifest Destiny, to the Crusades.
Posted by Dan2 on October 2, 2007 04:34 PMWe certainly need to protect ourselves from those (especially terrorists) who would try to take away our freedoms. The two major parties don't understand this though, and they are actually taking away some of these cherished freedoms that the terrorists are trying take away. But there are some of us who continue to rail against these injustices and this is one of the places we do it. If we keep it up, at least we can hold our heads up and know that we are trying.
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have
become the instruments of tyranny at home. - James Madison
Defund it , you have the power. What's the problem, no balls?
Posted by on October 2, 2007 05:05 PM"...when we are overrun by Islam hordes..."
Are they going to ride camels and horses to our shore is this invasion?
Posted by on October 2, 2007 05:10 PMHEY KOOLAID!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by on October 2, 2007 06:31 PMWhat is good for America is bad for Democrats.
There has been progress in Iraq since the surge but no one would know since the MSM has ignored those stories.
Read this and be honest.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276131413423304
You know you have sided against your own country when positive news in Iraq causes personal anger and immediate thoughts of "this is bad news for my party" or "how can we discredit this story"
How could anyone in their right mind be cool with that?
Get Real said:
"What is good for America is bad for Democrats."
You do know that Democrats are Americans right Get Real?
Your propaganda is so crude that it almost never merits comment, but sometimes you're such a little William "The Bloody" Kristol parrot that I can't help myself...
To sum up your beliefs: War=Good for America. Peace=Bad for America.
Somehow, I don't think that's how most folks see it, which is why you lash out from your defensive posture so rabidly. You're an immoral, self centered cretin, and I would hazard a guess that you have very few real friends.
Posted by Charles B. on October 2, 2007 08:40 PM[i]You know you have sided against your own country when positive news in Iraq causes personal anger and immediate thoughts of "this is bad news for my party" or "how can we discredit this story"[/i]
Maybe Get Real was referring to James Clyburn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw8ES7E2-D4
Posted by GW on October 2, 2007 10:22 PMsorry for the double post, damn you bittorrent
Posted by An individual on October 2, 2007 11:02 PMcharles b. said: "Somehow, I don't think that's how most folks see it, which is why you lash out from your defensive posture so rabidly. You're an immoral, self centered cretin, and I would hazard a guess that you have very few real friends."
have a bad day?
Posted by little dicky on October 3, 2007 01:54 AMto charles b.
I will hazard a guess myself and say- somehow I think you are probably the most popular Charles b. a Charles b. could be.
And Charles b. perceived that only Charles b. could be received. Charles b. was the most beautiful princess in all the land. In the mirror the princess would demand. "Look at me" the princess said. "Listen to me" the princess pled. In the mirror the princess could see all that Charles b. wanted to be. "I'm Charles b.," was heard, "My mirror tells me all I need." Across the courtyard and through the halls, down to the gates and into the stalls--from every corner the village could hear. None of them shed a tear. Charles b. could not see the fear. Charles b. was afraid, that all the mirror shown would fade. And they knew that Charles b. was a bit strange--that Charles b.'d never change.
Posted by harry knutes on October 3, 2007 02:30 AMy do you hates Amnerica? everybofdy knows war is great, killing is graet guns is great! we republicans love wars ( watching dem that is, not us actually fighting in dem, thaats for the dumocrats and poor peoples to do).
Posted by Keith on October 3, 2007 06:48 AMKaren,The surge is working. The Iraqi people and factions are now trying to work with the troops. You won't hear that on the daily left wing news. How many bombings in Iraq have you heard about lately? How many civilian deaths have you heard about lately?How many military deaths have you heard about lately?
Not many.You won't hear the good news coming from Iraq from the left wing press.
Take off the pink outfit and stop drinking the kool-aid handed out daily by the Democrats and their PIMPS,moveon,mediamatters and thedailykos.You want to be a whore for the Democrats? Go ahead.At least have the decency to let our troops continue with the mission they need to complete and come home.
Things are working.Shut Up! If you are going to keep babbling about bringing our troops home now when they are making progress.
Posted by That's the facts Jack! on October 3, 2007 09:03 AMPosted by Karl Cheney on October 2, 2007 04:04 PM
Keith, An American Coalbear23 etc.,
Since you all believe all Democrats to be traitors and helping the terrorists and accuse them of hating the US don't you think they should be hanged, or shot or at least deported. Shouldn't we be rounding up the Democrats (aprrox. 50% of the US) and deporting them, hanging or shooting them!! Your thoughts?
========================================
Finally some sane words, once America is purged of the unclean element. We can stand united and defeat the terrorist enemy. If we continue to harbor disloyal socialists, America will be dammned.
