- CSO ready to pitch in for improvements
- Just say 'no' to some city bond issues
- Rocky leaning ever more to the left
- Open-space taxes take money from poor
- Dems dummy up
- Fund care, not war
- Ski area wasteful
- A DIFFERING VIEW/SCHIP bill focuses on low-income children
- Global warming
- Glenn Morris & Columbus Day parade
Iraq war not about “protecting our interests”
This letter has not been edited.
Hey! Forget about the democrats. There's Ron Paul. If correcting the Iraq blunder is your top priority, then you need to consider a vote for Ron Paul. No other candidate, Democrat of Republican, offers a return to our founding fathers' principles as Ron Paul.
So, it's time to give him some serious consideration.
wow and this comes from the republic of boulder where self pleasures are taught in schools and kids cell phones are ripped out of their hands so the school admin can spy on their text messages and get the evil doers of society.
sorry wittle bobby is upset but you have shown your age by telling everyone you matter so much in your own mind that you will take to the streets.
now that is what the progressives are all about. going back to the 60's as they were so good to them.
The key word in Robert Porath's letter is "our". When someone uses the word "our", they usually mean "their". "Us" is another such word. It usually means "me".
Posted by Stan B on October 12, 2007 03:20 PMRobert Porath
I see a liberal inhabitant of The Peoples Rebublic of Boulder raising his ugly head.
The only immoral thing you should see is being a left wing nut.
Here we go again with the same old boring giving aid and comfort to the enemy rhetoric. Yawn.
His piece should be called Why I hate America but I won't leave because I'm a spineless Hypocrite.
Robert Porath
I see a liberal inhabitant of The Peoples Rebublic of Bouder raising his ugly head.
The only immoral thing you should see is being a left wing nut.
Here we go again with the same old boring giving aid and comfort to the enemy rhetoric. Yawn.
His piece should be called Why I hate America but I won't leave because I'm a spineless Hypocrite.
It's not really so much that it is "immoral" or a "crime" - it's simply a major catastrophe caused by hubris and incompetence. The fact that it has replaced another catastrophe - Hussein - is moot. This will be W's legacy even though it looks like he will succeed in handing his mess off to whoever is unlucky enought to win in Nov 2008.
Posted by Liam on October 12, 2007 04:48 PMHere's an article about Gen. Sanchez' (a "phony soldier"????) scathing criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq catastrophe. Bush-lovers be sure to stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes and repeat "la la la la la la ...." as long and as loud as needed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/washington/12cnd-general.html?hp
Posted by on October 12, 2007 05:04 PMIt seems it's easier to attack a writer's zip code than parse that person's argument and challenge his/her assumptions. Such a sad state of discourse we've been reduced to these days; I'm certain the founding fathers would retch if they witnessed what passes off as debate these days.
Posted by Miles Ignatuis on October 12, 2007 06:49 PMThere's nothing more predictable on these boards than ad hominem attacks on any letter from Boulder. Also nothing more representative of the inferior quality of the right-wing intellect.
Posted by on October 12, 2007 09:43 PMGen. Sanchez is partially right. He didn't mention that of the 58K that died in NAM, 25K of those saints were killed during a 5 year period, while congress was devising its exit strategy. America isn't at war, Her poor and working class families are supplying the funding and body-bags (sitting ducks and targets).
None of these facts will be printed in new CSU College Republicans (Future Draft Dodgers of America-FDDA)/Ram Republic newspaper. The most important fact, more than 1 billion Muslims want us out of Iraq, ASAP. There are 300 million of us (including illegals). Again, we lose.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 12, 2007 10:09 PMI think what we're all missing is the benefit that the funds currently going to Iraq would have if applied to the homeless problem. Maybe then we wouldn't have to hear talk about shipping 'em out in time for the DNC(can't wait, Hilldog in '08) Or we could use that money as reparations for blacks, Native American tribes, Chinese, Irish, and Italian immigrants, it's about time that white people gave back to America after taking so much.
Posted by Keith on October 12, 2007 10:16 PMKeith, you are a moron. Please spare us your elocution.
Posted by drew on October 12, 2007 10:18 PMPorath's contention that the war is an international crime demonstrates a lack of knowledge. The first gulf war was suspended by a cease fire. Violations of a cease fire (which Iraq had many) are grounds for resuming military operations. The United States was perfectly justified under international law to do what we did.
Posted by jim on October 13, 2007 05:25 AMdrew = impostor = a true moron= a loyal liberal progressive. just as all dums are
Posted by on October 13, 2007 06:46 AMJim - the cease fire had to do with Iraq getting out of Kuwait, not attacking its own people.
The war was W's ego coming to the fore. He was going to get rid of a tyrant that his daddy couldn't; however, Bush the first was much wiser in the international arena than his son. He understood that while Hussein (and his sons) were vile. violent, and vicious, it was that very despotism which kept a country formed of historic enemies by the Brits post WWI from exploding into civil war as our "preemptive invasion" did. The first gulf war was also about oil - and it appears that Hussein had contacted the US State Dept prior to his attack on Kuwait for slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields - and was assured it was a border skirmish that the US would not get involved in (as the US did not get involved when the Turks attack Iraq on its northern border while Iraq was attacking Kuwait). Hussein didn't realize or didn't care that Kuwait is the home of BP oil production - which Maggie Thatcher reminded Bush about & asked for US assistance - hence Desert Storm. Bush the first left Hussein in power because he understood the history of the country - and that it would fly apart at the seams if he was "taken out"
The Bush administration chose to go "off-point" in its anti-terrorism mission which had international, not to mention bipartisan, support. Now apologists for an unwarranted attack on Iraq (or folks who are convinced that backing the president right or wrong because of party affiliation is the right thing to do) are still defending actions which have turned the even allies against us, not to mention even moderate members of Islam who are being convinced by jihadists that the US will attack any Islamic country that either gets in the US's way - or has resources the US wants to claim.
Would I call the Iraq war an international crime? Probably not (although I would say that many of the mercenaries the US has hired ARE international criminals). Would I say that they US was "perfectly justified under international law to do what we did"? Absolutely NOT - especially based on UN investigator finding that (lie #2) WMDs did not exist (lie #1 was the implication that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11).
