Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War
With under a week to go, we're opening up discussions on the US Presidential Election. Yesterday we discussed
the economy. Today we take on one of the other major election topics: The War. From the actual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to foreign policy issues related to potential threats like North Korea, Russia, and Iran, how do the candidates stack up?
My big problem with the war and the republicans is that they say they won't leave until they "won" the war. WTF is winning the war? All Iraqis dead? Government has resources it needs? Don't they already have billions of a surplus?? Did we already win? Did we already lose?
Well, there's only been one candidate who has been consistent in his stance about the Iraq war for the entire time -- Barack Obama. And it's a stance I agree with -- the Iraq War is a farce. It is a war on false pretense. We need to leave as soon as humanly possible. Really.
My blog
We have one candidate that opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and another that still insists it was a rousing success. This isn't even a contest.
Thomas Galvin
My concerns are still:
- Obama's lack of experience -- if he is elected, the 4 year presidential term will be the longest job he's ever held -- he's a talented Senator, but he's never actually run anything
- I'm quite certain America's enemies in the middle east will be routing for an Obama victory -- say what you like about Dubya, but those bad guys are scared pissly of him because he's a cowboy that'll bomb the crap out them without blinking -- Obama appears to be more of a lefty peace-nik. I hope him winning doesn't rally the spirits of the bad guys for another attack; and if they do attack, I hope Obama's up to it (maybe he'll make Powell his secretary of defence?)
All that being said, it may be time for a change of the guard. McCain probably should have been President in 2000.
"Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War" is the wrong title
it should read "Trolls, Strawmen, Partisan Hacks, Propagandizers, Emotionally Unstable Wingnuts/Moonbats: Please Assemble Here"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This thread is going to be painful.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Obama: Iraq is Bad we should withdraw on a fixed timetable agreed with the Iraqi government. Afghanistan is good, might invade Pakistan but wouldn't invade Iran
McCain: Iraq is Good we should withdraw without a fixed timetable with agreement from the Iraqi government, Afghanistan is good, wouldn't invade Pakistan but would invade Iran
And of course there is the Sarah Palin view
Palin: I live near Russia I do. War is good, war is what folks in our small towns want its what Dave the Electrician and Marge the Checkout Gal are after. Anyone who doesn't want to invade a country if just palling around with them and we need to know WHY Obama doesn't want to invade France, is he really French?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Admittedly I haven't been following this as closely as I should have, and it will definitely affect my vote* so perhaps you can help me out: Which candidate has the best (or even any) policy in relation to WAR (Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning)? Thanks in advance for the help!
Ok, I might not actually be a US citizen, but if I was, I am sure it would impact my vote...
Wasn't the "Mission Accomplished" over five years ago?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
And then we went into Iraq
Not only was the "intelligence" a house of cards at best, but Significant portions of the Bush Administration including the CIA were very much against it.
It pulled our attention away from fighting Al Qaeda and opened up a mile deep can of worms, While we left a skeleton crew fighting a growing al quaeda/taliban force in Iraq.
Going into Iraq was not only a tragesty on a humanitarian/political front, but also a HUGE strategic and tactical mistake.
And it looks like none of the current major candidates will take the criminals who took us there to stand for what they did
McCain: I will say whatever it takes to get elected. Once in office I will ignore what is best for the country, and instead focus on accumulating power, and creaming as much tax money as possible into my own pockets, and those of my buddies.
Obama: I will say whatever it takes to get elected. Once in office I will ignore what is best for the country, and instead focus on accumulating power, and creaming as much tax money as possible into my own pockets, and those of my buddies.
HTH.
We took out their previous government and replaced it. We disbanded their army.
The criteria of "winning" the occupation seem to keep changing.
And without clear criteria, you'll never know if you have "won" or even if you're getting closer to "winning".
Not to mention our continuing strategy of treating the occupation as if it was still an invasion. We're using air strikes on buildings instead of arresting criminals.
I think that the first muslim american president will bring peace to the middle east.
Those of you following the war in Iraq would find it interestin gto look up the new Killzone 2 trailer. The naration hits VERY close to home. "They told us it would only last a month... they told us they would be overwhelmed by our technology and weapons... they said it would be a decisive victory... someone forgot to tell that to the Helghast."
The price of gas just dropped to $2.33 at Costco. We won!
Fixed*
Why on Earth are people talking about having Iraq pay back America for the costs of this war with the proceeds of oil sales?
Do people really think that after you've come in, destabalized their country, mangled most of their infrastructure, and generally made a mess of things that Iraq should be paying you back for that?
People keep talking about recouping costs from sale of oil, and I have no idea why you'd expect to recoup costs from a country that you invaded. Especially since, other than finishing what W's daddy started, there really wasn't a good reason to be in Iraq in the first place.
This is like the worst form of imperialism -- we'll invade you and topple your government, and then we'll bill you for it.
Discuss.
The only way to win, is not to play.
Listen, during WW2 we fought people with a political difference. When Germany fell, though there were "terrorists" until the 1950s, remants of Nazis that refused to give up, they eventually were either captured, died out or simply gave up and accepted things the way they had become.
Today, we are fighting religious fanatics.
They will simply never, ever, ever, quit. And more are being indoctrinated every day. You cannot argue, or reason with, a fanatic. It simply will not occur.
So we either accept we will forever be in Iraq being pecked to death, fighting for a gov't and country that doesn't want us there and may not understand what to do with democracy once they get it, or give up, go home, and admit we can't fight religious nuts.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
he gives Americans hope, and that is something. In terms of his tactical abilities to coordinate all that needs to be done, I just hope he has one hell of a good cabinet.
Let's be serious here. IF we were really making progress in Iraq then the situation would be improving. At a certain point, it would have improved enough for us to leave.
How many years is that going to take? Why?
Otherwise admit that we aren't making progress.
Bush made fun of all US people and Allies, with HIS war against Iraq.. He didnt realized, intentionaly or not that saddam of the early 90's and saddam of 2003, were very different. I mean in the meantime, he lost most part of his weaponary, either due to the gulf war, or UN inspectors. One would say, saddam was used to make inspectors go out of his country, but only a few Air Fighters were necessary to remind saddam of his obligation, no need to use massive armed forces against a desarmed nation.
UN inspectors were not playing golf, like bush at time of katrina, they forced saddam to destroy skuds and more.
Now, well just a little comment of WMD.. never heard so much bullshit, do you think it is the purpose of building WMD, to hide them, offer them to your neighbours at time of major threat of your nation ???
what do i mean.. in other words, bush made fun of all of us, US people and allies... and he may not even pay for this, because there is likely even more to say..
Barstool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
"The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes." --Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out." --John King, CNN, 8/18/02
Now all we hear is "no blood for oil" and "Bush lied, people died"
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
As a soldier, war is good for me, so you'd think I would want republicans. But I'd rather have a democrat who could make alternative ways for me to earn more money. As it stands, we make a fuckload of money for doing our time over there, and it all stacks up. I think if we had peace missions that accomplished the same for us, more soldiers would be in favor of peace.
How can a man claim both to be a fiscal conservative AND be one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq War? The two simply do not add up.
Monstar L
they just talk about the imaginary money now. we'd like to hear mr. obama's take on the phony 'weather'/cloud spraying program, so that we know he's not going to operate in secret. we've had more than enough of that.
greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.
we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE
is it time to
Remember her?
That was when the U.S lost the war.
Additionally, the Iraq war will be "over" when the criteria for the "War on Terror" to be over are met i.e. when anyone who wishes to do harm to the U.S is dead. Good luck with that one.
Alternatively, and most likely, the war will be over when the U.S can no longer afford to pay for the ammunution.
Let's define "The enemy":
9/11: Al Qaeda, and a month later the Taliban
late 2002/2003: Saddam/Baathists
2004 on: Shiite/Suni Militias, Al Sadr, etc. etc.
Sure Saddam was a POS leader, but he was probably better than Kim Jong Il is and we before going into Iraq we didn't have to fight 5 fronts at the same time while burning a F'in huge hole in our national budget.
If Duyba had left "the enemy" to simply Al Qaeda, we'd not have spent untold billions in Iraq, our international relations would be less strained, we'd have 4000+ less war dead (Not mentioning the tens and tens of thousands of soldiers with mental/physical problems), tens of thousands of less Iraqi dead,etc.
You see where I'm going?
Discussions for trolls, flames that matter.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
"News for nerds, stuff that matters"
The state of Slashdot and how it has changed since September 2001.
Before September 2001 I did post a troll every day.
Now I get here only by accident and that stupid politics section is still there. Some very stupid editors are still there... This place sucks ass so hard... Slashdot used to be a freaking LEGEND (yes... really...) ..now it's sometimes worse than watching TV.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A final bonus question, isn't "Occupation" a far more accurate description than "War?"
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
is not Iraq. It is Afghanistan and future wars. Iraq simply needs their military rebuilt and that is fairly close to done. But we are going to lose Afghanistan to Al Qaeda unless we change our tactics AND attitude. McCain and the many NeO-cons keep claiming that we will do a surge there. The surge worked in Iraq because we have more than just troops in there. Sadly, many up at the top believe that talibahn and AQ have parted way, while I do not (though the lower level ppl MAY have called it quits). Personally, I am hopeful that Obama will leave Petraus in charge, since he appears to be making in-roads everywhere. The real problem is our long-term issues. China is building 2-4 new nuclear subs each year. 1-2 attacks and 1-2 boomers. Those are targeting the west (not just America) and will be used to force Taiwan back under Chinese rule. In addition, their Space program has a lot more going on then is commonly known or even acknowledged. Unlike America's or Russian, there is no clean divide between civilian and military in china. They regard everything as belonging to the military when it comes to high tech. We have lots more issues with allowing our high tech manufactuering to go to China. It is building sent around the country into other groups. Not surprising. The west did the same. But we should know better. China WILL be doing more than flexing their might down the road. Right now, we are beholden to them due to the debt of ours that they owe. Basically, we are in the same boat with them, that we had USSR in in 1975; owing lots of money to. We bankrupted USSR by end of 70's and the cold war was actually over at that time. USSR simply had to fall over. I am concerned that we are in the same boat with China. Even now, we are seeing our tech run to China, but do little about it. I have posted before about one experience that I went through. A taiwan businessman from Loveland CO, wanted to invest into a start-up that I worked for. We had communication tech that was not allowed to leave our borders except to Britain, Canada, and possibly Israel (and even these, only under special conditions). This man wanted a condition that said that if he considered company failed, he obtained the equipment. During discussions, it came out that he simply wanted that equipment and wanted to take it to China. Not Taiwan, but China. We were asked if there was a way to secure it, and there was ZERO chance of that. We did not do the deal, but I have little doubt that he intended to sell it. That NEEDS to be stopped. We have spies amongst us, and we are actually in a cold war with CHina. Clinton and W ignored it. The question to me, is who will do the right thing?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The media is already saying that Obama will win by 300+ votes, given the current polls.
Am I the only one that thinks that the media (other than Fox News, which is way too far to the right for my tastes) that thinks this election will be much closer than the media thinks? I think that these polls (often conducted with likely viewers and at colleges) are far from unbiased.
I'm not using this as a soapbox to prop my political views. I'm just saying that I don't believe Obama is 100% sure to win the election.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Winning: Permanent sustenance of taxpayer funded maximum wealth for politicians and their corporate allies.
You know??? For the 13 original colonies? Slashdot's icon is missing a red stripe at the top.
Yes, we won.
It can be argued that things are only 99% (or 90% or 80% or some other large percentage) done and it's too early to say we have won. But under the current policy, it's only a question of time. We either won now, or a month ago, or a year ago or 2 months in the future. The outcome is not really in doubt.
We won because we stayed and fought instead of leaving in the middle of the conflict.
our enemies have been REAL afraid of W and our military. That is why they went into Iraq and grew into an ARMY over in Afghanistan. And yeh, those IEDs have done absolutely no damage to us. Yeah. That's the ticket.
The same will not change our situation. Time to grow up and move along.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Bush made fun of all US people and Allies, with HIS war against Iraq.. He didnt realized, intentionaly or not that saddam of the early 90's and saddam of 2003, were very different. I mean in the meantime, he lost most part of his weaponary, either due to the gulf war, or UN inspectors. One would say, saddam was used to make inspectors go out of his country, but only a few Air Fighters were necessary to remind saddam of his obligation, no need to use massive armed forces against a desarmed nation.
UN inspectors were not playing golf, like bush at time of katrina, they forced saddam to destroy skuds and more.
Now, well just a little comment of WMD.. never heard so much bullshit, do you think it is the purpose of building WMD, to hide them, offer them to your neighbours at time of major threat of your nation ???
what do i mean.. in other words, bush made fun of all of us, US people and allies... and he may not even pay for this, because there is likely even more to say..
Okay Slashdot I have Politics turned off on my front page for a reason!!!!!!
Stick this under politics and be done with it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I think we have a new slogan for the site!
Its a really difficult subject. Anything we do here would be bad. If we stay in Iraq we'll continue to lose the lives of Americans over and issue that was never ours to begin with. We should never have gone there to begin with, but now that we are there what can we do? The Iraqi government doesn't want us there, but there's a good chance that if we leave the whole country is going to collapse into civil war, that's probably true if we were to leave tomorrow, or not until 2010.
But again, staying there probably breeds more animosity from the locals and encourages people who were wronged to become terrorists.
Terrorists aren't any specific people, and I think the term is being thrown around as a boogey man, as an excuse to make up laws like the patriot act and tell people its ok to wire tap anyone at anytime, and give telecom companies immunity for breaching civil liberties at the order of the government.
All that being said there are some people out there who are fanatically against our way of life, but a standing army isn't going to do anything to suppress these people, it is probably their best recruitment tool. What we need is good old fashioned espionage. People on the ground penetrating these groups and gathering intel, and maybe once in a while capping someone in an ally with a silenced pistol, it got us through the cold war.
It does take time for these kinds of networks to be built up, it takes time to recruit people who are willing and able and for these people to gain the trust of their targets, but I strongly believe this is the only way to combat a decentralized enemy.