Posted by Coalbear23 on October 3, 2007 09:14 AM"facts Jack" -surge is working in SPECIFIC areas, yes. You apparently don't read or listen to supposed "left-wing" press, as there is good news reported there, but you wise right-wingers don't necessarily know what good news is, unless G.W. Bush says that it's good. Also, "decency" is a good term for you to use, as how "decent" is it to allow our troops to stay in Iraq and fight for lies? Allow our troops to pull back and monitor the civil war, and continue to train Iraqi troops to handle their own...that makes more sense than blindly following the oil profiteers.
Posted by roland on October 3, 2007 09:24 AMDan2
no surprise that you're in favor of the war-however your little piece is full of glaring errors -especially your contention that we should be in Iraq's civil war:
* WWI was caused by the assassination of the Austrian Archduke by a Serbian nationalist (as well as balance of power instabilities in Europe) - Not a "civil war."
* Darfur & Serbia are/were genocidal events by national governments - hardly civil wars (where there is the implication of two, reasonably well balanced sides).
And it amuses me that you admonish people to stop with their PARTISAN TALKING POINTS while your own verbal support for all things Bush seems to be unwavering.
Posted by drew on October 3, 2007 09:57 AMDrew, are you and Mr. B related? You both seem to have a real problem with the concept of word definitions, you can't just change what a word means to fit your argument. Or is that what they're teaching in Churchill 101 these days? Bet your parents are real pleased with that education they shelled out for. Here are the first definitions of war and genocide according to dictionary.com
war-a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
genocide-the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
As you can see their is absolutely no implication of "reasonably well balanced sides", in fact, many wars have been quite one sided. Although I think Dan2's use of Darfur as a civil war is a bit of a stretch, I would also argue that it is valid under the definition of war above. As for your fist bullet point, are you really so naive? Do you really believe that globe spanning events like WWI are the result of a single event like the Ferdinand assassination? It may have been the spark to the tinder, but the war was brewing well before that event. Dan2 is a historian apparently, I would imagine that he can point you in the direction of a good book about the things that led up to WWI, it was a lot more complicated than a simple, single-event cause-and-effect situation. But I guess to accept that would require a thought process, something that is sorely lacking these days in America.
Posted by on October 3, 2007 10:25 AMMan, there are some looney tunes in here.
I don't understand how you make the leap from being against the war and hateing America. I do understand, however, that the first thing right wingers do when they when they lack for substance in an argument is resort to finger pointing and name calling. Then of course if that fails they can turn on Rush and he'll tell them what to say.
Posted by leftside on October 3, 2007 11:13 AMi love how none of the points any of you are making are from your own opinion... just the same regurgitated garbage that is spouted on randi rhodes and rush limbaugh alike... sounds like some of you need to pick up a book rather than have this spoon fed to you by pundits. You think there are differences between you but all I see is the same cyclical name calling and short sighted rhetoric... like the anonymous guy said above, there are decades long... wait half a century long... wait, centuries long patterns and events that lead up to these events. None of this is as cut and dry as you all make it out to be. If you believe that Bush just materialized the war out of thin air you are sorely misguided. If you think that the Democrats and Republicans are after different things you are sorely misinformed. There are so many more implications, after effects and causes to what is happening...
Drew: go back to your western civ course at your community college and ask your professor why he told you that a world wide conflict was caused by a single event. Or you can return that history book you bought and actually do research with multiple sources.
Thats the facts jack: I've heard about military deaths every week since this 'surge'... I've also heard about a private 'defense force' that fires the first shot and costs more than our federal troops do. I think you are also in need of a research session using multiple RELIABLE sources.
Partisan-- my ass. You all sound like the well rounded sheeple you were raised to be. No one side is correct and you all prove it.
Posted by harry knutes on October 3, 2007 12:06 PM"why he told you that a world wide conflict was caused by a single event."
Did you actually read my post, Einstein? Here it is again: "WWI was caused by the assassination of the Austrian Archduke by a Serbian nationalist (as well as balance of power instabilities in Europe) - Not a "civil war." If you want to refute something, here's a suggestion - first actually read the post - and if you disagree then suggest something different.
You spout off about using "sources" & then come up with a bunch of undefined gibberish. If you want to make an argument, do so & back it up - until then, get a clue!
Posted by drew on October 3, 2007 12:24 PMdrew,
Point taken on World War I (although with the treaties and the fact that the King of England, the Tsar in Russia, and the Czar of Germany were all first cousins, lends some support to my argument of a "civil war").
Where I will disagree with you is Serbia and Darfur, as the situations and "ethnic cleansing" are similar, if not identical to the "ethnic cleansing" of Iraq, especially in regard to Sunni vs. Shiite.
I supported President Clinton in Serbia and Ireland (Ireland of course was diplomatic), as well as his bombing of Iraq as I believed and still do, that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States and it's interests. Regardless of who is President, the facts remain that CONGRESS authorized military force, and it remains, in my opinion, necessary to support Iraq's new Government, with US soldiers until it is no longer necessary.