As far as Keith smug posting is concerned - the money certainly could have be better spent . Instead of having a war on credit (first time in modern history that taxes have been reduced during a war), the attempts to capture & trial of Osama bin Laden MIGHT have finally been completed. How about funding NCLB - an unfunded federal mandate? Or funding R&D of alternative energy - which would remove the need to go to war for oil? Or fully funding veterans' benefits including VA hospitals, etc - or perhaps Keith believes (as Congress apparently does) that it is a member of the military's responsiblity to die for the US - heaven forbid that member should actually live & expect the government to keep its recruiting promises?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
THE MOMENT IT GOT TOUGHER THAN BOMBING AN ASPRIN FACTORY, THE DEMS WANTED TO CUT-N-RUN!
Posted by Hank on October 13, 2007 01:40 PMMary
Why do you assume that government spends money better than individuals do? Your diatribe reeks of liberal "I know better than you how to spend YOUR money." The programs you mentioned have the common theme of increased government spending for "the common good" with the exception of finding OBL.
Another point. Taxes have NOT been reduced in time of war. Tax rates have been reduced leading to increased government receipts and more money to fight the war as well as the thousand and one other things government does.
You, however, spout nonsense such as "wouldn't it be nice" isms about how we should spend even more money on your pet causes. If government has one responsibility, it is the defense of our country. You may argue that the Iraq action is not about defending our interests as the letter writer states. Many others, including me, have the opposite worldview that Iraq is a part of the war on terror and is in our national interest.
Posted by Nostra Damus on October 13, 2007 01:45 PM"Jim - the cease fire had to do with Iraq getting out of Kuwait, not attacking its own people. " LET'S GET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!
The cease fire laid out the conditions under which Saddam could stay in power in Iraq , and Saddam signed onto the deal that the U.N. gave him. In just one decade, Saddam had recorded (at least) 17 violations of the agreement that he signed onto--the cease fire then rightfully ended (it should have ended 10 years sooner) and the very same Iraq war was re-engaged!
By the way Mary, how do you like those Al Gore and John Kerry quotes I posted above? You didn't happen to vote for any of thes Benedict Arnold turncoats, did you?
Like I said, the minute Iraq got tougher than bombing an asprin factory, the cut-n-run traitors--WHO VOTED TO PUT OUR TROOPS IN HARMS WAY BY SENDING THEM THERE---wanted to surrender.
Posted by Hank on October 13, 2007 02:06 PMMORE GOOD ADVICE FROM THE DEMOCRATS:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
-----
WHAT ARE THE SURRENDERCRATS SAYING NOW??????
Hank:
Calm down a little first...
...and then tell us if you have anything germane to discuss. Posting quotes from politicians who were wrong isn't really that hard now is it? Quit assuming everyone operates on the plane of nonsensical and self-nullifying partisanship like you do.
Also, when you can call over half of your fellow Americans traitors with such nonchalance it might be time for some self-reflection..
If just for a minute, think outside of that ideological box you've contorted yourself into like a sad circus act.
Posted by Charles B. on October 13, 2007 04:58 PMHank,
But Bush was the only one dumb enough to invade Iraq and create this quagmire and money pit. Even Bush Sr. said it would be a quagmire but GW talks to god and not his father, enough said!!!
Posted by Karl Cheney on October 13, 2007 05:03 PMThanks, Charles B and Karl Cheney, but I think Hank is talking to himself.
Posted by Stan B on October 13, 2007 06:33 PMOh, so it's OK when Democrats are wrong, but not if Republicans are, huh? Quite amusing, I must say...not to mention, typically hypocritical.
Posted by LiLiPOH on October 13, 2007 09:07 PMrobert is another total idiot who refuses to find out the facts before he writes his dribble Add robert to the other liberal village idiots.
Posted by Keith on October 13, 2007 10:02 PMYou neocons are all a bunch of morons. Why is it that you refuse to see the idiocy of your self-defeating policies and the wisdom of letting the government spend taxes on useful and incredibly practical programs like welfare and free healthcare for all?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 13, 2007 10:27 PMExcellent elocution Robert. You are a credit to humanity.
Posted by drew on October 13, 2007 10:30 PMIf you want to get the truth about the war or any other issue listen to talk radio.Remember the head of the NRA said he could get the truth out about the gun issue on talk radio when the Democrat controlled mainstream media was blocking his message.Listen to Rush,Sean and Mark Levin.If the American public can get the truth they will make good decisions.If they are only brainwashed by the Democrat media we will lose our country.This is why the Democrats want to close talk radio and take away our freedom of speech.
Posted by An American on October 14, 2007 12:49 AMI see one of our our top drawer wingnuts an american something or other is back displaying its superlative talent for modeling aluminum foil head gear.I've come to consider anything by the american whatever and the keeper of "facts" Keith as public service announcements illustrating why it is not now, nor maybe ever will be necessary to pay a whit of attention to the wingnut fringe of the American body politic.Thanks guys or whatever gender you happen to be.
Posted by davis X. Machina on October 14, 2007 09:07 AMAn American, as a leftsided moderate I don't even listen to Al Franken because he spins to the left and I know in order to do that he cannot tell the whole truth. Your an amazing fool if you think the "carnival barkers" you mentioned above don't do the same type of spin to the right.
Posted by leftside on October 14, 2007 09:33 AMdrew and other liberal idiots,Somebody is posting under my name again.Another lying liberal.robert,find out the facts before you post.
Posted by Keith on October 14, 2007 09:45 AMOf course, what would you expect from Boulder, who teaches their high school kids to walk out on the Please of Allegiance to the United States. Whose collage professors call the victims of 9/11 communists. Whose influence has filtered down to Garden of the Gods Park in Colorado Springs where kids graphite the rocks with “9/11 was a lie”.
These anti-American, anti-military liberals have no interest in the safety of this country. They want disgrace our country, our solders and America. How sad, just so a Dumdocate can be elected to raise our taxes and once again dismantle our military.
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
...and from the same source just a few years earlier:
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
WHAT ARE THESE LIBERAL MOONBATS, WHO VOTED TO SEND OUT TROOPS INTO HARM'S WAY, SAYING TODAY? FUNNY HOW THEY ARE ALL GLOBAL WARMINGCRATS WHO PROMISED US "THE COMING ICE AGE" ONLY 35 YEARS AGO!
Posted by Hank on October 14, 2007 10:03 AMNot too much response to Hank's post's. Just the idiological blatherings of the usual crowd. funny how quiet it is when a good point is made. Heaven forbid one should try to learn something and be honest in these exchanges.
So let me add these:
Did you know that Bush personally bombed the Levies In New Orleans?
Did you know that Pelosi employees only illegals in her hotels?
There, that ought to make both sides feel better. Time for your meds.