Take the alleged group from PA, who got caught with a video of them playing around with guns at Circuit City, they were infiltrated by an agent who wore a wire and pretended to sell them weapons. (I'm not entirely sure these guys are terrorists otherwise they might have been smarter than to bring there video to a big box store, but I digress, the point is the agent did his job)
Then some of you may wonder, why would actual spies be any better than wire tapping? Well actual spies cost a lot of money, and they aren't going to go around willy nilly looking in my sock drawer with out a really good reason. The spy would have to seek me out, befriend me, gain my trust and after all that only have to come to the conclusion that while being a smart mouth, Im not a threat.
IMHO, as we ramp down troops, we should start ramping up spies, cheaper and more effective.
Eschew Obfuscation
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If Iran Supports Obama, it is not for reasons of trying to scare somebody, but because they really believe that Obama will help them?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Jet's suck, Nicks suck, Rangers Suck...Krypton sucks." - Family Guy
I'd ask what the moron who is coming up with these threads is thinking, but I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what is going to happen...
Because fighting back gives the Army an excuse to use violence, and justifies their continued presence.
The people like you who excuse violence are completely missing the point.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Care to explain how Bill Clinton is at fault for 9/11? Or what we have gained by being in Iraq for the better part of a decade? Have you lost any friends/relatives to a war that we shouldn't be in, and aren't wanted in?
No one of rational intelligence believes that war is completely unavoidable, the difference is at least looking for alternatives before rushing in, guns blazing. When war is the only option, it is usually expected to come with a plan, both for entrance, goal, and exit. McCain says he knows what to do, but he really only knows what we've done. He lacks the foresight to make any kind of decision that differs from what he's experienced.
Societies have a life cycle starting with strong leaders and ending with populist democracy.
Populist democracy makes self-centered people. They are neurotic and obsessed with the trivial. As a result, democracies become unable to hold any consensus, at which point they are taken over by tyrants.
Historians know of this cycle, but they also know it is socially unacceptable to mention that our empire might be slowly dying. For references, see the work of Arnold Toynbee, Oswald Spengler and Plato.
Personally, I am most concerned with these issues:
* Meritocracy that promotes the best, not the preferred victims and downtrodden.
* Government having less power through having fewer social welfare programs.
* Legalize drugs in California, so the drug-related mayhem can all go there.
* Allow states to have greater rights in determining abortion, drug legalization, gay marriage and other trivial issues (issues not related to direction of the nation as a whole).
* Find a workable plan that balances privacy and the need to enforce laws regarding content piracy. I would suggest licensing fees as fines.
* Balance the menace of other wannabe superpowers like Russia and China.
* Continue our friendship and defense of Israel, the state created to prevent genocide of the Jewish people.
Although it is political suicide to say it, I am happy with the job George W. Bush has done.
* The economic downturn is not his fault; these are periodistic cycles.
* The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be "won," but we eliminated safe home-bases for future terrorists of the Islamic stripe. 9/11 was not avenged so much as a deterrent established.
* Our educational system is so politically divided there is no hope of fixing it. I used to complain about "No Child Left Behind" until I realized the politics of education have ruined public education, probably permanently. Now I'm working toward school vouchers.
* The Patriot Act and TSA ended up not being a big deal and we can see them backing off, not because of some citizens' protest, but because they managed to deter terrorism.
I would like to vote for Ron Paul, but if that is not an option, I will vote for John McCain or Ralph Nader (his take on deep ecology is closest to mine, and this is my most important issue).
One thing I will not do is go into denial about the future of America and Europe. These are societies on a downward cycle, and they lack the will to pull out.
Futurist Traditionalism
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are many things to consider regarding the war on Terror, but whatever your view on how and why it got started, the next US president has really only one thing to do. Deal with it.
The US created the mess, now they got to clean it up. Do you really want Iraq to be the next Korea or Vietnam, where decades later the mess is still making the US look bad?
You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. The real kicker hear is that once you took the egg away from the hen, let it cool, you are committed. The chick is dead. To then return it to the nest or let the egg rot without finishing the omelet is wasteful.
The war in Iraq has happened, you can now not just say "well, we don't want it anymore, bye bye." and pull out.
A really good future leader of the US would two things. A: accept that the situation MUST be resolved and stop playing the blame game or making promises to do things that you can't do because the enemy might not let you and B: turn the blame game into a seperate issue and truly investigate what the hell happened and if there was any wrong doing and take it to court.
A: must be done because if you don't Iraq will be mess and that might easily spill over. And B: must be done because else these things will just happen over and over, just like Vietnam, just like Korea, just like Somalie and countless other conflicts were the US screwed up and ran.
In the meantime, the rest of the world really needs to start shaping up. Stop relying on the US. Europe is richer then the US but doesn't have any real military power. Don't blame the US for being a poor police men if you just sit at home not doing anything.
The rest of the world after all has a intrest to in a peaceful world. Look what happened in africa after the US ran, piracy in that corner of the world is now a serious issue. What will happen in Iraq in 10-20 years if the west withdraws now?
No, the war has happenend, deal with the why and how in the courts, but you can't ignore it and say you are going to withdraw by date X because that doesn't solve anything and give your enemy a clear goal, if only we hold out till date X we have won.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
From wikipedia it seems that Obama has supported many limitations on gun ownership but has not supported removing weapons.
I couldn't find any google reference where he actually said something remotely similar. The only sites I get are the ones who declare that he's a terrorist, a socialist, and a tax-and-spend elitist all at the same time.
Removing our forces in Iraq does not mean he's going to destroy the defense budget. Many times, he has said that the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and that this has been part of our problem. He said that another part of the problem is that there was no planning for the war or its aftermath. As for the rest of your comment, pure biased speculation.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Q: If a bomb costs 1000 dollars, and a family of 4 can be housed clothed and fed for one week for 1000 dollars, then how many families could have been housed clothed and fed if we had dropped no bombs on Iraq?
A: None. We'd have spent the money saved on bombs, on some other weapons.
My biggest fear with Obama is that he'll be another Jimmy Carter: a bright but unprepared president whose closest advisers are his bright but inexperienced gang from back home. I sincerely wish he'd given me the opportunity to vote for him in 2016, after broadening both his experience and circle of advisers.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I disagree. Not that I'm a war monger, but our involvement in Iraq over the past 18 years has been a BOON for the intelligence community. In contrast to your statement, Iraq this time around has been the BEST thing we could have done strategically to fight terror. We have mastered techniques and tactics over the past 7 years that rival our capabilities at the height of the cold war.
I am pretty sure that the definition of "winning" goes far beyond the US just leaving, even for the Iraqis. I am fairly sure that if the US leaves and Iraq descends into a Rwanda style genocide, they will not call that winning, even though American troops are gone.
The war was stupid to jump into in the first place. I thought it was dumb from day one. Unfortunately, you can't unpull a trigger. The US fired, it killed the government, unleashed the openings to an ethnic genocide, and made Iraq their problem. Now they have to fix it. If the cost of fixing Iraq is a few more billion dollars and some dead Americans, that is the price the Americans have to pay.
Everyone wants the "war" to be over with. The problem is that if the Americans leave, it doesn't suddenly make the war over. It makes it over for the Americans, but it doesn't mean it is over for Iraq. Now that the Americans have broken Iraq, the balancing act for the Americans at this point is to get the fuck out as fast as humanly possible without leaving behind a genocide.
The average Iraqi and the US have the same goal at this point. Get the hell out without as little blood as possible. The US wants to go as badly as the Iraqis want them out. The problem is that the players in this game are not just the Americans and the average Iraqi. You also have new Shiite majority leaders still smarting from Sunni brutality under Saddam, nostalgic Sunnis, independence seeking Kurds, Turks, Iran, and Al-qaeda that all have an interest (to greater and lesser extents) in making Iraq a blood bath.
The sad truth is that the US right now is the biggest and meanest on the block in Iraq, and they are what is keeping the conflicting parties from drowning each other in an orgy of blood. At some point, Iraq's central government will be competent and neutral enough to take over the roll of biggest bad ass with a gun and the US can slip out the back. Assuming genocide is not your goal, the question you need to ask yourself is, when will the central government have enough power to keep everyone from killing each other, AND will the central government be able to resist from whacking one group or another?
We can argue until we are blue in the face if or when the time will come when Iraq's central government is strong enough and neutral enough. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have a frigging clue. Smarter men and women with better knowledge and more information don't know the answer.
Personally, I think the best plan for the Americans is to draw down and pretend like they mean it. If wheels start to fall off, pause, take a breather, then try again. You want to push the Iraqi government to grow a pair and go into the deep end, and you want them to try like their life depends upon it, but if they actually start to drown you want to be there to drag their ass out.
Personally, I think it is a good lesson for the Americans. Next time they try this sort of stupid stunt they will hopefully go in with eyes wide open as to the true cost of kicking over a government and taking responsibility for a nation. Hopefully they will make sure the war is worth the price they are going to pay and reserve toppling governments for when there is truly no other solution.
Winning or Losing have the same result; American (& Allies) armed forces leave Iraq.
Therefore "Winning" must be defined differently.
Different people will consider different outcomes successful.
Some of the choices are:
[ ] stable [ ] unstable [ ] don't care
[ ] peaceful [ ] not peaceful [ ] don't care
[ ] democratic [ ] theocratic [ ] dictatorship [ ] don't care
[ ] oil producing [ ] not oil producing
[ ] grateful [ ] ungrateful [ ] don't care
[ ] Allied to America [ ] Opposing America [ ] Neutral to America [ ] don't care
[ ] Allied to Iran [ ] Opposing Iran [ ] Neutral to Iran [ ] don't care
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been just watching the political discussions from the sidelines, sort of keeping my mouth shut, but the thing that really gets me is that when it comes to politicans people think in black and white, or in other words; republican vs. democrats.
Its as if the country is completely unaware of third party candidates, such as Ralph Nader, and nobody really cares about what they think.
IMHO America is really a two-party duopoly and the little man has no chance to get his ideas out, let alone making office.
Sure, its a bit off-topic but I'm hoping this thread might get people talking about independents and what they've expressed about the issues; such as this one (the war).
I'm definitely interested in aggressive foreign policy, but the idea of 'lefty peacenik democrats' is a farce. Democratic presidents have won more major wars than republican ones. Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton have all waged war, or in Clinton's case, military action in the defense of international justice (Or in earlier days, territorial greed...)
No president can simply 'pull out' when he's given the death toll reports of what such an action would do by a competant CIA analyst. I don't think anyone capable of winning the office could, truly. Do you really think that anyone wants to be remembered as a Neville Chamberlain, a Lord Mountbatten?
Idealists fight wars. Democrats are idealist. They believe in human rights and justice. Ronald Reagan was an idealist, he believed in that too, tied up in some crazy new conservative movement. George Bush, was not an idealist. He was an economic realist trying to ride on the good things that Clinton and Gore, both idealists, left behind. All he did was screw up because he was trying to play realpolitik instead of trying to make a real difference like a man in his position should.
I'm a warhawk Republican voting Obama because right now the weakest foreign policy ticket is Sarah Palin. Most college dropouts have more international experience than she does. George W. Bush was a weak man with a strong VP, McCain is a strong man with a weak VP. I think from history we know that most wartime presidents, especially old ones, are succeeded by their VPs. (Or the VP plays a vital role in policy, Dick Cheney) Do you REALLY want Sarah Palin to be the second person holding the Atom Bomb key? Cheney we at least knew to be a cutthroat bastard who knew how to win and do it with cloaks and daggers. Sarah Palin is simply pure incompetance.
they even tried to blow up the eiffel tower by the time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRYgrwhhM8 , those who were supposed to do similar things in the states at the time, been arrested by philipineas authorities, and it didn't happen, look for bojinka to learn more about it. ...
This does explain why US authorities knew so quickly it was AQ behind the attack, while usually it takes at least one week or more to figure out, who is responsible or not, i do remind you, they knew the day after 9/11, who was behind, and was in the mouth of clinton, i first heard the word AQ.
Prior to 9/11, the US secret services, received plenty memoes from french authorities about a highly possible hijack of US air planes... see this
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266291,00.html http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/France_knew_of_and_told_CIA_about_al-Qaeda_hijack_plans_prior_to_9/11 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041707J.shtml translation of http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-896448@51-892780,0.html
Now there is something i dont have much explanation for.. WHY radical islamism became NO MORE top priority when bush been elected the first time, by january 2001 ?
Was it genuinely, thinking radical islamism was no threat, while on the ground it was obvious it was the opposite, or bush thought he could take advantage of any blast to promote HIS war in iraq, as he did ???
i remind you, on clinton's book (my life) he wrote, he told bush, when he left the white house, about his concern / worries of AQ and bush to talk about iraq....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are forgetting the numbers 1-4 are collecting the carbage the other 6 make, cleaning the roads, doing all those tiny things we are unwilling to pay for, but are rather essential. Number 10, well he is that bank manager that makes his money causing the current economic crisis. We REALLY need him.
The rich and the poor need each other. Who is going to clean your house when you are rich if everybody else is rich?
Here is a story for you.
A very rich man once kept all his money in a BIG building. A freak tycoon came along and sucked ALL the money out and then distributed it across the land. Suddenly the rich men was very poor but everyone else was VERY RICH. So rich that NOBODY wanted to work anymore. No matter how many millions they now had, they couldn't buy anything.
The rich man on the other hand kept working, on his farm and told his doubters things would soon be normal again. And so they did, faced with nobody producing anything, all the new rich people had to buy their food from the former rich guy at the prices he demanded since he was the sole supplier.
End of the story, all the money is back with the rich guy, and the normal people got their normal jobs again, putting the economy back into its normal groove.
Courtesy of the Donald Duck, a story understandable to 6yr olds.
What is missing from your bar story is the analysis that this system of taxation is really one of the few that works. Of course people will complain about their taxes and threathen to leave. It is what people do. You complain about taxes, the weather and the wife. Yet few leave the country with or without their wife for a better (financial) climate.
