W announces...

[dr. freeze]

ALAS! we arrived at the truth, no wmds, no connection with obl., no saving these poor oppressed people, it was, and always has been about oil.

in some way it DID have to do with WMD's....this put the worlds oil supply in danger

granted, the evidence may have and probably was wrong, we went there BOTH PARTIES IN AGREEMENT (do i need to bring back the infamous thread)

If Hussein has Nukes or other WMDs, he puts Israel in danger -- if Israel is in danger, they act and the regional conflict quickly escalates most likely

than the world's oil supply is in danger and world economy crumbles

not sure you folks realize the thread this is that we are hanging upon -- 20$ gas is not unrealistic at this point

 

[djv]

I just can't believe those who still think Iraq was important. And even worse support the running of things by Rumsfeld. Why did we stooped our pursuit of Bin. And reduce troops and our commitment in Afghanistan before we were through there. What in hell does this bunch in control think that all Americans are fools. Chit they can't even decide if Iraq is having a civil war. And they seem to be only ones. After about the 5 or 6 year in Nam I prayed we would never end up so stupid again. Were on the way. At least then we had just over 3 million men in uniform. We could have handled many task. Now we have 1.4 million and our stretched to the limit. But still have these dudes in Wash D C that go around threatening other countries. And ass hole like Iran are know calling there bluff. Bad poker hand you got Mr Bush. Time to talk behind closed doors before you make a bigger ass out of your self.

 

[dr. freeze]

I just can't believe those who still think Iraq was important. And even worse support the running of things by Rumsfeld. Why did we stooped our pursuit of Bin. And reduce troops and our commitment in Afghanistan before we were through there. What in hell does this bunch in control think that all Americans are fools. Chit they can't even decide if Iraq is having a civil war. And they seem to be only ones. After about the 5 or 6 year in Nam I prayed we would never end up so stupid again. Were on the way. At least then we had just over 3 million men in uniform. We could have handled many task. Now we have 1.4 million and our stretched to the limit. But still have these dudes in Wash D C that go around threatening other countries. And ass hole like Iran are know calling there bluff. Bad poker hand you got Mr Bush. Time to talk behind closed doors before you make a bigger ass out of your self.

great post

well thought out world views like your own are why politicianis who do nothing but criticize with partisan rancor and have no viable solutions to offer gain popularity

you can remember a few shocking statistics that have little to do with anything but are able to be delivered in quick headline grabbing talking points and that forms your world view

you have a limited view of world history, limited view of political systems, and are thus susceptible to be easily influenced

you have a chance to develop a view of the world from people who have a fairly vast number of resources, yet refuse to do so as these headline grabbing, reactionary talking points communicate so much easier and require less work to understand

such is the value of an informed, up to date citizenry which understands history, political and economic forces at work, and is able to vote accordingly

such value of citizenry was of utmost importance to the founders -- both the federalists and the antifederalists -- from differing sides of the aisle, but with such debate and eloquence has been long forgotten in American politics

instead we are inundated with simpleton talking points, many of which are passed along in these forums meaning really nothing but trying to score political points with the minions

do yourself a favor and immerse yourself in history and try to read behind the headlines as to what is going on in reality. do not get caught up in "there were no WMD's" or "Bush is a liar" or "Kennedy is a drunk" and wake up to what is going on in the world and why events take place as they do

We went there for oil. We are still there for oil. And we should and will stay there for oil regardless of who is in office that is currently informed in the political scene. All the rancor that says otherwise, is nonsensical and counterproductive and hurting our cause.

 

[djv]

Many of those same thoughts come from those in your own right wing party Doc.

 

[Roger Baltrey]

Hey Freeze,

You make some good points about oil and the consequences of cutting and running. But what has this Bozo (Bush) ever done to lessen the dependence of the US on oil from the Middle East? Nothing! Let's drill for more! It also goes without saying that many politicians and civilians trusted the president who is privy to far more info than the rest of us (including senators and congress) to get it right when he accuses a country of having WMDs. We can't cut and run so this is an abysmal quagmire and we are paying a good chunk of our hard earned dollars for it. A Strategic blunder of the highest order. By the way, Hussein formed a strategic bulwark to the A holes in Iran. They have gained incredible power since he was toppled.