Posted by VB on October 14, 2007 10:16 AMHank,let me remind you no facts please.This is a liberal post.
Posted by Keith on October 14, 2007 10:48 AMThis looks like as good a place as any to point out that we don't need a draft. We are avoiding the need for a draft by hiring private contractors, who now number about 180,000 thousand, of whom about 48,000 are believe to be in security work. Sure we pay them big money, but that's capitalism for you, and remember they don't get to take orders from our military personnel.
"According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators.
"According to data provided to the House panel, Regency charged ESS an average of $1,100 a day for the same people. How the Blackwater and Regency security charges were passed on by ESS to Halliburton's KBR cannot easily be determined since the catering company was paid on a per-meal basis, with security being a percentage of that charge.
"Halliburton's KBR blended its security costs into the blanket costs passed on to the Defense Department.
"How much more these costs are compared with the pay of U.S. troops is easier to determine.
"An unmarried sergeant given Iraq pay and relief from U.S. taxes makes about $83 to $85 a day, given time in service. A married sergeant with children makes about double that, $170 a day.
"Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team."
Posted by Truth on October 14, 2007 12:24 PMTruth,
What's your point? Is it simply that we do not need a draft? Does that bother you?
Also, thanks for all that meaningless emolument information. Again, you simply provide quotes without offering any analysis.
Of course, I know what point you would have liked to make. So, I'll ask you: Is a paycheck the only thing a soldier receives? Are their other benefits to being a soldier rather than a contractor? Honor? Glory? Respect? Government benefits? College tuition reimbursement? Home loans?
If General Petraeus makes less than half of the salary of a Blackwater senior manager, what do you think keeps the General from becoming a senior manager? Perhaps, the General enjoys something much more than a mere paycheck for serving his country.
Posted by John II on October 14, 2007 01:23 PMHank asked in ALL CAPS:
"WHAT ARE THESE LIBERAL MOONBATS, WHO VOTED TO SEND OUT TROOPS INTO HARM'S WAY, SAYING TODAY? FUNNY HOW THEY ARE ALL GLOBAL WARMINGCRATS WHO PROMISED US "THE COMING ICE AGE" ONLY 35 YEARS AGO!"
Actually, Hank, the "coming ice age" was merely a prediction published in one Newsweek article that Newsweek has since retracted.
There was no peer-tested universal decree as your hysterical rant suggests.
Of course, that doesn't fit into your ideological narrative, so it is to merely be ignored as you shout EVEN LOUDER into the stiff wind of the truth that blows into your unhappy face.
Posted by Charles B. on October 14, 2007 01:37 PMCharles B. said:
"Actually, Hank, the "coming ice age" was merely a prediction published in one Newsweek article that Newsweek has since retracted."
Yes, it is true that the story was retracted by Newsweek. It was retracted 31 years after it originally appeared.
Posted by John II on October 14, 2007 02:03 PMI met a guy about 25 years ago named Richard Noone (he also appeared on a book review program, a week later, on CNN) who had written a book called "Ice". In it he promoted his theory that an ice age would engulf the world before the year 2000. I disputed his theory based on reports I had read concerning global warming. He brought in a copy of his book for me to peruse and I immediately went to his list of references. When I saw that he used Erik von Daniken and Emmanuel Velokovski to back up his theory, I ask him why he didn't mention Frosty the Snowman. He got mad and left.
Having tinkered in astronomy and history, I'm not sure that the climate changes are caused solely by human activity, But if it is, we should be preparing to deal with it and saying we shouldn't is a bit nearsighted. There's nothing wrong about reducing emissions etc.. In fact, this can contribute to new technological advances, robust indusrties (and our economy) that can dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make follies like the manipulation of Middle East oil supplies obsolete. I would like to see the day when someone pulls up to our shores and says, "Here's some more oil" and someone looks at him in bewildered puzzlement and replies, "Who needs it?".
Posted by Stan B on October 14, 2007 03:31 PMIt's hard to imagine that there are some people like John II who think it's fine for our boys to get paid about one-tenth as much as a private contractor security person because, because, after all, our boys have the honor of getting blown to bits for their country. Maybe Johnny Boy can tell us how much that is worth at the bank where our boys put their money to feed and take care of their families.
Posted by Truth on October 14, 2007 04:22 PMAnyone with a brain knows why Bush is using private contractors at exorbitant prices rather than U.S. military at bargain basement prices. It is because Bush is afraid that people will get upset at the poor little guy if they know that he went to war even though he should have known he did not have military enough to do it. Until lately, we have seen very little publicity about the private contractors, just as until lately we saw very little publicity about our boys coming home in body bags.
What could Bush have asked of the American people after 9/11, knowing full well he was going to invade Iraq? For one thing, he could have leveled with us and asked young people, instead of going shopping, to go the nearest recruiting office. He could have prepared America and the military for what he had in mind.
But of course he was afraid that the American people would be upset with him if he told the truth and planned ahead.
Troops in Iraq: around 160,000. Private contractors: around 180,000. Billionaire troops: zero. Billionaire private contractors: many.
One thing our troops are fighting in Iraq is Abu Grahib. Another is the private contractor situation. Both have made winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people doubly difficult.
Posted by Truth on October 14, 2007 04:39 PMTruth,
Nice dodge as usual.
"It's hard to imagine that there are some people like John II who think it's fine for our boys to get paid about one-tenth as much as a private contractor security person because, because, after all, our boys have the honor of getting blown to bits for their country."
How about answering my questions to you on 1:23.
Posted by John II on October 14, 2007 04:52 PMStan B. declared:
"I'm not sure that the climate changes are caused solely by human activity, But if it is, we should be preparing to deal with it and saying we shouldn't is a bit nearsighted."
Stan, wouldn't you agree that the 'if' in your statement is a pretty big determiner of what we should do? If you're not sure, do you think we should have signed the Kyoto agreement?
Even if we are causing global warming, what if it's worth it in order to feed millions of people who might otherwise starve? If sea levels are projected to rise 2" in the next few decades, but we were able to avoid millions of people starving, would it be worth it?
Posted by John II on October 14, 2007 05:02 PMJohn II,
I don't agree with all of the proposals in the Kyoto agreement. All agreements require some compromise, though. Some nations like China and India and the U.S governments (the most powerful on earth and trading partners with the multinational global power brokers) are going to make trillons at you and your descendants expense. What's your proposal? Should we let the powerful exercise their dominion over the people who didn't have any say in Their benevolent decisions? That's freedom?
