Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by 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.

A new sailnet record!

There is not a single fact within the above post. Well maybe the part about getting out of Iraq being either quick or easy. But the rest is just pure fantasy. Before posting such claptrap the author should consider the old saying that it is better to be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

[sailaway21]

Mitch,
I'd love to discuss things with you but you seem rather hung up on matters six or seven years old. In the present world that is almost seemingly a lifetime ago. Let's get up to date. We're winning in Iraq and, not the least, we're winning the battle of hearts and minds. The Iraqi government is disfunctional in many ways but compared to us, past and surely present, they're not all that bad and progress is being made. Al-Qaeda has seriously mis-stepped within Iraq and not only gotten their collective asses handed to them, they lost a goodly number of leaders, and the Iraqi's have seen and rejected emphatically the al-Qaeda vision of the future. Not bad for a war still in progress. Oh, and we've had no al-Qaeda attacks on western soil. what part of success do you wish to argue?

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by 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.

Your quotation marks above indicate that President Bush said that Osama, "didn't matter that much". Do you have any references for that quote? What is your source? Date, time, and location where said, please.

The answer to your "PS" is that the man just has a low tolerance for vacuousness. If you presented your "PS" to say, the average JV football coach, he'd say that while you were willing to win all along, you were also unwilling to do anything related towards winning. That you are willing to use the word sensible in terms of your thoughts defies sensibility itself. I'm going to the DMV tomorrow so I'll have some down time. I'll honesty try to remember something sensible expressed here by you. I mean, I'll really try. I'm getting a headache just contemplating the effort alone.

[erps]

"Peace? I don't think you have the foggiest of notions about how peace comes about. Peace is imposed. "

Anyone else notice that polite wars seem to last longer?

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Mitch...my numbers INCLUDE the war costs of suppemental appropriations. I assume VA costs are included in social service costs but cannot imagine this cost being anything but miniscule given the numbers involved.
YES...many RINO's were agaist the surge too since this was a popular position to have and they wanted re-election. McCain put his WHOLE presidential future on the line to take an unpopular position at a time when most believed we could not win. For this he has my respect...even though I disagree with many other positions he takes....at least I know his national security positions will be well thought out and the result of a lifetime of experience and not the result of the latest Gallup poll.

For the record:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bush Administration has requested $483 billion to cover the peacetime costs of theDepartment of Defense (DoD) in fiscal year (FY) 2008. In addition to this funding in DoD’s “base” budget, the administration’s request also includes $141.7 billion to cover the FY 2008 costs of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), including military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Thus, altogether, under the new plan DoD is projected to receive some $624.6
billion in FY 2008.
This would bring total DoD funding to its highest level in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since FY 1946, the last budget to reflect substantial spending related to World War II. Assuming the
administration’s request is approved, total funding for DoD would surpass the peak years of the Korean and Vietnam wars by, respectively, some $36 billion and $126 billion (in FY 2008 dollars). However, as a share of the economy, defense spending would remain well below the
levels sustained in these past wars.
Source: Center for Strategic Budgetary Assessments
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicati..._of_the_FY.pdf

cam-- thanks. as i said in my post I didn't think using the correct total figures would change the GDP percentage. at least you and sway now understand that these war costs are being handled as supplemental appropriations to the regular budget process in which the president traditionally sends his budget to congress for action right after the state of the union speech.

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Mitch,
I'd love to discuss things with you but you seem rather hung up on matters six or seven years old. In the present world that is almost seemingly a lifetime ago. Let's get up to date. We're winning in Iraq and, not the least, we're winning the battle of hearts and minds. The Iraqi government is disfunctional in many ways but compared to us, past and surely present, they're not all that bad and progress is being made. Al-Qaeda has seriously mis-stepped within Iraq and not only gotten their collective asses handed to them, they lost a goodly number of leaders, and the Iraqi's have seen and rejected emphatically the al-Qaeda vision of the future. Not bad for a war still in progress. Oh, and we've had no al-Qaeda attacks on western soil. what part of success do you wish to argue?

sway, after 5 years, $800 billion, 4,000 dead it's about time bush can show some progress. i am well aware of the progress-- it's been reported in the wash. Post of all places! and it"s due to increasing troop strenths no matter what you want to call it. yes, al qaeda has lost ground in iraq. but they managed to tie us up for 5 years in a country they had no presence in 5 years ago and to get bush to take his eye off the ball (afghan.) i also said previously it's about time the iraqi's stood up for their own country. bully for them. now they face quite a dilemma, agree to a longer american occupation or face increaed irnian pressure should we leave. maliki better make hay while the sun shines. 2009 loooks like a tough year for him. sway, yes I am up to date but am still seeking the Bush end game for this gambit. right now all i see is make it the next guy's problem some legacy,huh? so look to the rest of the bush term and what do you see? just curious.

[sailaway21]

I see a long war, Mitch. In fact, that's what a lot of people are calling the war on terrorism, "the Long War". How are we to ever know or pronounce it done. Some are under the naive impresssion that the death of bin Laden will end it all. Not hardly likely. This is a cultural war that will most likely domiante the twentyfirst century or at least the first half of it. Here's an article that details some of the things we've done wrong and what we can do about them now, but note also how it describes the war on terror. September 10th is as gone as the roaring twenties; life will never be quite the same again.

Andrew C. McCarthy on Barack Obama & National Security on National Review Online

[PBzeer]

The pipedream that the elimination of bin Ladin will somehow stop Islamic terrorism is not only naive, but criminally negligent. The key to winning any type of military engagement, is in choosing the battleground. Bush chose the Mid East. To retreat from there, leaves the choice to the terrorists, and they have demonstrated, by both words and actions, that their preference is American soil. To think that it is mere coincidence that there has not been an attack on American citizens, on American soil since 9/11, is to disassociate one's self from reality.

[retclt]

A little fun for a minute . . .

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher,
whose hand had been caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor
struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got
around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle'.'

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a
'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road
and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top,
that's a 'post turtle'.'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he
doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up
there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there to begin with.'

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

I see a long war, Mitch. In fact, that's what a lot of people are calling the war on terrorism, "the Long War". How are we to ever know or pronounce it done. Some are under the naive impresssion that the death of bin Laden will end it all. Not hardly likely. This is a cultural war that will most likely domiante the twentyfirst century or at least the first half of it. Here's an article that details some of the things we've done wrong and what we can do about them now, but note also how it describes the war on terror. September 10th is as gone as the roaring twenties; life will never be quite the same again.

Andrew C. McCarthy on Barack Obama & National Security on National Review Online

agreed the war on islam will be long. the longer we stay in iraq and give the radicals a rallying point for recruiting the longer the war will be. we need to end that phase of it and move on. we also need to change our focus because we can't kill them all. we need to win the hearts and mind war. not sure bush hasever understood that.