Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

As I've said before sck5, you really oughta actually READ the stuff you quote from, unless you just deliberately choose to take everything out of context. But then, I guess that's some of the CHANGE we can expect, more of the same old, same old.

[sck5]

The comparison with Japan and Germany is ridiculous. Nobody in those countries was actively fighting against us once the war was over. In Iraq a clear majority wants us out, and are willing to fight us to make it happen.

It is certainly true that getting out of Iraq wont be easy or quick. But there is a huge difference between WANTING to get out (which, by the way, is what the majority of Americans want) and NOT wanting to get out - In fact, the Bush/McCain people have made it clear that they want permanent bases there. Nothing could be a better recruiting tool for the terrorists than this.

And for what? So Halliburton can get the profits from the oil? I dont want MY son to die for that when the one thing we know for sure is that whoever runs the place will pump the oil out since that is all they have to sell.

[sck5]

PB

If you had an actual point there, I missed it. I rather enjoy your insults though - It makes me think I am getting to you when you have no counter to my arguments beyond claiming I cant read

[PBzeer]

That's just it sck5, I didn't expect you to get the point .... or more to the point, expected you to ignore it. And since one can't refute rhetoric, there's no point in trying. So please, feel free to babble on. It's often humorous, though never enlightening.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

Sailormon agrees with me!!!!

Not in this lifetime!

He said "the American people won't care whose borders our troops have to cross to capture and kill the leaders of Al Quaeda. It's too bad the American people and the world can't muster the resolve to get the job done now, without waiting for another attack."

I was arguing a while ago that we should follow Osama wherever he is (even Pakistan) and the conservatives around here got all upset at the thought of it. Glad to see you have come around to my point of view!!

You were proposing that we go after Osama now, in spite of the fact that your liberal buddies and buddettes would go ballistic and impeach President Bush if he tried it. I'm predicting that, if another attack takes place on US soil, even your liberal cohorts will demand that we go after Osama. Another attack will unite liberals and conservatives in their resolve to put an end to Bin Laden's games.

How could you not grasp that distinction?

Next thing you know you will be campaigning for our next President - Obama!!

Not in this lifetime!

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by bubb2

Dog with all due respect, Quote your source. Do you think that a American President would let a attack happen if he had prior knowledge. If I remember right, they are still talking about that and Peal Harbor. What Party was in office then?

bubb--- see my post above about condie rice being told an attack was immenent 2 months before 9/11. she was bush's selection for national security advisor at the time. one can only assume she did her job and told her boss what the director of the CIA had told her. anyway, the Bush adminintration had fair warning and did nothing. so yes, bush effectively let it happen as you put it.

[sck5]

sailormon

You still agree with me! I thought we should have gone after him when we started to (when we invaded afghanistan in the first place). Contrary to what you think, my liberal buddies wanted that too. So did the conservatives. We were all united in wanting that.

Then Bush decided to invade Iraq and put Afghanistan on the back burner. That was when Bush changed his rhetoric from "Get Osama dead or alive" to saying Osama "didnt matter much". The conservatives obediently changed their minds too and stopped thinking it was so important to get Osama.

I continued to think we should have (and still should) go after him until we have his head on a pike. That would be a good example to all the other people imagining attacking the USA.

Apparently, having flipped from wanting Osama when we invaded Afghanistan to thinking it wasnt all that important when Bush took his eye off the ball, you are now ready to flop back again, but only if there is another attack!

Well, I dont want to wait for another attack. I cant imagine why you do either. If Osama is as bad as I think (and you apparently do too) then why wait?

PS Do you just disagree with people who identify as liberals as a knee jerk reaction to whatever they say? Or, as is the case with me, does the other side occasionally say something sensible? Be careful or you will find you are arguing with yourself!! This topic is a good example. Conservatives were FOR getting Osama but now think it isnt so important but would be for it AGAIN but only if he attacks ... I am happy having wanted to get him all along. Still do. Always will. Probably wont happen until we are rid of Bush though.

[sck5]

PB

and the point was ..... ??? Still waiting to hear how getting a briefing named "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside US" wasnt a warning that Bin Laden was going to attack inside the US.