Posted by Stan B on October 14, 2007 06:01 PMStan B.,
I'm glad to see you weren't fooled by that agreement. There's a compensation for everything. Like it or not, our industry feeds hundreds of millions of people. Is there waste involved in this industry? Of course. Kyoto would have seriously curtailed our industry. Not only that, it would have tied our hands behind our back while letting huge polluters like China and India off the hook.
What would I do? First, before I signed any treaty, I'd want to make sure we really are the problem. I'd also want to make sure we weren't be taken advantage of by our trading partners.
Posted by John II on October 14, 2007 06:18 PMWe're using over 25% of the world's energy. When do we say, "OK, we don't need your oil"? We can produce and sell you our technology (and profit from it) to leave the rest of the world
better off. That's what I'd do.
Anon at 10:27, unless I have a clone, or post in my sleep, that was not me. It was not even good.
Looks like China may deal on the Iraq oil after all. If we invaded to keep China out, we didn`t accomplish the task.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 14, 2007 07:47 PMStan B.,
I didn't get that. What would you do? So what if we use 25% of the world's energy? Do we not provide anything in return for that? Do we not pay for the energy? Do we not provide a security blanket for democracy? Do we not produce an enormous amount of food for the world? The world already is better off because of America.
Posted by John II on October 14, 2007 07:57 PMJohn II,
Forget it. I'm wasting my time.
Posted by Stan B on October 14, 2007 08:18 PMTo An (un)American: Perhaps if yoiur head was not in a dark hole, you could see more clearly. I flyou believe that you can get the truth by listening to talk radio and more specifically Rush, Sean, and Mark Levin, there i s absolutely no hope of any recovery for you. Just this past Friday, Rush was tazlking about the Federal Deficit and made mention of the fact that even with all the spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the deficit has been reduced dramatically for the current fisca year. Just thought it may interest you to knwo that only the money appropriated for Pentagon spending thru the budget process is counted against the deficit. None of the Supplemental spending bill approved by Congress since this disaster began has been included in the dificit and that has been done on purpose by the administration in order to make them look better than they actually are.
(un) American I suggest you continue to dig that hole you are in and eventually it will be so deep no one will even know you exist ( hopfully) or even care.
Sean and the idiot you mentioned are just as bad as Rush and the sad thing is they do not mind lying to people , which seems to be a trait of yours also.
Posted by A True American on October 14, 2007 08:19 PMLooks like Drew learned himself a new word.
Ha, Stan B., I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Whenever your arguments are refuted, you claim you are wasting your time. Don't be so negative. You're learning new stuff. It's no waste of time. Actually, the only real waste of time is saying you're wasting your time.
Posted by John II on October 14, 2007 08:50 PMJohn II,
I think he means it's a waste of time trying to get you to acknowledge anything that doesn't conform to your belief that the world exists only to provide you short-term material gain.
Posted by Charles B. on October 15, 2007 07:52 AMNo, what he means is that it's a waste of time to not be able to properly argue a subject. He does this all the time. He makes weak arguments and assertions and when he is questioned on them, he backs down or resorts to petty partisan bickering.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 08:40 AMJohn II,
You don't have any idea what you're talking about, much less what I'm talking about. If I said "red" you'd say "blue". Your just looking for someone to argue with. Go rant in the mirror. You're lost in your own world. I hope you like it.
Posted by Stan B on October 15, 2007 09:10 AMI am looking for someone to argue with. So what? It's fun to debate an issue. Why not just answer my questions to you? I'll answer any questions you have for me.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 09:28 AMLet me get this straight...John II initially denied that oil was a factor...then rationalized the opposite by saying that we have a right to the oil because we do the world so much good...therefore we're entitled to it?
That's quite the stance there John II.
We need another 150K troops to do the job right in Iraq. We don't have 150K troops without a draft....so either let our boys come home or redeploy to positions of secure support or start the draft.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 10:25 AMThe right wing coward posting as "drew" in this thread is a brave, anonymous wingnut who I took to the woodshed previously. He can't take me on, so his only recourse is to give nonsensical postings as "drew." Typical cowardly rightie. No spine, no guts, no balls - no surprise.
Posted by drew on October 15, 2007 10:28 AMjay,
Can you please provide the quote where I supposedly "denied that oil was a factor".
As for your draft theory, Truth says we don't need a draft. I actually agree with him.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 10:33 AMAs you can see the Democrats on this page do not want you to listen to Rush,Sean and Mark Levin on talk radio because they want you to be brainwashed by the Democrat controlled media.The Democrats in the Senate led by Harry Reed have sent a letter to Clear Channel actually trying to get Rush fired.Imagine the government trying to close down freedom of speech and it is the Democrats doing this.The Democrats that post on this page claim that they are for all the rights of the terrorists but when it comes to US freedoms they are lost in action.The head of the NRA said the only way he could get the truth out about the gun issue is to go to talk radio.The rest of the Democrat controlled media blocked his messege.The Democrats are after your freedoms in order to push their agenda of destroying the US.
Posted by An American on October 15, 2007 10:37 AMI was looking for your opinion on the draft John...any thoughts? We can't come up with the 150K troops necesary to "win" in Iraq without it...so you're not saying that we should keep our troops in harms way for political reasons are you?
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 11:05 AMjay,
I'll assume that since you avoided my question to you that you have rescinded your comments about supposed denial of oil factors.
"We can't come up with the 150K troops necesary to "win" in Iraq without it."
What are you basing that assertion on?
"so you're not saying that we should keep our troops in harms way for political reasons are you?"
No. Never even came close to suggesting that. Do you think we should remove our troops from the battlefield for political reasons?
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 11:37 AMGlad you asked John...I'd be happy to clear that question up so you can answer mine.
I'm basing that fact on the testimony of generals on the ground and defense department reports that insist that our volunteer arming is at the breaking point and will need several years to recover from its current duties in Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3097464&C=landwar
Glad you asked so that we could clear up any doubt about the validity of my position...so...gain....considering that we can't come up with the troops necessary to win in Iraq without a draft....what are your thoughts?
Should we continue to leave our troops in harm's way without providing them the resources to succeed...or do we start the draft and give them said resources?
By the way...great to see you acknowledge that we're in Iraq for oil....and bet you can't guess where the world's other large deposit is....
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 12:14 PMIt is now obvious that the person posting here as "An American" does not have the knowledge to determine the truth, nowrthe intelligence to gain that knowledge. I suggest this person applauded the action of congress in condemning the MoreOn.org ad in which they posed a question concerning Petraus. This resolution was approved by every conserative in congress. Are they not attemptintg to silence free speech in that case.