Furthermore you are forgetting that the truly rich rarely pay all the taxes you would expect them to pay as they can afford the best accountants to find all the loopholes while the poor idiots just pay whatever the IRS bills them for.
No my dear silly little proffesor, I suggest you go back to the school of the street and learn that the economy can't be explained with simple anologies unless you have an agenda to hide the true full complexity of the economy to create a false point.
I am reminded by an episode of Frasier, were Roz dates a garbage man. She is a produced of a program nobody needs for a shrink nobody cares about, but the guy who picks up the garbage is the looser. It is a fairly common attitude, but you can't use it to run your economy.
Tell me the results of the following two scenarios:
1: All the garbage men go on strike for a year.
2: Bill Gates goes on strike for a year.
Which one will you notice?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Winning in Iraq would mean:
1) The Iraqi government can maintain order within their borders.
2) The utilities and services that we destroyed, or that were decrepit before our attack are rebuilt to modern standards, and can support the Iraqi people.
3) The Iraqi people are reconciled amongst themselves, and will not be going around killing other factions (see #1 above). This is the hardest part.
Now, once 1 and 3 are mostly accomplished, we can make progress on 2. It's difficult rebuilding cities, water treatment plants, and electrical plants when one faction or another is kidnapping and threatening the families of your workers.
Also note, that most of the militants fighting the US in Iraq are not Iraqis. They are from Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran. Sneaking in and keeping the country in turmoil so that *WE* quit and go home, and the militant Islamists can take power again. For the most part, from what I hear from friends on the lines, the majority of Iraqis want peace and stability, and they know that we're trying to help them achieve this. The only ones fighting us are those who used to have a lot of power under the old regime and would have to share it now.
If we can get over the populace's fear of the foreign insurgents and he radical factions that are causing all the fuss (again, see #1), and get them to stand up for themselves, we'll be in a much better place. From what I hear, it's happening slowly, and province by province, but this is a people who have lived under fear and terrible oppression for decades. They're whipped. It'll take time.
If we drop them and run, like we did after the cold war, we'll prove that we're an uncaring selfish people with no sense of responsibility. That is how they have viewed us for a very long time. Now, it's true... they're right... but do we want to openly prove them right? Or, should we do what is right?
Just remember what we did to Germany after WWI, and to Japan after WWII. Which methodology should we use here?
It's strong language without the scariness of leaving all the loose ends.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Sigh. Nice job conflating Iraq and 9/11. As has been shown time and time again, there was no plausible link between the two.
The invasion of Iraq will no doubt be regarded as the USA's worst foreign policy disaster of the modern era. The Bush administration still has not given a consistent reason for it. In the words of Kevin Tillman:
My personal belief is that the whole thing stems from Bush trying to settle a family score, gain some political capital as a "wartime president", and (while he was at it) grab a lot of Iraqi oil for his buddies.
Last I checked (years ago) the base pay for private soldiers wasn't all that good, unless you're single and have no kids. How much does, say, an E-3 make with combat pay, etc.?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Now lets look at the reason we went over there (well, the reason they told us at any rate). We went over there because Saddam was (according to "reliable" intelligence, heh) in possession of/developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD's). So, we go over there, win the war as mentioned above...lo' and behold no WMD's. Surprise surprise! Well, since the reason we went over there was to insure that Iraq has no WMD's and we have confirmed they don't, I don't see any reason to stay over there...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!
What we have been doing since the "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," statement is acting as the country's police force, nothing more. There is no war, the war ended in 2003. Since then its just been neo-imperialism. We went to war without a congressional declaration of war and have been meddling in the country since the war ended. When was the last time we as a country have actually "declared war" as is constitutionally needed for us to legitimately be in a state of war? It was in 1941 for WWII.
So, who is to blame for this state of affairs? Try our whole freakin' government...not just the Bush administration alone as so many of you /.ers would suggest. Sure the Bush administration had its part, but Congress (who controls the military's purse strings) is controlled by the Democrats and has been for the last two years. They were elected with campaign promises of ending the "war." They have done nothing but pander to the people and the Bush administration since then. Why, its not like Bush is a really popular president or anything? They have been all too willing to sign appropriations bills giving more funding to the "war" effort so long as they get funding for their pet projects. This is what happens when you allow completely unrelated items to be inserted into legislation. This war is bankrupting our country.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
What has lost the debate on the war in Iraq for the Republicans is Palin's stupid insistence that the whole 'surge' has been a success. It hasn't and it is storing up a massive amount of trouble. The war lords and local leaders who control various communities have been bought off with troops handing out grants and other incentives, and so violence has lessened. What happens when that money runs out? They will fight for control all over again. It makes a withdrawal close to impossible as everyone in the region fights to fill the vacuum.
I'm shocked at the number of people who think they have insight into the Iraqi mind without ever having actually talked to an Iraqi.....
As someone who served during the "lost year" in Iraq (2006) I can tell you that what you see on TV is not always what's happening. Yes some Iraqis want us out, mainly Shias who have the majority and want to consolidate control over all aspects of the government. Al Qaeda in Iraq wants us gone so they can claim a victory over America. Yet the average Sunni in Iraq wants us to stay because we're one of the only honest brokers between them and the Shia.
Now that the Sunnis have formed the awakening councils and come on board with the Americans, they have legitimate bargaining power. Violence is down to its lowest levels since the war began, and now while we're on the cusp of securing Iraqi political agreements, we want to just up and leave?!
Obama is either outright lying or doesn't know any better about what the situation on the ground is in Iraq. You can't just pick up and leave. We have virtual -cities- of equipment and personnel on the ground there. It would take years to move it out of country. Victory Base Complex alone has over 15,000 personnel there with miles and miles of trailers, connexes, and equipment. At this point, we might as well see it out to the end.
I disagree that the war should've happened in the first place, but Colin Powell said it right, "You break it, you buy it."
As a citizen, I'm scared of McCain and what he's liable to do, and I'm not scared of Obama. I'm going to vote based on my opinions, not guessing what our "enemies" might be scared of.
Biden thinks the cutoff for 'rich' should be combined household incomes of 150k. So like half of slashdot is rich! Who knew! And new couples starting off making 75k a piece ... damn those evil rich bastards!!! Screw socialism, vote Republican.
Since Slashtards seem to link Obamas electability to Iraq with every word, I will explain why you are the center of leftist geek idiocy and will put it plainly so you can understand.
The war in Iraq is not about oil, its not about profiteering, its not even about freedom, its about an FOB, Forward Operations Base. Its that simple and you assign way too much conspiratorial legitimacy to the other leftist schools of reasoning on this. Now what would this FOB be for exactly, once again simple, to reign in the assholes of the region whom by their own words have expressed many views on their place and our place, i.e. the US and our allies in this world and funny, they make no mention of a future where we live together in peace. This is what you leftist idiotic slashtards don't get and never will until its too late. So in conclusion slashtards, your sitting in the comfort of your home or office and sleep peaceably in your bed at night because there are rough men ready to do violence on your behalf. The reasons why are beyond your comprehension and its solely based on their words and actions not ours in this modern historical period.
Now go elect Obama and throw it all away you dumb shits and don't cry when they come for you, you will have gotten exactly what you asked for!
Iraq is a concept dreamed up in the 1920's. The League of Nations invented it and gifted it to the British who consolidated the border. This imaginary line enclosed groups of people with different customs and version of Islam.
Naturally they will fight each other, as they have since about 15 minutes after Mohammed died of a headache.
So there is an inevitability to the discord in Iraq, regardless of whether the US army is doing any good there. This inevitability is ordained by the shape of the border, the geography/demography and the history.
I say let 'em get on with it. Lets not get precious about it - its practically their cultural heritage. Get the fuck out, and game on.
I hate my flatmate
I'm all for the right to bear arms.
Eschew Obfuscation
Comment removed based on user account deletion
a new territory for terrorists to breed..
he tried to use a hammer to kill mosquitoes.. now even if iraqi improves a little bit, since many years of civil war, afghanistan is in trouble, and afghan president, has already started to talk with talibans in riad, to find a political solution to the issue, all sort of things someone like Obama would likely support..
The said US republican, party, can hardly call those republicans, not sure support war for bullshit, is part of the republican values (WMD). The said republicans (bushies) feel so brave wearing guns, call for war and more, but when it comes to talk, behave like adults, they just put their head in the sand, like a well known bird..
I wonder how the Americans would of reacted if Iraq attacked America during their Civil War...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The danger with Obama's rigid timetable is that it may not allow U.S. commanders to react to events on the ground"
I never found this line persuasive. Honestly, if something *really unexpected and dire happened and required an adjustment to the withdrawal schedule, you think Obama (or any president) is going to say "no, no we can't change the plan. It says August 10 on this piece of paper, so we're leaving Tikrit August 10 despite the fact that (e.g.) China just invaded it.. "
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I'm no policy expert, but to some extent I too spread responsibility around. The U.S. has made several big mistakes over the past 50 years that have accelerated its fall from (super)power. First came Vietnam where the world learned that the US had an Achilles heel on the home front. Americans themselves were shocked by the realization that they could lose a war, but several MOOTWs later (think Grenada, etc) where they sent a huge force against a paltry resistance made them feel better and so they regained their confidence. The Soviet Union fell and confidence again reached a peak where Americans felt themselves invincible. The world was their oyster, and they would make sure the world was "good" and "fair" according to "baseball, Mom, and apple pie". So they went to the most messed-up anarchic place on earth, the horn of Africa, to show what they could do. Having learned well the lesson of Vietnam to which the Americans conveniently blinded themselves (can't be invincible if you have a weakness, so ignore the weakness and blame someone else!) the Somalis used the cannon-fodder approach to kill 18 soldiers and "invincible" America got queasy and went away. The world watched as the world's foremost military force was brought to it's knees for a 2nd time by some well placed PR. Attacked by Saudi terrorists supported blatantly by the Taliban, the nations of the world rallied to the Americans against Afghanistan believing that the America of WW2 would focus its wrath on the responsible parties and regain its untouchable status. But the "Prez you could drink a beer with" decided to make America's mistake of barging in where it wasn't truly needed for a 3rd time. And for the 3rd time the battle is being fought on the home front in the media and in public opinion. America the people love to think that their soldiers are off fighting the good fight ex oppreso liber. America's soldiers often view themselves in the same light (I know, I was one). And other nations of the world once slept more soundly at night because the US stood it's self-imposed watch. But Americans elected the unqualified based on glamour, party, religion, greed, and fear and in doing so have removed all semblance of true leadership from power. Today we (yes, I'm an American) are that ex-boxer who's taken one too many hits to the head. We have plenty of strength and plenty of fight, but not the ability to focus it effectively nor the judgement on when to use it at all. So we stagger from church to the bar for another brawl and reminisce about the good ol' days when we had just won the title "Superpower" and dreading the day that a smaller, meaner boxer comes to claim it.
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For all his purported "experience", John McCain still thinks the Iraq war was a great idea. I'd much prefer to hire the smart guy rather than the guy who thinks he knows everything.
The Battle of Antietam (also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg, particularly in the South), fought on September 17, 1862, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, and Antietam Creek, as part of the Maryland Campaign, was the first major battle in the American Civil War to take place on Northern soil. It was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, with about 23,000 casualties. ------ Casualty estimates from the battle vary widely. The official U.S. account lists 80,987 American casualties, while other estimates range from 70,000 to 104,000. Most of the American casualties occurred within the first three days of battle, when two of the U.S. 106th Infantry Divisionâ(TM)s three regiments were forced to surrender. The Battle of the Bulge was the bloodiest of the battles that U.S. forces experienced in World War II; the 19,000 American dead were unsurpassed by those of any other engagement ------------ 4,119 dead as of July 15th 2008. As of March 2008 there were 8,914 wounded requiring medical air transport. 20,416 wounded did not require medical air transport. Of all the wounded 13,109 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. Medical air transport was required for an additional 8,273 for non-hostile injuries, and for 23,052 for diseases or other medical conditions. That last one is from the current FOUR YEARS in Iraq.
I bet Obama could take out McCain, using the traditional Vulcan Ponn-Far rules and weapons. 'Course, Palin would cream Biden, and then it'd be a real fight, between Obama and Palin. Cool!
I drank what? -- Socrates
The candidates are non rectangular solids of varying volume, with some sections more rigid than others. They do not stack up well. I suggest we find some some replacements from the cube planet, to fulfill our stacking needs.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The current mission of the United States in Iraq is to provide an enhanced policing capability to support a stable democratic government in Iraq. Following the change in tactics in 2006 - 2007, this is actually working.
This is part of several objectives of the war, of which there were:
a) The removal of a dictator who is declared to be unfriendly to the USA and presented an ongoing foreign policy problem for the USA and its allies. Done.
b) The elimination of Iraq as a security threat to the United States and its allies. Done.
So, for this war, 2/3 is where we are at. If we compare to this to the goals of World War II.
a) the removal of dictators unfriendly to the USA. done.
b) the establishment of a democracy in Europe and Asia.
c) bring peace to the world and security to the USA through the establishment of multilateral institutions.
d) create a world wide frame work for free trade.
only one of those objectives was actually accomplished by 1945 (the removal of dictators). Democracy in Europe would not happen for nearly another 50 years and the UN is a joke. So, pretty much, if you want to keep a score card on wars, World War II was actually a bigger failure than Iraq, from the perspective of advancing American interests. I mean, the whole reason the USA pushed itself into war with Japan and Germany was to guarantee China and Poland (via the UK's promise), and within 5 years of a war fought to liberate it, China was at war with the USA. So... Why did we do that again?
This is my sig.
MOD PARENT UP! It's infantile to believe that the U.S. government can spend money on people. The U.S. government HAS NO MONEY, it is DEEPLY in debt. The U.S. government has no money.
It amazes me how little most U.S. citizens know about their government, and how little they care. It appears to me that the U.S. government is corrupt in may ways, not just in starting a war to help make weapons and oil investors rich, and to act out anger. Read House of Bush, House of Saud. Bush and his friends and associates sell U.S. government power to those who pay the most. Saudis have paid them 1.4 Billion dollars, so the Saudis got EXACTLY what they wanted: Higher oil prices, the U.S. taxpayer paid for defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein, and a weaker United States.