 

[dr. freeze]

Hey Freeze,

You make some good points about oil and the consequences of cutting and running. But what has this Bozo (Bush) ever done to lessen the dependence of the US on oil from the Middle East? Nothing! Let's drill for more! It also goes without saying that many politicians and civilians trusted the president who is privy to far more info than the rest of us (including senators and congress) to get it right when he accuses a country of having WMDs. We can't cut and run so this is an abysmal quagmire and we are paying a good chunk of our hard earned dollars for it. A Strategic blunder of the highest order. By the way, Hussein formed a strategic bulwark to the A holes in Iran. They have gained incredible power since he was toppled.

He hasnt lessened our dependence. That is a problem i have with him. It is not an abysmal quagmire and you will pay much much more if we withdraw. He has shown great resolve in staying put which is the only option. This whole notion that Hussein formed a strategic bulwark is right on target to a point -- until he became a potentially GREATER threat to us -- that is why we supported him in the 80's -- he neutralized the Ayatollah.

Israel was close to acting against Hussein because of the perceived threat of WMD's. You can take that to the bank. If they did that, we would have been screwed with our economy in shambles as the entire region would have erupted.

The president had the same info that evidently Clinton and Gore had when they said the same things Bush did. And Israel was evidently believing the same thing.

 

[Roger Baltrey]

It's going to be a lot harder to take out Iran's nukes. Bigger more spread out more capability. The Ayotollahs were in trouble until recently. Now Hitler Jr. in in power an he is a hero in the Middle East. Henry Kissinger, where are you when we need you.

 

[dr. freeze]

completely agree, that is why we cannot lose Russia and China on this issue and why we must not lose Iraq completely

and it is why we must raise the level of discourse somehow on our national political scene

all we have is bickering and criticism about deciding to go down road b 4.5 years ago. we pretty much did it unanimously, and instead of offering solutions, we have gotten bickering the entire last 4 years which has only worsened the situation and given guys like Iran tool time to proliferate and play his cards

as far as politics go, a good idea and solution should work far better than criticism and grandstanding, but without good ideas and solutions one can only grandstand and criticize so that is what we have while catering to their fringe which has no rational view of what is going on in the world right now and how they would be effected

business leaders on the right usually want solutions only when they are financially feasible -- i.e. development of alternative fuel would make sense when benefits outweighed the costs -- however for national security, which doesnt factor into their bottom line -- at least on the immediate horizon -- this benefit is not there -- that is why we need the government to step in and promote alternative fuels as it has become a national security issue of utmost importance and we need a leader who recognizes this...unfortunately Bush is not that guy

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Matt Personally I'm tickeled pink he stays till his term is over and hope the next elected pres is smart enough to do the same.


Saw Dean rant a couple of days ago about U.S. being spread too thin in Iraq to be able to handle the real threat -Iran-if need be.

Would somebody PLEASE give this idiot a geography lesson.

In these days of threats and uncertainty from Iran-Syria ect can anyone think of a better place to have the bulk of our troops and fire power sitting other than smack dab on their borders--
---HELLO--is any body home????--

 

[djv]

DTB that's true to a point. Then we find most of Arab world including half of Iraq population hate us for being there. Then we also see our guys are tied down in Iraq and can't just start across the border into Iran. And for dam sure the bunch that would lead the charge like Rumsfeld. Better dam sure be thrown out of office before that ever starts. I can't agree more With Mc Cain on that point.

 

[Chadman]

in some way it DID have to do with WMD's....this put the worlds oil supply in danger

granted, the evidence may have and probably was wrong, we went there BOTH PARTIES IN AGREEMENT (do i need to bring back the infamous thread)

If Hussein has Nukes or other WMDs,

I'm way behind on this thread, but I'll start here. Seems Freeze is all lit up about this, so maybe he will address a few specific things.