As for destroying our freedoms in order to push their agenda, it is the Bush Administration that is doing this. The hole that "An (un) American" has dug is now too deep to be able to actually determine what is really going on in ths country. But (un) American will continue to believe those who spout half-turths and lies (Rush, Sean and Mark Levin and those like them) and the poor person buried in the hole will be unable to gain any more knowledge to determine what is actually fact and what is BS.
Posted by A True American on October 15, 2007 12:39 PMjay,
If the generals feel we need a draft, then let's have a draft. If they feel we need more contractors, let's give them more contractors. The same goes for more money and equipment. I haven't seen anyone in the links you provided (thanks) that a draft was needed or that it was the only way to increase troop levels.
"By the way...great to see you acknowledge that we're in Iraq for oil..."
Where did I do that. Please provide quotes. Use the block quote tag for readability. Notice how I always provide the exact quote I am responding to; it helps to reduce misunderstandings.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 12:47 PM" I haven't seen anyone in the links you provided (thanks) that a draft was needed or that it was the only way to increase troop levels."
Okay...I've provided facts that support the opposite....so I'll ask you for some. Where do you think we'll find 150K additional troops when our own generals are saying that we can't sustain the 30K troop surge that we have there now?
So...do we start the draft and give our troops the necessary tools to win the war...or do we leave the in harm's way WITHOUT the tools necessary to do the job?
This isn't a trick question...it's either one of those two options...tools or no tools...or answer C....we allow them to redeploy home or to positions of secure support. Which of those three options....the only ones on the table...do you support?
You say you've "never denied that oil was a factor"...good for you....glad to see you're realistic about that.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 01:32 PMHere is what the head of the NRA has to say about who is trying to take away our freedom of speech.Wayne LaPierre"Talk radio is a way around the big media filter.It's a way to get the truth to the American public that bypasses the "censorship" of the 'mainstream' media".We all know from past polls that the people that work in the 'mainstream' media vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.This is just MORE proof that the Democrats are taking away our freedom of speech.I think the Democrats lying about what Rush said to get him fired is a little different than quoting what MoveOn.org said about General Petraus.The only problem is the Democrats are not above lying to achieve their goal of destroying the US and attacking our military.As you can see they tried to destroy General Petraus because he would not carry their media lies.
Posted by An American on October 15, 2007 01:41 PMjay,
I'm beginning to think you're not up to the task of discussing anything with me.
You provided links that mentioned nothing about a draft.
As for where to get more troops, we have a few options:
1) Redeploy troops from Europe and elsewhere to Iraq.
2) Spend more money to increase troop levels. Increase troop pay to attract more volunteers.
3) Use more private contractors
3) Draft civilians
"You say you've "never denied that oil was a factor"...good for you....glad to see you're realistic about that."
I'm beginning to think you're either drunk or stoned. I never mentioned anything about oil either being a factor or not being a factor in Iraq. You've now assigned me both positions without providing a single quote even though I requested a quote twice. If you want to know what my thoughts are regarding oil in Iraq, just ask me a direct question.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 01:47 PM"...THE MOMENT IT GOT TOUGHER THAN BOMBING AN ASPRIN FACTORY, THE DEMS WANTED TO CUT-N-RUN."
How tough is it for you? Except for a friend getting wounded and the treasury being bankrupted, it' isn't really all that tough for me. Nobody is trying to win this thing - NOBODY.
Posted by Mac on October 15, 2007 01:58 PMHank, what's the point of quoting politicians? Just because some stupid people said some stupid things doesn't make OTHER stupid people saying OTHER stupid things correct.
Posted by Mac on October 15, 2007 02:03 PMGotcha...so you think we can find troops in Europe or raise troop pay enough to raise the 150K needed.
I think we both know that's ridiculous at best...which brings us back to the question (again). Do you support a draft to raise the necessary 150K troops, continue to put our soliders in harm's way without the tools necessary to succeed or finallly redeploy them home or to positions of support?
Which of the three?
Oh and about oil....sorry...I seem to be confused...do you or don't you believe that oil is a major factor in our efforts in Iraq?
Thanks.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 02:04 PM"...If General Petraeus makes less than half of the salary of a Blackwater senior manager, what do you think keeps the General from becoming a senior manager? Perhaps, the General enjoys something much more than a mere paycheck for serving his country..."
Good point! So the obverse of that would be that Blackwater employees ARE in it for the paycheck and NOT to further American policy. So, why the hell is the govt letting them run around in an environment we are ostensibly trying to stabilize creating problems? Like YOU said - the money.
Posted by on October 15, 2007 02:11 PMI don't understand why you are saying "Gotcha". What did you get? Are you saying there is no other way to raise troop levels other than a draft? Do you know how many troops we have worldwide?
By the way, why do you keep saying we need to raise 150k more troops? Where are you getting that number? We already have over 100k in Iraq. Are you suggesting we need another 150k to make it close to 300k troops in Iraq? I don't quite understand what you are saying here.
I do believe oil is a factor in our efforts in Iraq. A major factor? No. It's an important factor though. It's a vital resource for us. Unless we are allowed to drill in our own territory, we need to buy it from foreign sources.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 02:21 PM2:11 said:
"So the obverse of that would be that Blackwater employees ARE in it for the paycheck and NOT to further American policy. "
Your comments make no sense. Why would the desire for a paycheck conflict with carrying out American policy? The American government hired Blackwater to perform a task. Blackwater employees get paid to carry out these tasks. If Blackwater fails, the government will stop using them.
"Are you saying there is no other way to raise troop levels other than a draft?"
I'm glad you asked John. Yes...I agree with our generals and the DoD who say that we can't raise the troops necessary to maintain a 30K troop surge...let alone raise another 150K troops necessary to win Iraq (a figure supported by the War College and the Generals originally planning the war....a fact that is now conceded by the DoD and General currently on the ground).
Glad we cleared that up....so....one more time...which option is it? A) Draft in order to send the tools necessary, B) No necessary tools to troops and leave them there to fail or C) redeploy home or to positions of secure support?
On the oil front...you believe our only two options are to drill for more at home or fight the world for what's left?
You sure?
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 02:47 PMjay,
Calm down a bit and think about what you are writing. This doesn't have to be so confrontational.
You said:
"Yes...I agree with our generals and the DoD who say that we can't raise the troops necessary to maintain a 30K troop surge."
We already did. The surge is in progress. The extra 30k are already there.