Politics is certainly not a primary interest of mine, but I educate myself about what's happening. Here's just ONE area of corruption, the unprecedented, organized vote fraud:
Rolling Stone magazine has an article about vote stealing in 2008: Block the Vote: Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president? That article is also available as a PDF file.
The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law has another article: Voter Suppression Incidents 2008. A PDF is available.
Neither of those articles discuss how votes are stolen using computer fraud. Slashdot has run 17 stories in 2007 and 2008 about computer vote fraud and electronic voting, listed here in reverse order by date. Note that the evidence is that the last two presidential elections were stolen:
West Virginia Voters Say Machines Are Switching Votes.
Black Box Voting 2008 Election Protection Toolkit
How To Spot E-Vote Tampering?
Hard Evidence of Voting Machine Addition Errors
New Jersey E-Voting Problems Worse Than Originally Suspected
The Cost of Electronic Voting
Sequoia Vote Machine Can't Do Simple Arithmetic?
Ohio Investigating Possible Vote Machine Tampering Last Year
Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries
Ohio's Alternative to Diebold Machines May Be Equally Bad
All Fifty States May Face Voting Machine Lawsuit
Judge Voids Un-Auditable California Election
Re-Vote Likely After E-Vote Data Mishandling
A Flawed US Election Reform Bill
House To Vote On Paper Trail and OSS Voting Bill
U.S. To Certify Labs
Where are you getting your numbers from? The Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama stretched from 1996 to 2004, when Barack Obama was elected to the United States Senate. Starting in 1993 and throughout his state senate career, Obama also taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Prior to that, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992-1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996-2004)
Are you calling a presidential campaign some sort of easy task? It took skill and considerable leadership for Obama to compete and win against the Clinton political machine in the primary, especially in his ability to successfully navigate through the month-long, round-the-clock Reverend Wright BS. If Obama was weak on leadership, he would not be the Democratic Presidential nominee.
He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action. At the time, I wasn't sure what to make of his answer -- political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those? Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win -- and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns. This speaks well to the Senator's ability to run a campaign, but speaks even more to his ability to recruit and manage a top-notch group of campaign professionals and volunteers -- another key leadership characteristic. When you compare this to the awe-inspiring discord, infighting, and staff turnover within both the Clinton and McCain campaigns up to this point -- well, let's just say it's a very interesting data point.
he's going to destroy our 2nd amendment rights, so the citizens won't be able to protect themselves or form militias.
The redcoats have waited for over two hundred years, now their time will come, to retake the uppity colonies!
hasn't and it is storing up a massive amount of trouble. The war lords and local leaders who control various communities have been bought off with troops handing out grants and other incentives, and so violence has lessened.
Seemed to work ok with the Marshall Plan and free trade. Of course, the allies also completely destroyed Prussia and gave it to Poland... so, perhaps if we really wanted to repeat our success with transforming Germany perhaps we need to confront our own little bit of postwar ethnic cleansing that we and the Russians did.
This is my sig.
Yeah, uh, wasent it the GOP who called for a withdrawl from Somalia? Hmm... I wonder if there is a youtube video of it somewhere....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPyKpcivQYQ
About 50 seconds in should do it... or watch the whole thing for educational purposes.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I caught a piece on NPR this morning stating that there had been a McCain in every American war. They said that McCain had a very real understanding of how war affects Americans.
I would take that a step further - I think McCain has a distorted view of the American military. He has been raised to believe that everyone should be prepared to sacrifice their lives for whatever political issue leads us to war. That's way out of step with most of my friends. I believe that the government should use military force only when absolutely necessary.
I also believe that mankind has evolved enough that we can (mostly) end war. You might think that this sounds naive, but I have faith in the goodness of humanity and the power of the human mind. I don't dispute that there are still times when force is necessary, but I aboslutely believe that an immediate and significant reduction of armed conflict can be achieved in the very near future.
What utter bullet-head rubbish. With that mentality, all I can say is "God save us all" when you quit beating up little kids and stop turning a blind eye to countries even moderately well-equipped, such as Iran or North Korea...
$1587 per month. There is no such thing as combat pay, it just becomes tax free. You could argue that the pay is really crappy, but there are tons of benefits that come with it (housing, food, clothing, health care). Also, pay increases if you're married and/or have children. So while it's only $1587 it is mostly disposable income.
In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
Oops i forgot about imminent danger pay at the rate of 225 a month if any day of that month is spent in a combat zone. So yes, there is combat pay, and it would be $1812 a month.
In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
Who will pay for that? War is no solution, for nothing in our time. Think about it americans, you need to get rid of the military industry, who are the real interested in war and manipulate your politicians and your citizens. Think if war money were spent in the USA, or in Africa. We certainly had been living in a better world. Hugs for all Americans and Iraqi, and say no to war, every where, every time. Mathias
What? Wow - talk about basic, raw and unadulterated xenophobia. Mexicans will POUR over the border when Obama gets elected? I'm not even sure how that's supposed to play out and how that'll be Obama's fault without resorting to the worst stereotypes of backward, inbred, drooling rednecks (apologies to all actual rednecks out there).
Please don't vote. You're just not qualified to do so in an informed matter.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You're either born with it, or not. Don't try to pretend you're a grammar nazi, you'll just look foolish.
this is absolutely NO reason to introduce facts into this. False emotions and traitorous loyalties are so much better.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
last time i checked we still have armed forces in Germany, Japan, south Korea....
all these conflicts occurred before i was born. So if history is a guide we will have our forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years to come.
One can hope our foreign policy is more complicated then the media shows and tells.
reagan put us in Lebanon when ALL THE TOP ADVISORS SAID NO!. We got hit with 300 loses. reagan showed his lack of spine and ran. That single incident more than any other probably gives more hope to AQ than any other until W got into office. This guy has done a better job of recruiting for AQ than Bin ladin EVER COULD.
Now, more because of W, we have to deal with a terrorist group AND a future war against a much larger group.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Taking this month's casualty data from icasualties.org, assuming 150,000 coalition soldiers in Iraq, 13 have died so far this month (icasualties includes all deaths in iraq, hostile, non-hostile, and natural illness, in addition to any soldier that dies outside of iraq from an iraq related incident). 104 soldiers per 100,000 per year.
With a gender ratio of 2 males for every one female (a conservatively low estimate for hte demographic of hte military).
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Death rates 2005.html shows the death rates for 5 year age ranges.
Assuming the vast majority of our soldiers are in the 20-24 demographic, the numbers will show that an american this month, you will find that in a group of 100,000 people consisting of a 2:1 male:female gender ratio, there would be an average of 112/100,000 people dying per year.
This shows that it was actually LESS likely for an American my age to die in iraq than in the states over the past month.
We can argue about the past and how we got here and whether or not earlier sacrifices were worthwhile, but it would be prudent to look at the situation at present and towards the future because the past is gone and bickering about will not bring anyone back.
Oh, sorry, I though you invaded Irak cos they had WMD, which turned out to be a blatant lie your government told you and the rest of the world (IIRC even the CIA was upset about their reports being ignored). Now you say you went to war to "master techniques and tactics".
I find it funny that Clinton went down for lying about where he likes to stick his cigars but it's OK if GWB starts a war with a false pretext.
From your link: "Obama has also stated his opposition to allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms[247] and supports a national law outlawing the practice.[248][249]"
Semantics. The guy is rated "F" by the NRA and wants a country where the citizens don't have guns. He's learned from Gore's mistake and has minimized it during the election. Such a nationwide ban on CCW as Obama advocates would be a huge step backwards in gun owners' rights, a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, and a tremendous instrusion of the Federal government on states' rights.
The US government is in debt, but that's not a big problem, since we've been selling treasury bonds for, oh, two hundred years or so. Our tax dollars go to paying off the interest, and the confidence other countries have that the government will pay off the debt is so unbelievably strong that since the credit crisis even otherwise strong banks in Europe have been jumping into US treasury bonds because they're perceived as being so safe.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
As for the socialism crack - you don't get governments like that in the USA no matter which party is chosen. Also nobody is going to be scared of a US President no matter who it is - there are/were a few serial killers wandering about the UN General Assembly and most likely the next President of Israel will be a veteren of a death squad that killed wanted Palestinians in Greece.
I suspect that Obama will give our enemies less reason to attack us in the first place.
Regardless, the cannon needs to point at the right target. Bush's invasion of Afghanastan was a step in the right direction, and many, many, democrats supported his actions shortly after 9/11. Just look at his approval numbers.
But then his administration went loose cannon, and started sighting Iraq. An immediate response is NOT a good quality when the administrator looses sight of who is responsible.
Bush let Osama Bin Laden get away. He deeply weakened our military, and proved to the world that the strongest military power could be quagmired in a small nation. If anything, he showed that if you attack America, you have a good chance of getting away with it.
Obama has had a firm stance that we should have focused on Afghanistan. He's stated very strongly that we should have taken down Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein.
If anything, I think a terrorist should have much more to fear from Obama than from Bush. And if McCain truly agrees with the Bush war strategy, I suspect a terrorist would have more to fear from Obama than McCain as well.
.
But never in a single incident.
3000 accidental deaths across 3,000 miles of ground and among a population of 300 million does not strain the system. No single community has to bear the full weight of the loss.
The mid-day population of the WTC complex was about 90,000. That is small only in comparison to the population of metro New York.
You were looking at the potential erasure of an entire American city - with all its core economic and physical infrastructure. World Trade Center and Pentagon Attacks of 9/11/2001 Sources
That is precisely why such extreme events are studied at MCEER [Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering] It is also precisely why the military response was not restrained by the thought that the death count was not as high as it might have been.
You could argue with equal sense - or nonsense - that the naval response to Pearl Harbor was disproportionate because the carrier fleet was at sea. That the Japanese failed to meet all their objectives was certainly not for lack of trying.
I am curious as to what people think about McCain's opinion against Obama telegraphing his punches so to speak? This came up in one of the debates. None of the media really touched on it, that I read, but I think it shows a serious character flaw in the mind of McCain maybe even our military thinking. Here is the quote: "But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Sen. Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him. I'll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. " McCain sounds as if his whole tactic is to sneak up behind someone, slap them in the ear and kick them while they are down. Isn't that wrong of him to imply that? Isn't that simply being sneaky or shady about what his true intentions are? I don't understand that kind of mentality. I think it's dishonorable. Our great nation should be well above that that kind of tactic. We should be able to go to a country diplomatically and say hey im going to bomb your borders to get some bad guys. You can go along with us and help or stay out of the way. If you fight us not only the bad guys will be in trouble, so will you. Sure we don't need to "telegraph" them specifics, troop numbers equipment etc, but giving them a fair warning, I believe, is more then warranted. The reason I say this is let them put up their defenses, let them prepare for it and then when we come in and blow a giant hole through their lines and get our target it will not only demean them it will show who does have the most power. That kind of tactic hurts their defenses and their egos, not the ooh "dam he got me while I wasn't looking but ill get him back mentality" that we seem to be creating currently.
The LOSER of a war chooses when the war is over. The war is WON when the loser decides to surrender thus ending the war. Their is one exception to this: one can become the victor by killing all of the opposing population(i.e. genocide).
So to recap: you can choose when a war ends, or you can choose to win a war; If you choose both you have to commit an atrocious genocide.
Now which choice do you want the United States to choose in its current war? Surrender? Victory? Genocide?
I want to go to war.
Oh and there are still lots of NAZIs in the world dispite WWII
-1 Crazy
Why isn't there a "-1 crazy right wing ravings" mod?
Oh well, this will have to do.
Also, for a crazy right winger, you sure are worried that with a reduction in defence spending the US will be "defenceless to any power that wants to walk in" - that is just total, freakishly propagandist bullshit and you know it, and I think any serving member of the US military or any military, and even civilians with a brain would be offended at that suggestion.
Seriously, come back when you're ready to discuss, not to rave like a nutcase.
Why does Cmdr. Taco hate America?
You said, "The US government is in debt, but that's not a big problem..."
A lot of people think the unprecedented debt is a huge problem. The debt makes the price of everything go up, stealing wealth from the average person.
Off topic, but still ...
9/11 and the events showed one thing - it takes a few really bad actions to turn the sympathy and affection of almost the entire world into universal hate and condemnation. When you get elected keep this in perspective - it won't take too much to fall off the pedestal.
PS: I'm all for BHO for all the reasons above and then some. And I hope he doesn't fall off ...
Well you can stick to your extremist view all you want, but most credible sources in the western world believed WMD claims to be true. Perhaps we were wrong (I'm still in the camp of "you'll find them in Syria, but that's another discussion), but one thing we weren't was LYING about it. There are far too many checks and balances and subject matter experts in my field to have allowed such an elaborate ruse to ever unfold. I guess if you are Michael Moore or Oliver Stone, you could drum up an interesting movie plot, however.
Which war? We're fighting two separate ones right now.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Amazingly insightful analysis, Mr. Coward. Probably the most spot on analysis in this entire discussion.
Flamebait? Are you people serious? This is a discussion about the war. This is my opinion. And since it doesn't agree with the overwhelming liberal majority on /. you classify this as flamebait.
Obviously Liberal DOES NOT EQUAL Tolerance.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
I'd think you'd have a much bigger problem with the actual potus candidate's real life positions as a social conservative wanker while in office than the veep running a legal sportsbook in a locality where it is completely above board.
I'd think your libertarian heart would have more flutters from an anti-gay, anti-wiccan, anti-drug, anti-sex pol than a guy whose only crime is to give consenting adults a way to waste some currency.
Reluctantly pulling the lever for Barr so you know this is just a shameless LP pandering comment.
But what the libs don't realize is that it's NOT going to be replaced with a liberal view. It's going to be replaced with the droning nothing of a goverment approved talk schedule. What do you get from the fairness doctrine? Not fairness, just censorship.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
If I'm the rich man and I'm buying - why the hell is the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th person chipping in? You are either buying the keg and giving out free beer, or you charge a cover. Even the poorest shlump will fork over 5 bucks for a night of beer.