You conservatives will sound much more sane when you arent trying to excuse a moron like Bush. There ARE intelligent well informed conservatives - Too bad you guys are so in love with somebody who isnt.

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Mitch,
I'm not sure how calling the surge is a way to mask the fact that you're increasing the troop levels. I view the term as a reference to a temporary increase or a one time increase in something. That it has been successful is pretty indisputable. That the Iraq war itself has been successful at reducing terrorism upon western nations appears to me to be indisputable as well. Al-Qaeda has made the mistake of battling the western powers within their own back yard. Aside from getting a goodly portion of themselves killed that decision has also resulted in the total alienation of the Iraqi's from the goals of al-Qaeda. The Iraqis have seen what an al-Qaeda run society looks like up close and they want no part of it. Sounds like a win-win situation for the western world.

President Bush, in essence, said that if you're not with us you're against us. I think that idea should be taken further to what I view as the root problems of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is not our ally and neither are most of the rest of the countries within the M.E. They're trading partners and that's about it. I'm in favor of doing whatever it takes to get a stable government and society within Iraq. I'm not particularly concerned that it be a democracy exactly like ours. I'd like it to be a strong counter force to the causes of M.E. instability; Saudi funding of jihadist movements and Iranian funding of terror everywhere as well as Iranian goals of hegemony within the Gulf.

I also feel that a big part of that should encompass some seriously strong support, perhaps militarily, of Lebanon and Israel. We also need to start a suppression of Syrian goals as well. I could give nary a care to the future of the Palestinians.

I think that we have a tremendous burden from our past actions, or inaction's, to overcome. We should have gone into the Lebanon in force after the bombing of the Marines at the airport during the Reagan administration. The Somali debacle also made it apparent that we were weak. The Arab world respects one thing only and that is strength and the willingness to use it. It is the perceived weakness of the West that has created the world we have today. I see no reason to revisit terror on our shores by reinforcing that perception of weakness. So, in a serious way, this presidential election has consequences. While I dislike McCain for many reasons I am forced to acknowledge that, on the most important point confronting the world today, he is correct on the matter and will do what is necessary to keep America and her allies safe. That ain't chopped liver in my book.

sway, surely a man as erudite as yourself can spot a smoke screen when you see one,especially one as thinly veiled as this "surge." the fall 2006 mid-term elections were widely seen as r referendum on the bush handling of the war. perhaps you recall that the republicans were routed. so bush finally started listening to the military and various other study groups that he needed mmore troops in iraq. but since spin ies everything to bush he couldn't just send more troops into what had become another. viet Nam. one of the groups giving him recoomendations suggested the surge notion, but tied to milestones for the iraqi govt. bush boughtit and away we go. now, the surge actually began in Jan. 2007. troop levels still are higher now than before the surge ( which mccain recently discovered.) not a big deal except for the soldiers on their 3rd tour over there,or to the other NATO members who have to hear bush about their sending more troops to afghan.and pakistan , where al queda still operates at will. remember that al qeada was seen as an outsider in iraq anyway, another reason they could get no traction there.

and i really don't care what you call it--surge or not.. bush increased troop levels to respond to critics and had to spin it. it's what he does with everything.

bottom line is that bush will leave the white house still without a plan tn end either war he started. some legacy, huh?
as for the iraqi"s suddenly being more responsible for their own security-- yes, they were fed up with the sectarian violence. but do you think maliki and the other leaders could be looking forward to a possible Obama win in nov. and the possibility that he will remove the troops leaving the iraqis on their own? so why not take advantage of the american army crutch while you can and finally start to take care of your own? it's about time the iraqis did that.

[erps]

Still waiting to hear how getting a briefing named "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside US" wasnt a warning that Bin Laden was going to attack inside the US.

You conservatives will sound much more sane when you arent trying to excuse a moron like Bush. There ARE intelligent well informed conservatives - Too bad you guys are so in love with somebody who isnt.

I for one definately think the government could have done better. Matter of fact, I think it's pretty easy to find examples of government screw ups, government waste and corruption. Makes me sick. So why do the democrats think more government is better?