"let alone raise another 150K troops necessary to win Iraq (a figure supported by the War College and the Generals originally planning the war....a fact that is now conceded by the DoD and General currently on the ground)."
Perhaps if you provided a link to this data, it would help to clear up your position. Are you suggesting the DoD is saying we need 300k troops in Iraq?
"On the oil front...you believe our only two options are to drill for more at home or fight the world for what's left?"
I never said "fight the world". You keep assigning positions to me that I never stated. But, until technology provides us with better solutions, oil is a necessity.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 03:03 PMJ2,
I think what that guy (or gal) at 2:11 was trying to say is something I've thought also. I took an OATH to defend the constitution when I joined. I SWORE to do it. I believed in something besides the $$. I have never had a "paycheck" job where I made that kind of committment, And if someone is just in a job for the money, that person can walk away at any time, even inthe middle of a crisis.
(correct me if I misunderstood, 2:11),
mac,
I think you misunderstood 2:11.
You make a good point though. It's the same point I made to Truth. Soldiers are paid less than private contractors because they're not entirely driven by a paycheck. There's other reasons why they are serving their country.
Can a private contractor walk away at any time? I'm not sure. They probably signed a contract. Either way, it doesn't matter. We use contractors for very specific purposes and they are paid well for their work. If some of them want to quit, they are free to go.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 03:19 PMJ2,
you said "... never said "fight the world". You keep assigning positions to me that I never stated. But, until technology provides us with better solutions, oil is a necessity".
True dat. And jay tried to trap you int an "either / or" proposition drill home or fight.
What I've never seemed to get is that there is a third position that so many people ignore -PAY FOR IT. And by that I mean pay for whatever the entity holding it is asking. I know we want it cheap, cheap, cheap, but doesn't a free-market thought process posit that they can charge whatever the market will bear? And if the buyer wants it they have to pay?
And I hope you don't mind me asking a technical question - how do you produce those nice-looking quotes?
Posted by on October 15, 2007 03:21 PMI'm not trying to be confrontational John...I am frustrated that instead of answering the question put to you, as I did yours, your attempting to attack the data behind the conclusions it represents.
"We already did. The surge is in progress. The extra 30k are already there."
Do a little research here...you'll find out that even Petraeus recently admitted we don't have the troops to sustain it past march or april of next year.
"Perhaps if you provided a link to this data, it would help to clear up your position. Are you suggesting the DoD is saying we need 300k troops in Iraq?"
I thought everyone with some education on this subject was aware that Shinseki and the War College insisted before the war that we'd need "several hundred thousand troops" to win in Iraq....a fact conceded last year by our own generals on the ground in Iraq. Google "several hundred thousand troops" and "war college". Should clear it up for you so we can move on to your answer to the question had hand.
Which option do you support:
A) A draft necessary to give our troops the tools necessary for success
B) No draft, but continuing to withhold the tools necessary for success but keep our troops in harm's way in the meantime
C) No draft, but allowing our troops on the ground to either redeploy home or to positions of secure support in country.
Thanks again in advance for your answer.
On the oil...I saw the lightbulb go on all the way over in Denver....
"until technology provides us with better solutions, oil is a necessity."
Bingo....now you understand how we can mitigate the geopolitical strife that our need for oil represents. Sounds like a third option to me.
3:21,
Use the b l o c k q u o t e tag. Also, I use italics in the quote to make it easier to read.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 03:36 PMjay,
Didn't I already say that if the generals wanted a draft, I would support it?
I'm not going to answer your false decision questions no matter how many times you ask them.
"Bingo....now you understand how we can mitigate the geopolitical strife that our need for oil represents. Sounds like a third option to me."
How? What's the third option?
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 03:42 PMBy the way....I think it's a little naive to say that oil isn't a major factor in Iraq:
During a round table discussion on “the Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet” at Stanford University on Saturday, Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander, said that “of course” the Iraq war is “about oil“:
“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.
“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”
Of course the WH is still able to fool some of the people all of the time:
Then we agree John....either start the draft needed to send our troops the tools necessary for success in Iraq or bring them home or redeploy them to positions of support...that is we agree as long as you don't support keeping their indefinitely without the tools necessary for success. You don't support that do you John?
You already figured out the third option on your own John. Energy sources besides oil. Surely you agree that oil has become the single largest contributing factor to global instability in modern times.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 03:52 PMFinally...answering the question posed to start this forum....of course continuing our failed policies in Iraq is about protecting our interests...as the former Centcom commander admitted last year. Since this interview the US has continued construction on huge "superbases" from within which to provide support for our interests for decades to come.
But hey....at least the soldiers there only have to protect the "flow of goods"...instead of having to fight AQ that had no ties to Saddam, hunt down the folks who did 9/11 and search for those WMD's that were never there.
sorry...here's that link.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/bases/2006/0315keepbases.htm
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 04:04 PMjay said:
"You already figured out the third option on your own John. Energy sources besides oil."
We all know the third option, jay. However, the third option is a very long term option. It doesn't address our current situation.
So, in the meantime, oil is very important to us and needs to be secured. That's not to say the Iraq War is primarily about oil. But, oil is always a factor in the Middle-East. Actually, oil is probably saving Iran from attack right now. If we weren't so concerned about disrupting the flow of oil, we probably would have attack Iran by now.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 06:38 PMJohn II:
"If we weren't so concerned about disrupting the flow of oil, we probably would have attack Iran by now."
Never-mind the flow of blood, that doesn't concern our Johny.
I notice how you never deny it when I tell people that you only argue in favor of things which will contribute to your short-term material gain.
Keeping that in mind makes you a lot less frustrating and a lot more
sad.
Charles B., I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 07:46 PM"oil is probably saving Iran from attack right now."
I have no idea what that means. Please explain.
It certainly didn't stop us from attacking Iraq.
Hey, I'd still be interested in that question...."we agree as long as you don't support keeping their indefinitely without the tools necessary for success. You don't support that do you John?"
Do you support "staying the course"...ie, leaving our troops in harm's way while withholding the resources necessary for their success?
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 08:09 PM"Actually, oil is probably saving Iran from attack right now. If we weren't so concerned about disrupting the flow of oil, we probably would have attack Iran by now.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 06:38 PM"
Don't ask John II where he came up with this.
John II says that oil was a minor factor in invading Iraq. But that oil is why we don't invade Iran. But then you don't have to make sense on this forum.