Seriously though, I'm in the tax software business, and this is NOT how the tax system works (at least not for corporations). Mostly, large businesses convince the IRS to get special disclaimers on all sorts of things - Congress can make the law, but the IRS makes the code. For instance, there is a tax break for any company that has an unfinished oil rig located off the coast of CA - guess what, there are 2 of them, both owned by exxon. The corporate tax code is 10's of thousands of pages long. We have over 100 people that continuously analyze and update our software to reflect the code (that constantly changes). The analogy only works on 1040s - and even then it isn't that accurate. Did you know that there's a tax break to give bribes in foreign countries?
This guy is a professor of Economics - not a tax Accountant. And frankly I'd like to see him try and understand the scope of 1065 and 1120 tax returns.
Furthermore you are forgetting that the truly rich rarely pay all the taxes you would expect them to pay as they can afford the best accountants to find all the loopholes while the poor idiots just pay whatever the IRS bills them for.
I'd really like to know what loopholes you're talking about.
No my dear silly little proffesor, I suggest you go back to the school of the street and learn that the economy can't be explained with simple anologies unless you have an agenda to hide the true full complexity of the economy to create a false point.
Pot kettle, yada yada yada.
What is missing from your bar story is the analysis that this system of taxation is really one of the few that works.
What?!? We have the most complicated ridiculous tax system in the World! Works?!? Ha! Our tax system in the US adds so much friction to our economy that it makes me sick. The fact that a typical wage earner isn't ahead until, what, May of any typical tax year is just pathetic. The only people our tax system helps is the government workers and the tax preparation industry.
Let me explain to you about these loopholes.
The first, which you are alluding to, are the ones the very large businesses lobby for. For example, the oil industry. The oil industry has lobbied for many tax breaks. These breaks were designed to promote energy independence for this country - whatever that means. Can a typical rich guy (six figure W-2 wage slave) use these - nope, not really. Maybe if he were to invest in a limited partnership or some vehicle like that. Other industries may have their own breaks that they lobby for. Which, by the way, reduces the corporate tax which then increases their bottom line which helps those of us who invested in their stock for our retirement. Yes sir, you are absolutely correct: things are much more complicated then analogies.
The second type of loophole: public policy. There are many breaks given to real estate developers for housing for the poor. The reason the breaks are there is to give incentive to folks to build housing for poor folks instead of exclusively building McMansions and other high return properties - pre 2008 bust, of course.
See Tax Reform Act of 1986 which was written by a Democratic Congress and Ronald Regan signed into law. That law got rid of the many "loopholes" that folks seem to think still exist for the "rich".
Sure, there may be some really esoteric loopholes available for a very very small minority of tax payers, but all the "rich people" take advantage of them? Nope.
Also, look into the AMT: Alternative Minimum Tax. That's bitten me a few times and I'm just small business guy. And by the way, I'm also "taxed" with the amount of time I have to spend every week for tax preparation. Time that I could be working or spending time with my family.
I so want the Fair Tax. It would add to my productivity and I could actually hire more people.
And it would help the environment (reduce consumption and therefore pollution of all types) and it will help the poor (it will encourage them to save instead of buying bling to look rich).
Just this business guys five cents (weak dollar).
Discussion is only needed for people inside the USA. Out here we have already voted for Obama. Let's discuss which planet the USA should be on.
Illegals will not POUR over because obama's lack of an immigration stance, any more then the one that McCain lacks. The issue is as a result of losing our right to be armed, the castrating of our military and that the fairness doctrine is going to censor/prevent any dissidence about the problem. I am NOT claiming that any of the three of these events are the direct goal of Obama, but with a likely 60 dems in an unstoppable senate, all three are VERY likely to occur.
You are confusing someone who is uninformed with someone who is looking at a broader picture, considering not just obama but outside influences as well.
And yes, I'll be voting. You can count on mine being there to cancel out yours in particular.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
We never should have stayed in Iraq, we should have taken a left turn and over ran Iran. We would have been home by Christmas. Airdrop beer into key areas and the Marines will kill anyone between them and their suds.
Everyone still acts shocked about the war. If you had paid attention you would remember Bush referencing the Axis of Evil. He did exactly what he said he would do. It wasn't a con job. He told everyone from the start what he was gonna do. Iraq, having been under a previous cease fire agreement that they repeatedly violated, was just the easiest to start sumthin wit, after Afghanistan of course. Sadaam was one of if not the largest supporter of terrorism back when he ruled Iraq. Now it's Iran. If Bush had balls, he'd take on Iran before leaving office.
For the slashdot crowd, it's the money spent on the war that matters the most, then it's the reputation of the US in the world (haha), then maybe those poor Iraqi casualties (over-inflated, of course) and to top it off, it was all our fault to begin with. Sad, pathetic, basement dwellers.
... had I known this thread would have come up, I would have posted it here.
The war in Iraq has cost America, at the time of writing, approximately 566 billion dollars.
The entire Apollo project, $25.4 Billion in 1969 dollars (or approximately $135 Billion in 2005 dollars.) Sources = (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program, http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home [nationalpriorities.org])
So what I'm saying is, for the cost of the War in Iraq, America could have over four complete moon programs. Not moon missions, mind, four complete *programs*- built entirely from scratch.
Let's say NASA take one moon mission to *actually* return to the moon properly- with return trips, flybys, dozens of manned and unmanned missions, reuse of the hardware for other projects, etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions [wikipedia.org] for what this one single "mission" is buying, and remember that still leaves three whole other missions and change to do other things.
Let's spend two missions on doing all of the above, but for Mars. That means multiple manned missions, return journeys, the works. Give Mars the full lunar "One small step for man" treatment and assume it costs twice as much (and takes a lot longer).
We still have one mission left. Let's do something crazy with it- and I'm open to suggestions here. Permanent lunar settlement? Completely and utterly explore our planet's oceans (which we know less about than space, BTW...)? Solar-system wide Internet? (Aliens need lolcats too..) ... the possibilities here are truly staggering. And don't forget your change.
This is what I meant by more funding. I mean to say that NASA, which has endured endless budget cuts since the 60's (which, I'll concede, have forged a more efficient government agency), deserves far, far, far more of America's money. America's money which is being horrifically misspent.
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is... yes, it's inefficient. Horribly so. So? Throw money at it. I'll say it again- THROW MONEY AT IT. The capslock shows I'm serious. NASA is one of the few (read- the only) organisation I'll say this about, but... throw money at it. Seriously. For the cost of the Iraq war, we could have had so much.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Unfortunately, you can't unpull a trigger.
True, but a wise man knows when it is time to quit:
I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohulhulsote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led the young men is dead.
It is cold and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are--perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see how many I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.
Chief Joseph's choice was a lot harder than ours is today. His surrender meant the extinction of his people. The utter end of their way of life. He still made the right choice.
Everyone has a breaking point. Why must we discover what ours is? Why not just see the end of it from here, as hard as it is, and admit there is no way for America to 'balance' Iraq?
"Redneck" is a racial slur. Just like all the other ones.
Removing the right to carry a concealed weapon does not mean taking away the right to own a weapon. Many states like Texas that have concealed weapons rights also have prohibitions against carrying any guns into certain places: Courthouses, schools, etc. so the right to carry one is not absolute.
As for the NRA, they will not support any limitations on gun ownership and fought what I consider sensible limitations like the assault weapons ban. I think if my neighbor wants to buy a hunting rifle for his kid or stock his house full of guns, go ahead. But why does he need an automatic AK-47?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It seems like most of the arguments being put forward have a hard time thinking about the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. People seem to think it was just a "mistake" and tend to chalk it up to George Bush incompetence, and/or making the defense industry rich, etc.
Haven't any of you played Civilization?
If you're running a country, and then there's this other little pest of a country that has a track record of attacking people, is technologically inferior, AND is sitting on a nice resource such as oil, wouldn't you want to invade it and make your country stronger (even if you knew there was a chance of some of your military units dying in the process)?
People play games such as Civilization and don't realize that this stuff happens in the real world too.
Look. The US, and the 'coalition of the willing' fucked up going into Iraq. Against any UN prerogative and setting a very dangerous precedent for any nation/state that has a beef with another nation/state.
I was living in the US during 9/11 and was actually pleased that the 'response' took some time coming. A measured response, and no knee-jerk reaction. Right. Afghanistan, though not necessarily winnable, was understandable. Iraq was not, and is not.
WMD my ass. Kudos to some who called that out. I feel sorry for Powell, because I think he was used as the only credible person in the administration. The fact that you don't like the head of state is not a sufficient reason to go to war with a country.
AFAICT, the whole war question is mothafuckd up. There should be no war. Is there actually a war? I vaguely recall that there was never any declaration. Anyways, the outcome is that every time the US goes to war, it just means you are creating a new generation of enemies.
Yes, war has brought you friends as well. My parents believe that you saved all Australians from Japan. I respect that, but your record since 1945 is not good. And my parents generation is pretty much gone.... Good deeds may be hearsay.
Mod me to hell. Where I am has not turned out much better....
ws
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
It is not just a bigger base that your third-party vote gets.
The popular vote totals can effect if your party is qualified as a "minor party." This can greatly effect the signature requirements to get your party to appear on the next ballot. It can also effect whether voters in your state can register with said minor party. This helps the party in question get voter information to grow the party.
There are no wasted votes.
Bin Laden's goals
Get infidels out of Saudi Arabia: bomb US base >> US leaves
Get rid of corrupt secular Arab leaders: (worse one Saddam) >> Bush does this for him
Get rid of Israel: Weaken US economically so harder to support Israel >> cause US to spend $$$$ by getting sucked into endless war not to mention $$$$ spent on homeland security.
So how would you grade Bin Laden???
I understand your point, but it's either a war or it's not. Sure, body counts for U.S. and coalition troops are relatively low compared to some of the incredibly bloody wars of our past. But, most counts of Iraqi civilian & military deaths put the numbers in excess of 150,000. That seems significant to me. Some tallies put it MUCH higher. I bet it seems like a real-life war if you're an Iraqi.
Also, I'd be willing to bet that the family members of the soldiers who have fallen in the current Iraq war might disagree with your "hardly even a war" assessment.
I'll know for sure in a couple months, but from what I've heard, an unmarried e-3 makes roughly 1200-1300 per check... No taxes, combat pay, overseas pay, and NO TAXES... No bills, no rents, no take-out food, no alcohol, cheaper entertainment, and so on.
Shihar, that post was truly amazing. I almost wish there was a +6 insightful mod. Excellently spoken.
Removing the right to carry a concealed weapon does not mean taking away the right to own a weapon. Many states like Texas that have concealed weapons rights also have prohibitions against carrying any guns into certain places: Courthouses, schools, etc. so the right to carry one is not absolute.
Fine. That's a states' right issue, and TX has decided what their citizens can and can't do. Unless it's Federal property, like a military base or courthouse, the Federal government has absolutely no damn business telling me where I can or can't carry my concealed weapon. Thankfully, we now have a Supreme Court which feels the same way regarding gun rights. Anyway, again . . . semantics. You apparently want to "allow" people to own guns but not use or transport them in any reasonable fashion, including in self-defense when police are unavailable against criminals who ignore all laws, and including registration and concealed carry of a legal firearm by trained, law-abiding citizens.
As for the NRA, they will not support any limitations on gun ownership and fought what I consider sensible limitations like the assault weapons ban. I think if my neighbor wants to buy a hunting rifle for his kid or stock his house full of guns, go ahead. But why does he need an automatic AK-47?
As most antis do, you've immediately picked the most controversial issue the NRA supports and the one which applies to the fewest number of weapons out there. The NRA stands for much, much more than "automatic AK-47s," -- most importantly, for preserving the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, as is expressly stated in the 2nd Amendment -- yet you've chosen to highlight the extreme fringe case and throw the whole baby out with the bathwater.
During wartime, a President has expanded powers. So it's convenient to pick a war against an enemy that can never surrender or offer terms, since they have no central government. Terrorism is an idea, not a government. It's not possible to bomb an idea into submission.
So in effect, we have entered a permanent state of war. Therefore any expanded wartime powers have become permanent, at least until we say we're not at war anymore. And that will pretty much depend on how things go Nov. 4.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Thanks for the 'ammo' on gun control...
He supports banning semi-auto guns. Hell, a gun is a gun. If used by a criminal, it may kill you. If you have one, it may save your life. Citizens follow laws, criminals do not. All this one's going to do is put common people at a disadvantage.
Confiscate guns in an emergency or national disaster... Great, one of the times when a citizen needs a gun the most, and he wants them taken by force.
What it boils down to is any law that makes it more difficult to obtain or retain a gun is just going to apply to law abiding citizens. Remember, the people using the guns to kill people don't give a rats ass about laws.
It seems to me, Obama's stance on gun control is "I'm not going to make it illegal, but I'll do my best to make there no case for you to have a gun, nearly impossible to get one, and lets put the gun companies out of business.
That's NOT in favor of the 2nd A.
As for fairness, you're right. I was heaping all the blame on BO. It's pelosi, reid, durbin and kerry that are pushing it, and with a likely 60 in the senate, it'll pass. OB will just push it right through with no oposition. The Fairness doctrine is not going to give libs and equal view, it's just going to quash the conservatives. Station owners are not going to give airtime to the opposing view. If that made them money they would have already done it. Capitalist pigs, remember?
He's going to add men AND WOMEN to the arm and at the same time pull funding from FCS and the missle defense system. This tells me he thinks that lives are not worth much, so lets put in more cannon fodder and reduce their technical and tactical advantages. Safety in numbers?
Everything at this point is speculation on both sides. I don't like McCain either, although I'm voting for the lesser evil. They are both career politicians, you can't trust what either of them say.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
He's a vampire, or something similarly unkillable. The guy has survived FIVE plane crashes!!! Do you really think there is ANYTHING that can kill him?
You can't spend your way out of debt, but you can INVEST your way out of debt.
Sounds good but it's wrong, because money IS debt. You can't[1] have money without debt. Reduce the debt (however) you also reduce the money. Increase the money and you increase the debt.
