Thought I would try to face the Weasel music another time, as his latest rant seems to want to paint some of us into a difficult corner. Hey, I'll take on the master, win or lose...
lincoln,roosevelt and churchill stood firm in the face of unpopular wars....
>>True.<<
public and/or international support isn`t always the measuring stick for appropriate policy decisions....
>>True, but it generally plays a larger role than not in our decision-making process. And, the definition for "appropriate" is definitely a matter of opinion<<
if lincoln had made decisions based on popular opinion,america wouldn`t even exist as we know it today....
>>I can't say off the top of my head, not educated enough on the subject without Googling, I assume you are right<<
leadership is a tough concept....nobody likes or wants war...
wouldn`t it be much easier for this administration to just quit,satisfy it`s critics and let the serious slaughter begin in iraq...as we did in cambodia?....
>>Honestly, after all this, I am not sure your first point is true with this administration. I am being serious, weasel. As for what would be "easier" for these guys? I don't think quitting this scenario would be easier than staying for them, considering everything they have done, established, and held to over the past few years. I don't think for one second they entertain the thought of appeasing critics to be a real option - I think they both don't care what anyone thinks and probably stand more firm AFTER being criticized. I think it takes much more courage to admit failure and mistakes to the point of actually changing course than it does to dance around the issue and be dismissive.<<
ask yourself.....if we "redeploy"...to okinawa or rangoon(lol) or wherever...does that benefit our long term security concerns?....our economic concerns in the vital middle east?....
>> I don't know. I don't think our economic concerns anywhere are being well served by this war. I think our long term security concerns have been misrepresented and we have used up valuable world support and foreign policy credibility which could come in very handy down the road when we are seriously threatened, unlike we were with Iraq.
does that embolden al qaeda?...iran?....terrorists of all stripes?
>>Embolden them to do what? Attack our soldiers that are not in a war scenario standing around or driving next to roadside bombs? Attack our country here? Interests abroad (like they've continued to do while we've been in Iraq)? Heck, if we were out of that country, at least we could tell the terra-rists and insurgents apart, right? I am worried about the Al Qaida dudes we are now apparently sending money to in Iraq now, though. That one is a puzzler.<<
and if we withdrew from iraq,and iran refused to abandon their nuclear ambitions,would you be o.k. with taking action to stop them?...or would you rather we just sit on our hands and roll the dice?....
>>Honestly, if the way we handled the Iraq situation is remotely close to how we would handle the Iran situation, there's no way I want us to go in there. I'd have to see more reasons for attacking Iran at this point, for sure. As long as the reasons did not come from this administration - who can - as everyone surely knows by now - can not be trusted to present the entire story for review. So, for now, hand me the dice.<<
would you prefer the u.n. handle it....and circumvent any real sanctions......enable iran like they did in iraq?....
>>Right now, yes, I would prefer the U.N. "handle it", as you put it, compared to us attacking Iran. We've already seen other countries with a vested interest show concern, and I don't think our country can stand another hit like we are taking in Iraq in the view of the world.<<
do you believe that if iran gains a stronghold on iraqi oil resources(which will no doubt happen if we abandon iraq),and builds their nuclear weapons,how could we stop them from taking kuwait?...saudi arabia?.....
>>I honestly think other countries will take a strong stand against this, and if this happens, I think it probably appropriate that we revisit the situation there from a military stance. If they invade Iraq, like Iraq did Kuwait, then I think the world will unite with us, or at least a lot of it. However, there will be far less support due to what we've done there already, IMO.<<
and having a huge scimitar hanging over the head of our economy?......
>>I don't know what a scimitar is, so if you're agin' it, I must be fer it...(lol)<<
the dems won`t even allow us to use our own resources as a stop gap until alternative energy resources can be investigated and implemented...
cuba,along with china,is drilling 60 miles off the florida coast....while we watch "howl goracle" spout more "green" b.s. at the oscars.....
environmentally....who would you rather see drilling off our coastline?...who would be more environmentally responsible?.....
the usa...or china and cuba?....
this is the "real" world...
>>I'm not sure what you are referring to with this, but I might agree with you a little bit here. In my pretend world of both sides having to give a little on some issues, it's probably one I can give some on. For instance, the latest energy policy mandate forcing energy companies to be 25% renewables in a few years - that is a tough one to follow through on in reality. I was a PR guy for a Rural Electric Cooperative, and I know how tough, expensive that can be. Probably necessary, but tough, and will cost the consumer.<<
There, I did it. Probably will get eaten alive, playing by your rules, weasel, but I fear ye not...
:00hour