Posted by Truth on October 15, 2007 08:53 PMIf we attack Iran, oil prices will soar above $100 a barrel.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 09:22 PM"If we attack Iran, oil prices will soar above $100 a barrel."
How about a little flash back to put your statement in the proper context John....
"If we needlessly invade Iraq, oil prices will soar above $85 a barrel"
By the way, even the soldiers are now saying start a draft and give us what we need or get us the hell out of there"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 09:09 AMjay,
What is the point of providing a link to a Washington Post letter written by several soldiers? There's about 120k troops in Iraq. Does every single one of those troops think and feel the same way about the war? Of course not. The same goes for generals. Not all generals will agree. Posting the dissenting views of generals and soldiers does not mean the war is lost or not winnable or that we will fail without a draft.
Also, I don't understand the point of your "little flash back".
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 09:45 AMI'll repeat...the War College and the original generals in charge of Iraq (again...as conceded last year by Centcom) are the ones saying we need at least 300K troops to succeed in iraq.
I don't understand your inability to come to terms with that fact.
My point...once again...is that we should start the draft and send our troops on the ground the resources necessary for success...or we should allow them to redeploy home or to positions of support.
Surely you don't advocate keeping them in harm's way while refusing to give them the necessary resources to be successful...do you?
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 10:29 AMjay,
You keep asking the same false decision questions over and over again.
You've already made the point that you believe we need a draft. That point has been noted.
Some people believe we need 300k troops to succeed in Iraq. That may or may not be true. For example, the recent surge of 30k troops is showing great results. I'm sure we could stabilize Iraq a lot sooner with one million troops. We're not going to get a million troops. And, unless the UN decides to help out, we're not going to get 300k troops in Iraq. In fact, General Petraeus has not even asked for 300k troops. So, your points are irrelevant.
"You've already made the point that you believe we need a draft."
I've asked time and time again for anyone out there to come up with a realistic alternative to the draft for raising the necessary troops for success in Iraq...and still have yet to see a realistic option. (sorry..."paying more" and pulling our troops out of german don't count).
"Some people believe we need 300k troops to succeed in Iraq. That may or may not be true"
"some" being the best military minds on the planet....so please concede the point.
So...do you support keeping our troops in harm's way without sending the necessary resources for success (otherwise known as stay the course)?
I never knew it would be so hard to get you to answer a yes or no question.
jay,
"and still have yet to see a realistic option. (sorry..."paying more" and pulling our troops out of german don't count)."
Why don't they count? You are disqualifying any answer other than the one you want to hear.
"I never knew it would be so hard to get you to answer a yes or no question."
It's a false decision question. By answering your question, I would have to acknowledge your premise. I do not acknowledge your premise so your question is irrelevant.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 11:09 AMjay,
John II has fully addressed your question. You just don't like the answer so you ignore it.
There is no constituency for "keeping our troops in harm's way without sending the necessary resources for success (otherwise known as stay the course)?"
Your premise is flawed. We are not "staying the course." The tactics have changed and we are looking for more of a "bottom to up" approach by establishing order at the local level and forcing the Iraqi political class to get it's act together.
As for the reinstituion of a draft, that is a bad idea whose time will only come if we elect a Democrat for President.
Higher taxes; increased regulation; government intrusion in industry, charity, education and the arts is the Democrat play book and they all go hand in hand with complusory military service.
As a conservative my only complaint is the the Democrat candidates are not as forthright as you are in proclaiming their intentions.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 11:24 AMJohn II,
You beat me to the point but just barely.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 11:27 AMAnd there we are John....you refuse to admit that we need more troops than we have in Iraq...and refuse to acknowledge that the only way an army that is "at the breaking point" (according to our generals on the ground) is going to get those necessary troops is through the draft.
I don't think anything else needs to be said.
Unfortunately for our troops, the best you can come up with is to stay the course.
At least it's good to know you're in an ever decreasing minority on this one.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 11:29 AMBetter late than never, Mr. Jones. With all the lunacy on this forum, it is always helps to have more than one good conservative in each thread.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 11:39 AMjay,
Looks like you were writing while I was posting.
Do you find John II more persuasive as an ever increasing minority?
"The tactics have changed and we are looking for more of a "bottom to up" approach by establishing order at the local level and forcing the Iraqi political class to get it's act together."
No they haven't. This latest failed surge is the 4th in a string of failed surges.
Looks like the PR machine is still fooling some of the people all of the time though.
It is disheartening to see so many conservatives here who refuse to send our troops the necessary resources for success Iraq.
I on the other hand...say either send them the necessary tools to win or send them home or allow them to get to some positions of security in country.
This isn't smoke and mirrors people.
This war has made us less safe, less secure fiscally and has further destabilized the middle east (according to our own NIE)...nor have we made strategic or political progress...by the latest pentagon estimates in Sept.
Six more months...right guys?
Rhetoric vs. Reality folks....there's a big gap there.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 12:08 PMJay,
Six more months...right guys?
Wrong Jay - As long as it takes.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 12:55 PMBut without sending the troops the resources necessary for victory?
That doesn't sound like supporting the troops to me james, that sounds like putting political hubris above our troops' and our country's well being.
Less safe.
Less secure financially.
Destabilized the Middle East.
And now dragging out this engagement until it's someone else's problem.
Hey...it's your track record...you guys do with it whatever you'd like.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 01:36 PMBut without sending the troops the resources necessary for victory?
That doesn't sound like supporting the troops to me james, that sounds like putting political hubris above our troops' and our country's well being.
Less safe.
Less secure financially.
Destabilized the Middle East.
And now dragging out this engagement until it's someone else's problem.
Hey...it's your track record...you guys do with it whatever you'd like.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 01:36 PMJay,
You argument that we should replace Petraues judgement delivered in his report to Congress with your assessment is hubris.
The Iraq theater will close down at some point. The War on Terror will continue and we will continue to do what we think is right.
With, or without, your approval.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 01:46 PMWell James...like I said...fortunately for our troops and our country's safety, your opinion is shared by the vast minority of Americans.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 03:09 PMJay,
If a vast majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq irrespective of the consequences, we would be out. They don't.
The Deomcrats in Washington, despite the partisan posturing, have understood that all along.
But I do understand your misgivings. Don't worry, we'll tell you when it's over. Mean time - hang tough.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 04:21 PMJones: 'If a vast majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq irrespective of the consequences, we would be out. "
Of course, all Americans want our soldiers out of Iraq, although perhaps James is an exception. The problem is when.
And again, of course, Jones' claim that if a majority of Americans want us out we would be out is obvious nonsense.