[1] Under our existing monetary system.
Deleted
I've been on a humanitarian mission.
You don't get combat pay, medals are scarce, nobody actually _cares_ when you get back.
If you're counting on promotions and extra pay for spending a month or two digging new wells for Bengalis or feeding starving Somalis, think again.
Display some adaptability.
Well, I'm not counting on anything. I'm just saying, if people want to end the war, and they want soldiers to want to end the war, there has to be another way for us to earn more money, because that's the only big reason we want to go so bad, most of us... "I need this deployment to pay off my house..."
My point again was that Obama is not for going into your home and removing your weapon which the OP was stating. Obama supports limitations on gun ownership. Your example is only one limitation that he supports. As for semantics, I never mentioned anything about transportation. Most states that do not allow concealed handguns have provisions that allow transportation. For example, before and after Texas passed the concealed gun law, it was legal to have a gun in your car under certain circumstances. Even if you did not exactly match the circumstances, police officers in Texas were willing to give the average citizen the benefit of doubt. Another semantic: I did not claim support for any position but was merely stating facts. The OP was throwing out rampant, unsupported speculation. If the OP said the John McCain collaborated with the Viet Cong during his imprisonment and that as president, McCain would launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia, I'd have to respond to that as well.
As for the NRA, they represent one extreme viewpoint so my point was you can't really rely on them for a fair assessment. Like you can't rely on Microsoft for a balanced look at Linux and you can't rely on RMS for a balanced look at closed source software.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I agree with you that our response to September 11th is more destructive that 9/11 itself. When it happened, I thought that our society was snapped out of petty bickering and would focus on the bigger picture of improving America and our relationships around the world. I am disappointed that instead we acted self-destructively.
I disagree on the war against Bin Laden. If our government and media can be believed on anything, then the Taliban was the ruling power of Afghanistan and was actively supporting attacks on the US. That is justification for war, and our attacks and occupation of Afghanistan were appropriate.
I agree with the sentiment that we would be less of a target if we were a better global citizen. But there will still be crazies and groups focused on the bad things we did in decades past. So some tightening of security and renewed intelligence was called for. I'm just sad to see billions thrown at the appearance of security rather than spending wisely on the most important areas.
On the subject of the current presidential election: imagine that 9/11 didn't happen yet but a similar attack would take place in 2009. Which candidate would you trust to make an appropriate response? From what I see of the candidates, Obama would react with strength but restraint. McCain would react with rage and thunder, maybe lobbing a few nukes around to kill the bad guys.
This seems like a really outdated topic. After all, we haven't declared war since 1941, right?
J
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
Confiscate guns in an emergency or national disaster... Great, one of the times when a citizen needs a gun the most, and he wants them taken by force.
Excellent point, as there's already a precedent to this happening with Hurricane Katrina and "Chocolate City" Mayor Ray Nagin and the NOPD and National Guard. Then they'll be sure to lie about it, even after being caught on video.
Anyone who trusts the government to "take care of them" in the time of a disaster or civil unrest and protect them from looters or rioters is dangerously naive and / or stupid. What more proof does anyone need?
Guerrilla wars mean you are fighting against an asymmetric enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
The goal then becomes to stabilize the community and apprehend leaders of the insurgents.
Iraq is already "won" because the regime was deposed, and as in Afghanistan, it has crippled their ability to launch a second attack.
The question is not how many died on 9/11, but how to prevent future attacks by convincing insurgents there would be consequences.
Futurist Traditionalism
I love how a completely factual, ontopic, and non-flaming comment is modded -1 Troll, but all the replies against it are modded +5. No serious person can claim this a "troll".
This is exactly why politics is such a cesspool on slashdot. Differing political views and opinions are modded down when they disagree with the party line.
According to this article: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/oct/20/00014/ McCain likely suffers from traumatic brain injury.
For me, it explains a few things, the with me or against me worldview, the incessant blinking, the spastic twitching of his arms, his habit of blowing up at those that disagree with him. He is additionally NOT A CONSERVATIVE (bailout drama anyone?), and represents how beaten down the Republican brand has been by the Right Wing Statists in charge.
Electing McCain during the primaries was just the shot in the foot the Republican Party was trucking towards with their willingness to go Big Government Big Spending and Big War against their bases wish. Now they meld Palin to the ticket to try to bring it back to some effect, but too little too late. Maybe the Republican party can have a purge after this long series of continued complete failure to adhere to principles and we can have a Coburn/Paul/Stoessel big tent that might actually do what it says again.
Personally, I think it is a good lesson for the Americans. Next time they try this sort of stupid stunt they will hopefully go in with eyes wide open as to the true cost of kicking over a government and taking responsibility for a nation. Hopefully they will make sure the war is worth the price they are going to pay and reserve toppling governments for when there is truly no other solution.
You'd wish they would, but it is unlikely. Just look at all the wars US was involved in the past and you'd think they would have learn by now... Sadly, we'll see more coming...
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm
at how intelligent most people are here, but yet they have no understanding (or are willing ignorant) of the goals that outline our success in Iraq. Please take a few minutes of your time, for your own good, and watch General Petraeus' report to the Armed Services Committee. You can find it on youtube. No other individual knows more about the situation in Iraq than him. If you haven't listened to him, then wouldn't it be impossible to form an honest opinion of the definition of success over there. You will probably remember how Obama was 100% anti-Iraq war, and refused for 2 years to meet with General Petraeus. Guess what happened when he actually sat down with him to try and understand the situation? Obama changed his viewpoint. Now Obama wants a time line instead of an instant evac. Everyone knows the media is all about reporting tragedy and horror stories, that's how they survive. But you will never fully understand anything if you rely on only them. There are hundreds of questions regarding our entry into Iraq. Even Afghanistan. But we are there now. We have helped the Iraq governments to combine, form a centralized constitution, and begin to build up an organized military to defend themselves from the extremists. This isn't an easy task. The new government has been using their oil profits to hire thousands of individuals, including the "sons of Iraq", to provide military and police support. They are beginning to use more of their oil revenue as their structure allows. It would only make since to stick around till they can hold their own. This means that until their new military (which by the way is now leading many of the counter insurgencies) is able to stand up to the extremists, we need to assist them till they are strong enough. This also includes the pressure from Iran. If we pull out now, we can be fairly confident that everything we have done will fall on it's face. Not even Obama is proposing that. Yes, we do have our own problems here at home. But those problems don't hold a candle to those in Iraq. After all, we are looking at a computer screen right now aren't we? How many Iraqis can say that? Be fortunate that we live in a country that cares this much about the world we live in, that it will risk the lives and money it takes to help a country less fortunate. Did you know that the U.S gives more in foreign aid than the next top 8 countries combined? We can afford to help, and we are. So the point i'm trying to make here is that before you criticize our current situation in Iraq, give a fair effort in examining both sides and be diplomatic about your conclusion, for the sake of everyone.
First, implicit in your statement, is the idea that America has some sort of right to be the only country involved in invading other sovereign nations, regardless of the reason.
Second, US allies can be assured that they will be abandoned the moment they are no longer useful to the US. That's why we left South Vietnam after killing millions of people. We were done making money and rattling sabers at China and Russia. They can also be assured that they will not have our support the moment they stop doing exactly as we say. Do you honestly think that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be treated the same if they overthrew their monarchy and nationalized their oil industry? For more insight on that, read the histories of Venezuela and Iran and Iraq.
Furthermore, there is already a legal governing body that has signed treaties with most of the countries in the world, which has the authority to intervene in the case of invasion. The problem is that this organization, the UN, doesn't always do as we want. So they are irrelevant.
Let's go back to the geographical problem of leaving Iraq. Saddam Hussein had our explicit support for years because he played ball. We sold him weapons to gas the kurds. We took his country off of the terrorist to do so, sold him weapons to kill Iranians, after they dared to form their own government and kick our corporations out.
It made no difference to America how many Kurds he killed, though we knew about it. It made no difference to America how many were mowed down by his helicopters after we left. It makes no difference now that Turkey, one of our allies, is busy exterminating Kurds in their country and even attacking positions in the territory of Iraq. Just as it makes no difference to us that dissidents and blasphemers of Islam are beheaded in Saudi Arabia, or that our trading partner China executes people without proper trials, or that Indonesia is committing genocide with American made weapons in East Timor, or that Israel is slowly destroying the Palestinian people, just as our former long-term ally South Africa did during apartheid.
Any time America declares some moral cause for war, remember these things. It's always bullshit: a pretext for power, resources, or strategic advantage.
How naive are you to believe that we're in Iraq for any other purpose than oil? They have one hundred trillion dollars under their feet. Otherwise Saddam, as long as he was doing as the King of Saudi Arabia and following orders, would still be murdering whoever he wanted, whenever he wanted, without any comment from the United States, besides material support and weapons to complete the job.
The bungling Bush Administration, whose long term vision of the Middle East is so delusional it's almost incomprehensible, has done Iran a huge favor by destroying the only two countries besides Russia with any power in that region. The real threat is that the Shia majority, who happens to sit on all the oil that "belongs to us," has the right to vote in Iran. And since Iran does have a military that hasn't been decimated by years of embargo, we can't play the same game as we did in Iraq.
If we stay in Iraq, it will bankrupt us. If we leave, and allow Iraq to have true democracy, they will form a strong relationship with Iran, and even more terrifying to the Pentagon, may inspire Saudi Arabia to have the same democratic freedoms.
We're staying to protect our investment, which is oil. Not freedom, democracy, or all of the others things that we ridiculously claim to believe in.
And yes, I'll be voting. You can count on mine being there to cancel out yours in particular.
Thank God you can only vote once...then again, since you're voting for "that" side, who knows how many votes you'll get, especially in OH/FL.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Bomb the family of 4 so they never need money again, and buy another bomb for the next family :|
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
We tore this story apart the last time it was posted. We also pointed out that it was misattributed. This is also off topic since today's discussion is on the war; the economy was yesterday. Please stop spreading this manure.
The long-lasting war that NO ONE SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT, that costs us billions and billions, and puts such an incredibly huge percentage of our population behind bars. Over 800,000 Americans arrested JUST LAST YEAR for JUST marijuana offenses. This is a travesty and it needs to end! Why the hell isn't anyone TALKING About it in this damn election! Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
Well I didn't say this is "hardly even a dead soldier." Death is death, it happens often, everywhere. I definitely agree that if you are in some bombed-out shell of an Iraqi town, it probably sucks balls. But it's not 'war or not', was it war every time we bombed Iraq in the 90's? Was it war every time we sent cruise missiles into red cross building (are we at war with them yet?). This is our current obsession with aggrandizement and sensationalism. We had a small war where two armies had actual conflict, that didn't last long, now because we no longer have the stomach to loot and pillage and leave nothing but rubble (which I'm wholeheartedly for) we are stuck as babysitters.
I'm always amused when campaigns use the phrase, "that is a distraction. The American voters really want to discuss the issues..." Actually, no one discusses the issues during an election campaign. What you do is appeal to people's prejudices, emotional frailties and ignorance. Issues are discussed between campaigns, and increasingly that is looking to be about a half-a-day in January before the mid-term elections. Let's first understand that Iraq was a battle. Afghanistan is a battle. We are actually now in a permanent state of cold war, and frankly its nothing new--we've been in a continuous cold war since the dawn of human civilization. The European wars of the twentieth century were simply outbursts in a simmering conflict that had its roots in the 19th century, whose own conflicts had their roots in the 18th century and so on. War isn't optional--its a permanent feature of humanity. Its also the driving force behind human civilization. Our technology, our culture--even our philosophies are born from war. In terms of foreign policy, its never been a choice between war and no war, but really, really big war, or small, manageable wars. For reasons I find nearly unfathomable, the current hot wars we are engaged in are never discussed in terms of their geopolitical significance. Has anyone looked at a map? Afghanistan and Iraq bracket Iran--coincidence? Not bloody likely. During the war actually named "cold war", the U.S. and Soviets actively engaged in this kind of proxy war, by supporting friendly governments in strategic locations to thwart the strategic interests of the other. Ironically, Iran, which used to be a strong ally before Obama's godfather of naivete (Jimmy Carter) ignored the strategic interests of the West for touchy-feely notions about human rights, was a major bulwark against the Soviet dreams of expansion into a warm water port. Afghanistan was also part of that dream. Things have changed, and Iran is now the target to strategic isolation--geographical, economic and military. Candidates who view Iran as a "tiny country" are too stupid to bear. Iran has been the key to dominating the region for millenia, which is why of course it has been the seat of so many empires over the ages. Iran can literally step on the neck of the world with sufficient military might. Tiny country my ass. Everything Barack Obama has said about foreign policy has scared the bejesus out of me--the man has no clue, and not having a clue in the geopolitical game costs lives--millions of them. Jimmy Carter's colossal blunders in Southeast Asian, Afghanistan, and Iran literally cost millions of lives and the credibility of the U.S. as a world power (are you old enough to remember the humiliation of the hostage crisis?). It has been thirty years, and we are still suffering the effects, still paying a cost in lives. You can in fact screw up the economy and recover in pretty short order. There are dozens of countries that have demonstrated that fact. The effect is immediate, the voters get mad, and sanity is restored. Geopolitics is a far less forgiving arena. You screw up, people die, maybe a lot of people, maybe you. If McCain couldn't balance a checkbook, I'd still vote for him because he's a serious student of foreign policy and he has no illusions about people's motives or the productivity of having nice chats with dictators. As it stands, Obama has no clue on the economy either. Frankly, I don't blame Obama, I blame the Americans who are too woefully ignorant to nominate a candidate with brains, experience and the constitution to actually lead this country in the twenty-first century (yeah--I mean Hillary). I weep for a nation with this many idiots in it.
The creation of Israel was a colossal mistake. All of America's Middle East problems stem from this.
Return Israel to the Palestinians.
Americans shouldn't be interfering in the Middle East at all, and there is not the slightest reason for siding with Jews over Arabs.
Why so cynical? Slashdot has the best discussion system of any Web forum I know. (Or the worst, except for all the others.)