You say both parties were in agreement about the evidence. You guys hang onto this theme like it is real, or it matters. I addressed this pretty extensively in the other thread, but let's be specific here, since it seems to be at the core of your argument.

Freeze, riddle me this:

A. Who presented the evidence to both parties?

B. Was all the evidence presented to both parties?

C. Was some of the contradictory evidence hidden from, or altered prior to presentation to both parties?

D. If both parties were not shown all the valid information to make a quality decision, should they be blamed for that?

My opinion is this:

A. The Bush administration.
B. No. Some was hidden by the Bush Administration.
C. Yes, on both counts, by the Bush administration.
D. No, they certainly might have taken a different position, especially if the general public also knew of all of the good reasons to not go to Iraq - which partially was done at an election time to paint one of the parties into a corner.

I eagerly anticipate your answers, or your avoidance.

Not only that, but the presumed leader of the Bush Administration just said that there were no WMDs there, and there were no ties from there to the terrorist attacks on our country. Kind of a different spin than was presented to the democratic party, the American people, and the rest of the world at that time, isn't it?

I know you want to tie all this up into a nice little conservative rally package, but for some people with a conscience and a sense of morals and decency (yes, I said morals), you'd have more support and understanding for a cause if we could believe a damn word the administration tells us.

 

[Chadman]

to my free thinking friends (Smurph, Kos, Chad, you know who you are)...disregard the idiotic premise, disregard the idiotic action..is everyone ok with total withdrawl? Save me from agreement with Dick "Darth" Cheney on some sort of twisted, Machiavellian terms.

To be honest with you, Jabberwocky, I don't know that I have a good answer for you, from my perspective. I am having a really hard time with all of this. As you probably know, I was fully against this war from the beginning, as I never understood why we were doing it. I don't care too much about being wrong or right on the issue - it's a sad thing for so many people that to politicize it personally is hard to justify. And how do you measure right or wrong on it? Perspectives and opinions differ wildly, like on most issues around here. If something was considered wrong to begin with by a person, it's hard to try to make lemonade out of the lemon, so to speak.

Short thought: I think it would be a bad thing for the U.S. to simply pull up stakes immediately. We would look even worse than I think we already do. But I think we HAVE to set some parameters and timeframes (even vague ones) to get out of there and see what happens. I think we probably have to keep some kind of force there to protect American and British oil interests, since that was obviously one of the main reasons for going in there. And even that makes a little sense to me. If we have some kind of forces there, like we do in many countries, we will always maintain the ability to send a ton more if stuff ever hits the fan from one of the other countries in the region.

So much for the short thought. I have more on this, but need to do some other stuff. Freeze has given us plenty to talk about here.

 

[kosar]

Freeze,

What exactly was the big oil crisis of 2003 that we had to occupy a country for at least 6 years?

There was no supply problem. Gas was 1.15 a gallon. It is now over 3 dollars/gallon. Iraq is producing less oil than they did in 2003 and prior.

So if your premise is correct, that we HAD to invade for oil (whatever that even means), then that is yet another objective that we've failed miserably at regarding Iraq.

 

[kosar]

Matt Personally I'm tickeled pink he stays till his term is over and hope the next elected pres is smart enough to do the same.


Saw Dean rant a couple of days ago about U.S. being spread too thin in Iraq to be able to handle the real threat -Iran-if need be.

Would somebody PLEASE give this idiot a geography lesson.

In these days of threats and uncertainty from Iran-Syria ect can anyone think of a better place to have the bulk of our troops and fire power sitting other than smack dab on their borders--
---HELLO--is any body home????--

Wayne, seriously. Show me one shred of evidence that our presence in Iraq is in any way a deterrent to Iran. On the other hand, we could point out a laundry list of aggressive words/acts/intentions that Iran has displayed since we've been there.

And if you think we could handle a war with Iran right now, you have your head in the clouds. We can't even get out of a dinky country WHERE WE AREN'T EVEN FIGHTING A MILITARY. Wait, I forgot about Afghanistan. Make that 2 dinky countries that we're stuck in where we are fighting rag-tag bands with IED's and mortars.