As for "we'll tell you when it's over", Bush already did that shortly after we invaded.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 08:35 PMBack in the "good old days" there were a couple of slapstick comedy teams left over from the days of Vaudeville. Abbot and Costello, and Laurel and Hardy, were kind of fun, even if their was little or no real thought involved; and the acts really made no particilar sense.
But, slapstick comedy doesn't depend on either thought or sense, although it still continues to appeal to a certain level of society today, those for whom thought and sense are either never acquired or now lost faculties.
Thus, it is mildly amusing to see John II and Jimmuy-Jesus Jones on stage here together.
Never a straight answer; never a reasoned proposition; never a thoughtful reply; Just bufoonery from a pair of increasingly juvenile imaginations, whose only purpose, or point, is that of holding on to "center stage". But, in their own way, so very typical, and so very illustrative, of the whole of today's Republican/"conservative" concept of "political philosophy" - to strain the words almost beyond the breaking point.
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 17, 2007 07:59 AMTruth,
I may have figured this out. Take a look at these two sentences and tell me if you note any difference in the meaning.
1. If a vast majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq irrespective of the consequences, we would be out.
2. Jones' claim that if a majority of Americans want us out we would be out is obvious nonsense.
Now - do you see anything in the first sentence that is omitted in the second?
You're right about that, Jones. The problem is that you are implying that Jan said that most Americans want us out of Iraq irrespective of the consequences. Jan came nowhere close to saying that. You're still making up "facts" so you can comment on them as though they are true.
Posted by Truth on October 17, 2007 03:57 PM"If a vast majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq irrespective of the consequences, we would be out. They don't."
This is a myth.
"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?" Options rotated
Keep Forces 43%
Withdraw Forces 54%
Unsure 3%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
Furthermore:
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?"
Democrats 49%
Republicans 34%
Both 3%
Neither 11%
Unsure 3%
So James....knowing this...do you agree we should be out?
jay,
Do you think we should implement government policy based on polls? If so, why bother voting for representatives? Why not just leave it to the public to vote on each issue?
Posted by John II on October 17, 2007 06:55 PMTruth,
I did not imply jay said anything. I am the one who asserted that if a vast majority of Americans wanted us out irrespective of the consequences we would be out.
You rewrote what I said withouth the phrase "irrespective of the consequences."
You changed the meaning of my assertion and so you could accuse me of wanting to see soldiers die in Iraq.
Posted by James Jones on October 17, 2007 08:00 PMjay,
No I don't.
As a general proposition - the problem with poles is that they don't necessarily tell you what is right or what is true. They can only tell you what people are thinking.
People's thinking is based on the reporting and the reporting will change if the events change on the ground.
In my opinion it is better to decide what you think is right based on your own analysis and judgement.
As a specific proposition - two points:
First, the question in the first poll was not do you think we should leave irrespective of the consequences. You might argue that it is close to that point but even so, 54% is not a vast majority. The question in the second poll has nothing to do with my point.
Second, the better analytical tool is the actions of the Democrats in Congress. They have the ability to defund the war but stopped short of that action. In my opinion, if the Democrats, who do their own polling, thought that a vast majortiy of Americans relly wanted us out irrespective of the consequences they would have moved forward with defunding. That's what they did at the end of the Viet Nam war and there was no immediatge politcial consequence.
That's the basis for my reasoning and it does go beyond reading polls.
Jones: "Truth, You changed the meaning of my assertion and so you could accuse me of wanting to see soldiers die in Iraq."
Jones, is it part of your religion to lie about people's motives? Where in the hell did I accuse you of wanting to see soldiers die in Iraq? I didn't. You don't have the integrity of a rock.
Jones: "Truth, You rewrote what I said withouth the phrase "irrespective of the consequences."
Jones, is it part of your religion to lie about what people said? I quoted you, including that phrase. You don't have the integrity of a rock.
Of course you are wrong in your statement, whether or not you include that phrase. Bush determines when the troops come out, not the American people. The majority of the American people often want things they don't get. You make statements for which you don't have the slightest basis.
Posted by Truth on October 17, 2007 08:32 PMTruth,
"Where in the hell did I accuse you of wanting to see soldiers die in Iraq?"
When you posted,
Of course, all Americans want our soldiers out of Iraq, although perhaps James is an exception.
According to you, I, unlike all Americans, want to see the troops remain.
"I quoted you, including that phrase"
No you didn't.
I wrote
1. If a vast majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq irrespective of the consequences, we would be out.
Which you claimed was
2. Jones' claim that if a majority of Americans want us out we would be out is obvious nonsense.
"Of course you are wrong in your statement, whether or not you include that phrase."
My statement as written is true. My statement as rewritten by you is false.
"That phrase" makes all the difference. That's why you left it out and that's the point.
I get the impression, Jones, that you are one of those people who doesn't even know when he is lying.
You falsely and dishonestly claim that I did not quote you with that phrase. Here is that part of my post:
"Jones: 'If a vast majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq irrespective of the consequences, we would be out. "
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 08:35 PM"
As you, well, maybe not you but anyone else, can see, I quoted you with that phrase.
I suggest you go to your priest and ask forgiveness.
Posted by Truth on October 18, 2007 08:06 AMTruth,
Yes, you quoted him. And then you proceeded to describe that quote as something much different than what he wrote.
You do the same thing to me all the time. If I say we should follow our Constitition, you'll say something like John II believes in anarchy.
It's a silly habit of yours that most folks are used to by now. It's the main reason why you are seen as a bad joke on this forum.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 09:11 AMJames you said ""If a vast majority of Americans wanted us out of Iraq irrespective of the consequences, we would be out. They don't."
And you were wrong.
Again...does this mean that we should be out of Iraq...using your own logic?
John....once again....yes...I think the representatives of the people of America should actually represent the wishes of the American people.
Do you disagree?
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 12:06 PMSorry couldn't let this one slide:
"They have the ability to defund the war but stopped short of that action."
yes they do...and I respect the fact that they, like the majority of Americans, don't believe that the option of taking away the resources from the troops on the ground in Iraq is even on the table. Why do you believe we should be playing politics with the well being of our soldiers on ground? Why do you even consider that a viable option?
Furthermore, the real question you should be asking is...again...why is it so hard to get the Republicans to enact the will of the American and Iraqi people?
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 12:09 PMjay,
By definition, a representative represents his people. You are merely stating the obvious. What I'm asking you is should that representative vote according to whatever the polls say?
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 12:23 PM