A troll is someone who makes a statement to draw out responses, not just someone who disagrees with you. A flame is a heated exchange without reason that clogs the discussion with noisy emotion. Slashdot does a good job of keeping both manageable.
The extremists won't convert each other here. But a lot us will shift our views an inch one way or another if persuaded by insight, information, and reason.
American Democracy: where over dozens of people run for the office of the President of the United States, and the Media only ever tells you about two of them.
(That's because they're the only ones with a chance of winning. That's because they're the only ones whom the voters are told about. etc.)
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
On the "Automatic AK-47", you do know that fully automatic firearms are already heavily regulated at the Federal level by the National Firearm Act ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act ) and that some states already ban private ownership of fully automatic weapons?
Perhaps you were referring to the 1994 - 2004 Assault Weapon Ban... which had no measurable impact on crime rates? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban_(USA)#Effect_on_crime for more... but since such "Assault Weapons" are used in less than 2% of crimes why would banning them have any effect on crime?
A National ban on carrying concealed weapons... well, that would target a group of people who not only took required training / safety / legal courses, passed a local / state / Federal background check and are, as a group, considerably more law abiding than the general population ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon#Statistics ). People with CCW permits don't seem like the target group for gun control ( i.e. criminals ), so removing their CCW permits.... well, what's the point?
A Human Right
It's only tax free if your are in specific areas. Most of the time those are combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. If a recruiter is telling you that your pay is always tax free he's lying. Also that's only federal income taxes that you are getting out of. You still get to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Capital Gains.
So pay while you are in a tax free zone is nice, but it's not utpoia, and there is the bonus of getting to dodge bullets and IED's.
If the cost of fixing Iraq is a few more billion dollars and some dead Americans, that is the price the Americans have to pay.
As an American, I agree.
Unfortunately I fear it is unfixable, so I don't know what to do.
It must be really taxing to live in a world of constant fear everyday.
We're already spending money on this war. Let's spend a little more to ensure that the security we are providing is worth it. I can't see our current tactic of just waiting it out working anytime soon.
Let's bring over a large group of Iraqi people (volunteers of course) to the US. The purpose to give them an education and provide them with the skills they can use to repair Iraq. Also, to give them a sense of what life COULD be like in their country. Once they are ready to work they return to Iraq where they hopefully have a strong desire to repair/better their home lands.
To me this seems like a much better way to stabilize the country than simply wait for the fighting to stop on it's own. Not only that but we have the potential to actually learn from those we educate.
Suppose that every day, ten men were asked to contribute their nation in return for the social services and infrastructure it provided.
The first four men (the poorest) could pay nothing. They made $4 or less that day, and couldn't afford it.
The fifth would pay $1. He made $8 that day, and he could chip in.
The sixth would pay $3. He made $16 that day, and could pay more.
The seventh would pay $7. He made $32 that day, and he could pay more.
The eighth would pay $12. He made $50 that day, and he could pay more.
The ninth would pay $18. He made $75 that day, and he could pay more.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. He made $350 that day, so he could pay more.
Then, this terrorist liberal bedwetting man became president. He told the richest people that they would pay more in taxes, and that the vast majority of people would pay less in taxes. He did this based on the wisdom of a man named "Adam Smith," whom everyone had heard of and been taught to worship, though they were not encouraged to actually read the Wealth of Nations.
The richest man got upset, and said, how much more will I pay for the infrastructure that allows me to be in business in the first place? Then he miraculously realized that the money spent on education, infrastructure, market regulation, and all social services are the things that separate industrial nations from the third world. That stronger economy would have less crime, poverty, and spend less money on health care because it would cut out the bureaucracy and greed of the privatized system.
Ahh well. This is a fantasy scenario, isn't it?
PS: New political support for socialized medicine, which has been the wish of the vast majority of americans for two decades, has nothing to do with recent complaints by GM.
palin is hot. Id for sure hit it.
One of the more scary ideas I've heard is that the deficit spending is popular because they know Republicans won't be in the white house forever. They jack up the national debt so any new social projects can't receive enough funding to be effective, thus "proving" that government doesn't work, thus giving them another round of starting wars, cutting their own taxes, and profiteering.
Obama was rightly 100% anti-Iraq war when it mattered, before we got there, before we dug into old military bases, before a whole bunch of equipment was unloaded and set up on foreign soil. His practicality was just fine. He's never had to deal with the logistics of military deployment or recall, so it makes sense that after Petraeus gave him an update of what it would take given current deployments, it's no wonder he had to back off the impossible - it can't happen over night, and the Iraqis should have been doing this switch-over a long time ago. Petraeus did a good job of turning the strategy around so that this timeline was possible. Instead of insisting on a timeline from a disorganized government with no teeth, because distrust was so rife in the populace, was ludicrous. The US bungled the entry, deployment, and handling of the war up until Petraeus took over. What's happening now is a good transition point. Even our own country is not 100% violence free, and two of the reasons bombs are not as common as they are in Iraq for carrying attacks out is 1) infrastructure limits access to materials and knowledge and 2) civility and tolerance are much higher frequency in our populace, forcing those contemplating bombs of any sort to operate in secret from a vast majority of the rest of us. Over there, there's some sort of organization distributing knowledge and materials, and their attacks have more meaning than gangs in the slums here against each other. Slowing that to a point where the populace is intolerant makes it a police rather than military issue. That's what's coming up in Iraq. Hopefully the switch over sees a successful recruitment campaign for Iraqi forces, such that the US military can be drawn down and out of Iraq - providing that this BS unilateral status of forces agreement Bush is trying to erect in his last days doesn't provide some sort of contractual obligation that the next president can't negotiate out of.
Afghanistan? Has the potential to be blundered, just like Iraq in the beginning, but it seems Petraeus' rocketing promotion spree will help outline a more useful strategy for the region. However, that's still a lot of money and troop familiarity and community trust that must be used and built on top of whatever Bush gets passed in the SoF with Iraq. Petraeus' hands may be tied with insufficient resources for his strategy to work again in Afghanistan. If that's the case, anyone towing the line of "until we win" will be hard-pressed for credibility when numbers start coming through the media on death tolls in Afghanistan. Can it be done? Maybe. The infiltration of antagonist ideology is deeper in Afghanistan thanks to the difference in troop levels and strategies. Getting the government propped up against that will be more difficult than Iraq was. Expect another huge daily expense on the line for this one.
Iran, with nuclear weapons technology? Not nearly as much a threat as trigger-happy North Korea, or did we forget about their missile test sent sailing towards Japan? I would be more worried about them getting stable enough to develop nuclear weapons technology. ICBMs are more useful with a nuclear warhead, and it seems they have the ICBM part getting closer to a realized dream. Conventional warheads on ICBMs aren't cost- or space-effective. They will pursue the mutually assured destruction route just as other countries before them. Iran will too, but their neighbors, and the US presence in the region, will make their leadership think twice before pulling a blatant provocation like North Korea did.
Russia? They've always been at odds with the west. What's new here? Sure, Soviet infrastructure collapsed, but I bet you the people who enabled it are still around. If they had to, I'm sure Russia could flex some considerable muscle, but just like Iran, they're unlikely to be trigger-happy and advertise exactly what they're doing. They, like Canada and the US, are well-insulated from being invaded and shut down by conventional means, and no one in their right mind wants to
It is not up to the assailant to decide when the victim is healed. The victim may very well not wish any help, but that is their decision not yours. People like to call this "Bush's war" to distance themselves from it, but it's our war, our mistake. We allowed our Congress to be in the pathetic state that it is and they did not take seriously the responsibility placed on them to declare war, and now our children have to pay the price with their lives for our apathy.
S W is currently trying to re-open a semi-consulate in Iran, and has said that it could lead to a full embassy there. At this time, Iran has SAID NO, they are waiting for the next president. So do you believe that W is trying to cowtow to Iran by doing this? IOW, he is putting his legacy ahead of the need of our nation? Or is it possible that W and ppl in his admin might know something about this?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was raised republican, in Texas, and have a long military heritage,(all enlisted). My dad is a Marine still, both grandfathers in the Army (one in Vietnam and one in WW2). My great uncle was wounded on Guadalcanal and later died on Iwo Jima. I joined post 9/11 with flights of fancy in my head, thinking I would really get to get the "bad guys". Oh how things have changed! One of my favorite examples is Smedley Butler. In bootcamp you learn how he is one of the most decorated Marines in history, a great man that did many things. After I got out, I happened upon an essay he wrote prior to WW2, called "War is a Racket". (you should read it too) It helped me grasp how much patriotism to the nation can be used as a tool against its own people. I now say, I am patriotic, but not patriotic to the point of blindness. When the oath I swore was to protect the constitution, but a president, congress, and general political system doesn't, how is one to respond? In a war, the military doesn't fight for its country, or for its officers. Military men fight for their brothers with them on the battlefield. When the real criminals aren't the terrorists, but our own government, what are we to do? It probably wont be done, but just imagine what Samuel Adams, and those kinds of "patriots" would think now. We need revolution! Radical change in the political and governmental system. The military, specifically the higher-ups, have failed thier men, and America, as much as it pains me to say this, is failing her people. But this brings me full circle to my original thought. Until enough people suffer, see the pains of war, and understand what is going on BEFORE they make the decision to join the military, or blindly vote republican/democrat, nothing will change. /end rant
ps. Im thinking about starting a blog in order to test the waters for a possible book (by my father and I) wonder how that might go? And posting anon cause I'm still under contract.
Your point is taken but the sentence "Muslims do not negotiate with Jews, they view them as subhumans fit only for extermination" is a dangerous overgeneralization. I don't know how many Muslims actually do view Jews that way, but I know for certain it's not all of them, and in my limited and mostly US-bound experience it's virtually none of them. Stereotypes like this can lead to exactly the sort of behavior you're describing; it invites the dehumanization of Muslims.
My original support for Obama came from his early criticism of the war. He even did so back when everyone else was afraid to do so.
Now, if you take a careful look at his stated positions, you will see that he's not all that different from the Republicans where the war is concerned. About the only real difference was that he wanted to pull troops out of Iraq and move them to Afghanistan. Now that Bush has taken Obama's advice, what exactly is the difference between the two men where the war is concerned?
Both wars need a radical change in political strategy, diplomacy, and overall strategy, but Obama doesn't seem interested in doing that, which is one of the reasons I voted for Cynthia McKinney.
"... I voted for Cynthia McKinney."
Thank you. I encourage all left leaning people of conscience to vote for McKinney. Or Nader. Or any third-party candidate.
From a foreigner's point of view, I would hope that the americans elect a candidate who would kill less people than the current psychopaths in power have done. Iraq sanctions and war together have killed over 3 million iraqis now, yet only few americans realize this. And this is not including the people killed in other places. Also, I think torturing people is wrong and takes us back to times of barbarism. I don't think it's good that you torture others, even if they oppose you.
Talking with many of my friends, we've agreed "winning" is just a word being used for "Leaving a fair and stable democratic government in Iraq that is not and will not be a threat to America or it's allies" Just my $0.02
Yeah right. I'm sure that the 6 Iraqi carrier battle groups, nuclear ICBMs, nuclear subs, strategic bombers and crack Fremen troops (long live the fighters!) were poised on attacking Amerikka if the US had not invaded and spread freedom to the Iraqis. We all know that the US arms it soldiers, tanks and fighter planes with guns and bombs that shoots freedom rays and were welcomed with a shower of flowers by the freed Iraqi people.
The US constitution describes the process required for the US to go to war. The last time we followed this process was June 5, 1942. Constitutionally, the US has not been at war since the Treaty of Paris on February 10, 1947.
Congress did give the president permission to use military force, but we did not and have not declared war on anyone.
It would be much healthier if we did go through the Constitutionally mandated process to go to war, but who cares about some silly old document like that when there are bogeymen to kill? I guess the 'war' in Iraq is better than the 'war' on terrorism, Iraq is at least somewhat defined rather the patent absurdity of declaring war on a tactic.
I'll be voting Slightly Silly right down the line!
Wow....that's just....wow. Let's see here....
Wow, he knows this guy? Holy cow. Imagine if he had donated $800,000 to this guy, I bet that would sink his chances to be president. Man, that would be amazing if a presidential candidate did that. Oh..um, wait a minute, it appears that Senator McCain may have done that actually: McCain also has ties to Khalidi through a group that Khalidi helped found 15 years ago. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies has received more than $800,000 from an organization that McCain chairs. Well, now I guess you can't vote for him either.
McCain has apparently been endorsed by Al Queda. You know what? Neither one of them have anything to do with nutjobs crawling out of the woodwork and talking about them. I don't hold the Hamas thing against Obama, and I don't hold the Al Queda thing against McCain.
We're taking Qadhafi's word for things now? So when Qadhafi tells us that the U.S. is an evil nation and it should perish, are you on board with that too, or just when he says something you find politically useful?
Yes, actually, when you record everything that someone says every time they speak you eventually catch them saying something that they didn't mean to say. Recently McCain was speaking in Pennsylvania, where he suggested that the Democrats were saying Pennsylvanians are racist. His comment was "And I couldn't agree with them more". Clearly he didn't mean to say that, but in your view he apparantly did mean it, and it was a "Freudian slip". You know what though, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a mistake is just a mistake.
Umm, psst...Hey, superyooser. Obama isn't an arab. I know, the name thing can be confusing, really, but he's really not actually arabic.
Okay, being worried about Obama
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
So you will bow to your new Islamic masters.
And when the Sunnis and Shias and wahabis start to fight.
You will bow to which ever takes over your house.
You will happily have your head cut off because you are NOT Arab,
and you do not follow the particular version of Islam the man with the knife does.
I dont want to bow to them and that is why they want to KILL ME!
I am pretty damn sure that the Americans are not in the position of Chief Joseph. American losses are paltry and trivial. Vastly more Americans die each day in automobile accidents than in Iraq. As an American, you probably are as likely to drowned to death by accident as you are to be killed in Iraq. Granted, that is no consolation to the relatives of the dead, but to play it up like the Americans are wading around in their own blood is silly. Americans have lost more people fighting for worthless mile wide hunks of rock in the Pacific during World War II than they have spent over the course of both Iraq wars.