And you mock Dean for saying we're stretched too thin for a war with Iran? Wow.

You, of all people, should know that soldiers are not robots. They are being held past their ETS'. Many are on their second tour and some on their 3rd and 4th tour in Iraq. Their 12 month tours are turning into 18 months and then 6 months later they're being rotated back to Iraq.

Our equipment over there is largely worn out, according to the military itself.

Iran has 2.5 times the population as Iraq and around 3x the land mass. They also have a military that won't just quit before firing a shot.

Iran also has the ability to enflame Iraq to a much greater degree than they already are.

Do you honestly think that they give a f*ck that we're 'right next door?'

 

[kosar]

to my free thinking friends (Smurph, Kos, Chad, you know who you are)...disregard the idiotic premise, disregard the idiotic action..is everyone ok with total withdrawl? Save me from agreement with Dick "Darth" Cheney on some sort of twisted, Machiavellian terms.

oh yeah, and Sham...think it up and pass it to Hillary...

I would be just fine with a gradual re-deployment over the next 6-8 months.

They have their government. Saddam is gone. Nothing will ever change there. Iran got their wish as we eliminated their biggest enemy and now have a shia neighbor. Nothing can change that now.

We're trying to change a mentality that has been hardened over thousands of years. Religion trumps all over there and there's not a thing we can do about that.

So how many more men and women and dollars do we sacrifice by extending this little 'experiment?'

 

[kosar]

what kind of leader does America want?

One which says "if the going gets tough, we will run out with our tail between our legs and surrendur the fort while other islamofasciists get more power to bully us around?"

do you lefties fully underestimate the power of propaganda and its influence in history???

why is the press not pro-America and use its influence to rally us around the cause in the midst of stife while this is the ONLY feasible solution instead of this continuous campaign to demoralize the country and embolden our enemies???

I'd like a leader with the ability at admit when when something is a mistake and cutting his losses. We got a few things done there. Saddam's gone and new government set-up. Let them figure the rest out. It's their country.

The press? How about the general population that thinks Iraq is a mistake to the tune of about 62-38? Are they anti-american also, just like the evil press?

 

[AR182]

I'd like a leader with the ability at admit when when something is a mistake and cutting his losses.

unfortunately we will never see this because it gives the other party ammunition...

 

[kosar]

unfortunately we will never see this because it gives the other party ammunition...

That's no lie. We still hear about how Clinton 'cut and ran' from Somalia. That was another stupid idea, but at least Clinton wasn't arrogant enough to think that because we have tanks and big bombs, that we can change an unchangeable country.

 

[Happy Hippo]

we have moral clarity to protect the worlds oil supply because we do not want some madman to hold the world in bondage as is possible

Now that I have moral authority established -- for those of you that still doubt we can debate further (that the US is RIGHT to secure the oil fields from madman and must do so to protect us and others) -- we can move to the following point.

This is your establishment of moral clarity and authority?????:com:

Wow - I didn't realize that you had the moral authority, or anyone in the U.S., to tell the people of another country what they should do with their natural resources. Killing thousands of innocent people - and our young men dying - for oil and profits for corporations? That is moral?:com:

A fine example of the imperialistic thinking that is draining our resources by getting into wars with no end in sight. Are we the world's police? Maybe we should try taking care of our own problems in this country before we exploit and dominate others, for our own selfish profits and needs.

 

[kosar]

we have moral clarity to protect the worlds oil supply because we do not want some madman to hold the world in bondage as is possible

Simply ridiculous beyond belief. Not sure how I missed this one when skimming the thread earlier, but saw it in HH's post.

We are 'protecting' the worlds oil supply by bombing the shit out of Iraq and occupying it?

Was there a problem with the oil in Iraq or anywhere that required this in 2003 or ever?

Uhhhh, no.

But this is from Freeze, the same clown that said that a family of four can live comfortably on 15k a year.

Man, I *think* he says this crap with a straight face, but it defies belief.