What I don't agree with is leaving Iran and the other neighboring countries out of the diplomatic process. I believe we should be MUCH more engaged with the region, than just maintaining presence in Iraq. History has demonstrated that when the victor engages the defeated in the diplomatic process, stability follows more quickly (Japan after WWII, the two Korea's, our own Civil War).
This is not a partisan argument, this is a philosophical one. You just can't see past your own admitted partisanship to understand I am not parroting, nor using any partisan language. In fact, if you would look up his record, you will see that my opinion in this matter most closely resembles Sen. Lieberman, more than anyone else. Hardly a hard line Republican, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by Dan2 on October 3, 2007 01:18 PMI don't know, Dan2, Lieberman more closely resembles a hard line republican than anything else these days.
Posted by drew on October 3, 2007 03:13 PMTo: anonymous at 10:25 - thanks for the dictionary.com definitions of war & genocide - very enlightening, I'm sure.
Are you related to knutes (or are you him?) READ THE POST - I never said that WWi was caused by a single issue - balance of power instabilities were the cause, the assassination the spark. Good grief-get a book on comprehension.
Posted by drew on October 3, 2007 03:27 PMdrew:
"Lieberman more closely resembles a hard line republican than anything else these days"
Psst, drew... He would be considered a moderate by most people, even democrats. Only the far left see him as republican.
Oops, sorry there ol' buddy, forgot who I was talking too!
;~)
Posted by KW on October 3, 2007 05:23 PMdrew, you are a real piece of work. Perhaps you should reread your own post. "WWI was caused by the assassination of the Austrian Archduke by a Serbian nationalist (as well as balance of power instabilities in Europe) - Not a "civil war."" Note the parentheses, which indicate additional, NONESSENTIAL information. Did you not pay attention in English class or something? Why don't you say something of value sometime instead of sound bites.
Posted by on October 3, 2007 06:34 PMCharles @ 8:40 said:
"Your propaganda is so crude that it almost never merits comment, but sometimes you're such a little William "The Bloody" Kristol parrot that I can't help myself..."
Funny how you feel obligated to always contradict almost every post I make even though my comments are, in your opinion, unmerited.
And it sounds like you must have been squirting all over yourself after reading Paul Campos' gutless hit job comparing Kristol to a Boulder porn king.
Why am I not surprised?
Also, please spare me the summing up of my beliefs with your asinine unfounded speculations.
As far as my friends go, I pride myself on being reliable and can count my true friends on these ten fingers, but , am confident that if in a jam , I can phone literally hundreds of people at four in the morning that would help me out based strictly on my burn no bridges mentality.
Can you honesty say the same?
Of course you can't because you are a bomb throwing, rabid,moonbat A-hole that unfortunately represents the wacky "Progressive" wing that is taking over of the once proud Dem party that I used to belong to.
Until I grew up and recognized the direction they were headed.
Your failed arguments are vomituous at best and always seem to rely on your own interpretations of what you think a poster meant and not what they actually said.
This inability you have to comprehend what someone states renders any comment you make moot.
Your transparency, as usual, precedes you.
An Individual 11:41-
Although I agree with your dissection of Charles's misrepresentation of my 7:53 post you state,
" Although Get Real's partisan rhetoric is juvenile at best,"
Can you respond to me directly and explain what was juvenile about my post?
Thanks-
Hey numbnuts (6:43pm)-
here's a Webster's definition of parentheses: "An additional word, clause, etc placed as an explanation or comment within an already complete sentence. "
No sign of it being NONESSENTIAL information. Please don't make up definitions -it doesn't sit well from someone who apparently struggles with remedial english.
KW
Don't think you'll find many Dems who consider Lieberman a "moderate."
Posted by drew on October 4, 2007 08:35 AMdrew:
"Don't think you'll find many Dems who consider Lieberman a "moderate."
That pretty much sums up the rationale of the new democratic party drew. The republicans aren't much better but at least they can tell the difference between a Lieberman and a Limbaugh.
Posted by KW on October 4, 2007 09:51 AMKW
Limbaugh might be more of a windbag, but with the way Lieberman has has been a consistent Bush boot-licker on this whole war issue, I don't think there's much of a difference in ideology.
I don't think that someone who's on board with the 30% (& shrinking) of far right Americans who still support Bush's war can be called a "moderate." You guys can have him & good riddance.
Posted by drew on October 4, 2007 11:36 AMOK drew, it's a deal. But only if you promise to keep kerry, reid, murtha, kennedy, pelosi, kucinich, webb, etc, etc, etc...
Posted by KW on October 4, 2007 03:49 PMI'd be happy to keep them, KW - thanks. We might even pay you to keep Lieberman.
Posted by drew on October 4, 2007 03:56 PM