As for why not just "end it", that certainly is a possibility. I personally don't know if Iraq is unwinnable or not. Anyone who claims to know for sure that the US has run into a Kobayashi Maru scenario with a Kirk is either A) full of shit B) extraordinarily well informed and possess super human abilities of analytical capability C) a super secret NSA AI that has become self aware.
Speaking out of my own ass for a moment, I think that the Americans are probably on the path to righting their mistake the best they can (minus a few tens of thousands of dead Iraq's and a pile of money of course). The violence levels in Iraq have dropped and the central government is slowly taking control of the nation. I don't think that there is a shinny post War War II Japan or Germany style government at the end of this like what the neo-cons had wet dreams about, but I would bet that there could be something vaguely stable with vague democratic tendencies at the end of the road. I imagine that if things keep going the way they are going Iraq and Americans don't lose their nerve it is going to end up looking like Korea after the Korean war. That is to say that it won't be a shinny democracy, but instead be something that is vaguely stable for now that has the potential to eventually get its shit together a couple of decades down the road.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Iraq just needs to purge a few percentage points off its population in a good old fashion ethnic genocide. That sure would make things a whole lot easier on the Americans, eh? Genocides are not pretty, but they sure are cheaper then a hundred thousand soldiers standing guard.
Point being, somewhere along the line, the price of following it through is greater than the price of giving up.
'Where' is debatable, but the threshold certainly does exist, no matter the cost.
Again, Joseph's genocide WAS HIS OWN, and he still chose it over continuing the fight.
The founders didn't want a large standing force, saying that was a huge potential threat to Liberty and too open to abuse by some insane megalomaniac who might wind up in charge and gives strange orders. And going by the complete willingness of 99.999% of the service people to follow any order no matter the data that comes out (iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, had no WMD, etc, yet all those dudes are still there fighting a clearly now illegal war) it appears the founders were *correct* in their assumptions.
You look around the planet, how do dipsquat dictators stay in power? One answer and one answer only, unquestioning armed order followers, either directly military or quasi military police forces. They are always the LAST citizens in any nation to recognize and admit they are the "bad guys" and are "doing wrong" as dictators and juntas come and go, they get fixated on "following orders" and because they exist as a pure parasitical force on the rest of the economy, and they know it, but digging the steady pay and the power over their fellow inhabitants of nation x or y, or foreign nation with their demonized untermenschen sub humans -z, they are reluctant to give up their "jobs" and will keep following orders from the dictator and his henchmen all the way to the camps and the cattle cars. Never fails, and always happens with standing armies, no exceptions yet in history.
Once enough money has been made off the war for certain profiteers, the war will stop. It's not about good and bad anymore. The so called "elected president" will say he is going to pull out the troops on X day, but thats only if his "supporters" allow him to. http://irishdeath.blogspot.com/
http://thisfuckingelection.com/
Bush messes up, launches a war of choice we can't afford, deregulates the banking industry, the economy is in the crapper, Bush's senatorial sock puppet McCain proclaims the economy "fundamentally sound" while promising four more years of the same, and all you can say is: Look over there! Jimmy Carter!
Hey dude, it's the 21st century. Time to wake up.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
Sure the total casualties are around 150,000. But this includes all violence in a country of 27 million over 5.5 years.
Most third world countries have violence. Rumor is Caracas still has a murder per thousand people per year, which makes it more violence than Iraq has been over the course of the war. Johannesburg, Bogota, Kingston, Moscow - there are a lot of places that are nearly as violent as Iraq, and yet have no "war."
This year, Baghdad is SAFER than those places - trending toward around 3000 killings in a city of 7 million. But you don't read about the 50 murders a day in Moscow (18000 per year of 12 million people), because no American politicians have anything to gain from quoting it. People take vacations there, take a picture next to the Kremlin, no worries that it's three times as dangerous as Baghdad, then come home and show everyone the little Russian dolls they bought.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Redivide Iraq politically leaving them with one united army to fight off potential violence from Iran?
There's not going to be any peaceful way to end this, unless you can get back in the Iranian people's good books; hopefully that would stop their leaders from trying another assault at Iraq. Winning back Iraqis might be a lost cause... To be honest once Iraq's army is a real army, one skilled not only in murder but in helping people, they should be able to be ok by themselves. If not, is it really that expensive to send some help once in a while? (as a last result)
Wrong. These "religious fanatics" do quit. They call us "crusaders," and Israeli soldiers are technically fighting for a "Jewish state," not some secular democracy. As in almost all wars in human history, when the political will to fight wanes, soldiers stop getting paid, they'll find other jobs.
The myth that our enemies are "fanatics" is as absurd as the myth that the US President is a "fanatic." It's all a political ploy to prevent you from thinking logically about it.
The enemies are people who fight because their brother was killed, or because they can't get a job and need to feed their kids, or because if they quit the neighborhood gang, their mom's house will get torched. Yeah, they're usually religious too. But practicality always comes first, then family, then politics, and somewhere further down the line comes religion.
Mullahs and Ayatollahs don't dictate the laws, they merely interpret them, and the interpretations are always observed as just that. In Islam, there is no clergy at all - no one can come between the individual and Allah. These leaders just "lawyers" who study Allah's law. No one, anywhere, is ever bound to follow any of them.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
A recruiter doesn't have to sell me, retard, I've been doing this for a little while...
Can you provide counter examples? Not even one?
Exactly, and what you just described; getting a free career, education, and housing, even ideology and friends from the government so you don't have to go out and educate yourself and struggle like the rest of us in unstable and uncertain times and economic conditions isn't welfare it isn't socialism, it's Communism.
In 1953, Iran made the mistake of kicking out Anglo-Persian oil, and forming a democracy. Up until that point, they had been treated as Saudi Arabia has up until now. As soon as they decided that they wanted more - not even all - of the oil revenues from under their own feet, we responded by forming a covert operation with British Intelligence, in Operation Ajax, which destroyed their democratic government simply because it hurt the profits and interests of America and Britain. Please note that these facts are not contested by anyone - they are simply a matter of public record.
Hugo Chavez is an enemy of the United States because he has followed in the foot steps of Fidel Castro and declared independence from the west. Also, he has publicly railed against their policy on terrorism. Obviously anything from a president is usually state propaganda, but just watch for a few scenes from minute 15:30 from The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. I disagree with a lot of his policies, and I'm disappointed that he's been shutting news outlets, but at least I understand the reason why it's happening.
Again, what you think you know is through the filter of corporate mentality, if you get your news from the United States. The suppression is built in - no journalist who disagrees with the bosses ideas are hired. The boss is the CEO of a huge corporation.
You put it succinctly yourself, and that's the real problem:
Saudi Arabia is treated well by the US and the West because they have a policy of friendship and cooperation with us.
Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia supports beheadings and the severing of limbs, they have a court system where non-Muslims are not allowed to testify, and women aren't allowed either because:
Women are much more emotional than men and will, as a result of their emotions, distort their testimony.
Women do not participate in public life, so they will not be capable of understanding what they observe.
Women are dominated completely by men, who by the grace of God are deemed superior; therefore, women will give testimony according to what the last man told them.
Women are forgetful, and their testimony cannot be considered reliable.
(from wikipedia)
So, does anyone suggest that we invade Saudi Arabia to bring freedom and democracy there?
I don't. But I would, as a conscientious person, like to avoid making it easier for their government to continue unabated. You may have a different opinion. Look at what we have done in the past, and decide for yourself if our policies need change.
With all of the fake ACORN registrations you have the nerve to suggest that there's a problem with Republican voter fraud and not mentioning Democrat voter fraud? Give me a break, there are more registered voters in Mississippi now than there are voting age residents!
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
.
The bold is a accident.
I needed darker and larger text for editing on this display.
The Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War is the most significant book about death and society to appear in years.
Americans in the 1860s were simply not used to experiencing death outside their church, their family.
You died at home. You were laid out in grandad's parlor. You were buried in a small plot on the farm where you were born.
When these most elemental of rituals and social traditions break down the consequences are never trivial.
The terrorist doesn't see a body count.
He sees a crack in the foundations.
Numbers do not tell the whole story. Numbers never tell the whole story. For that you need experience and empathy.
There is a running gag in Frank Miller's "Dark Knight" graphic novels: a succession of Left Coast geeks who can't see that anything that happens in Gotham or Metropolis really matters.
You cannot just crash into a country killing innocents and dupes because of the policies of the country. It's heroic to want to do so, but you have to temper heroism sometimes with patience and process. There just is no magic bullet to kill off evil and ignorance. The point is to keep talking about it, keep discussing it, let the memes inform new generations as the world progresses. There will be suffering and death in the meantime, the point is for everyone to learn, learn, and wake up in time.
We can only hope.
-- thinkyhead software and media
I feel like I made the point succinctly, but it's worth restating. If Saudi Arabia formed a democracy and demanded the nationalization of it's oil industry, they would no longer be an ally of the United States. It happened in Iran in 1953, Iraq, and even in this century, when we helped to try and overthrow Venezuela in 2002. Here's a list, with the year and the country, of the countries we've attempted to overthrow, attack, or prop up against popular indigenous movements, in order to maintain control and control resources:
1953 Iran
1954 Guatemala
1955 Vietnam
1956 Hungary
1957 Laos
1959 Haiti
1961 Cuba, Congo, Ecuador Dominican Republic
1963 Dominican Republic, Ecuador
1964 Brazil
1965 Greece, Congo, Dominican Republic, Indonesia
1967 Greece
1970 Cambodia
1971 Bolivia
1973 Chile
1975 Angola
1980 El Salvador
1986 Haiti
1988 Columbia
1989 Panama
1990 Haiti
1993 Haiti
2002 Venuezuela
2003 Iraq
If you have any historical evidence to the contrary, I'd love to read about it.
The invasion of Iraq was done for the express purpose of luring terrorists to someplace besides the US.
The problem with unaffiliated guerrilla fighters is that there is no clear place to strike back. Terrorism always has this advantage of little to no associations. What can be done, but wait for them to strike? And then who is there to punish if they are all dead in the attack?
Iraq provided a battlefield far removed from US collateral, and conveniently close to the terrorists themselves. Why go all the way to America to kill the infidel when they're just next door?
Further, providing a closer place to strike also presented the terrorist with a moral dilemma of killing their own people when they commit their acts of terror.
So why wasn't Afghanistan sufficient for this purpose? Rooting out the Taliban was the required first step, but due to lack of cooperation from both Pakistan and Turkey, suppling Afghanistan became a logistical nightmare.
Iraq provided the solution to this problem. It has a seaport, and therefore easily supplied without restrictions. It has oil, a key commodity for fueling an army. Its terrain is more conducive to US operations, leaving the terrorist fewer places to hide.
9/11 cost the US economy over $270 billion dollars (Wall Street Journal). $270 billion in a single day. $10 billion a month is a small price to pay to avoid further incidents. The human cost is similar. Over 3,000 civilians in a single day or 5,000 soldiers over 5 years? BTW, the soldiers might have a fighting chance; civilians: not so much.
Negative press is as important as location in this kind of war. Bleeding terrorists dry by drawing them in to the trap of Iraq is better done if the terrorists are under the impression that we're losing (which I don't doubt we were at some points). The fact that we've starting operations reaching into Syria (a major importer of foreign fighters) is a good indication that we're not getting as many terrorists to take the bait: and therefore we're running out of things to do :)
That has been, in my opinion, the entire strategy of this Iraqi campaign.
But all this does not discount the fact that we invaded a country unprovoked to provide us a battlefield. Saddam gave us lots of excuses for an invasion, but in the end I think we failed the Churchill test by striking first.
By and large, partisan sniping notwithstanding, the war in Iraq is already won. The US is not in a 'bombers and tanks' shooting mode - even the number of IEDs and attacks on soldiers is way down. What the US needs to do now is build the peace. If we walk away now the fragile peace will crumble and all would have been in vain. A little stability in the region, even as fragile as the 'stability' in Iraq is a very good long term investment. While walking out may sound good, it is short sighted and we will pay much heavier down the road. Iraq would benefit from a long term US presence much like Germany and Japan benefited. And concerning energy interests, a long term presence (not war) is a win-win.
A lesson for Americans?
Do you think the Russians learned a lesson in Afghanistan, er, Chechnya, er, Georgia,. . . (etc.)
America didn't learn any lessons from Korea, or VietNam - they're sure not going to learn from Iraq.
If you take genocidal intentions into a war, but fight it in a modern, "civilized" fashion, you're going to lose. End of story.
You can't change people's minds short of killing them. Winning "hearts and minds" . . . does that EVER work? Vlad the Impaler's about the most recent success story in history.
The only way we could possibly have succeeded in Iraq is if we had undone the meddling done after WWII, and partitioned the freaking country, and bit the bullet on handing the Shia portion over to Iran (giving a portion of their territory to Kurdistan), and the Sunni portion over to KSA.
Then we'd let them fight it out over the next 100 years. We could trade them guns for oil. The US makes the best weapons, and we need their oil.
Then, when all the oil runs out - they'll suddenly find that they had nothing to fight over anymore.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No one who cared to look into it, believed in the existence of Iraqi WMDs: the evidence was garbage, trumped up by the since discredited Judith Miller, and pumped up by Colin Powell (the absolute low-point of his career, a misguided display of "loyalty" to the Bush regime, as oppose to the United States). Anyone who was worried about Iraqi WMDS would've let the UN inspectors finish their jobs: they said it would take "weeks or months but not years" to finish -- instead the Bush regime hustled us into war, rather than take the chance that their pretext might evaporate.
You want to talk "extemist" views: they hid them in Syria? Why weren't they used to repel the US invasion? What the hell was the point of having them if not for that? Saddam Hussein decided he would rather take the fall than reveal his devilish secret?
So are you saying you get your paycheck 100% tax free? If so I'd like to know how you magically manage that.
As for the personal insult, I'm not sure why you feel it necessary. Unless you feel like you were mislead by a recruiter and are now trying to cover up your shame by lying about something that's easily verifiable.