will there be a draft after the midterms?

So it is up to the dems to clean up Bush's mess ?

So is it up to this administration to clean up clintons mess? question of such beg to be answered, are there any definitive answers here?, do we need to go back to Lincoln and untangle the whole thing right from the begining? still I don't think one can answer the other. Bottom line is that dems will live to fight another day, and the repubs will then turn the table of argument, this is a neverending cycle so how can a who's right or who's wrong answer be determined?
 
So it is up to the dems to clean up Bush's mess ?

Yes ... I look to the Dems because they are calling for Withdraw .. not Bush. Since it is a real possibility the Dems may take the house or the Senate or both .. I want to hear an assertive plan to get out of Iraq.. because I am with you on this one...

What dont you understand about this position ...
 
So is it up to this administration to clean up clintons mess? question of such beg to be answered, are there any definitive answers here?, do we need to go back to Lincoln and untangle the whole thing right from the begining? still I don't think one can answer the other. Bottom line is that dems will live to fight another day, and the repubs will then turn the table of argument, this is a neverending cycle so how can a who's right or who's wrong answer be determined?

clean up clintons mess ? Well I would much rather clean up after a donkey than an elephant. It is an issue of volume :)
 
Yes ... I look to the Dems because they are calling for Withdraw .. not Bush. Since it is a real possibility the Dems may take the house or the Senate or both .. I want to hear an assertive plan to get out of Iraq.. because I am with you on this one...

What dont you understand about this position ...

Kalatu you were for the war before you were against it ? or at leastr supported the person/group that got us into this mess. And now you expect those who were mostly against it to clean it up :rolleyes:
 
Yes ... I look to the Dems because they are calling for Withdraw .. not Bush. Since it is a real possibility the Dems may take the house or the Senate or both .. I want to hear an assertive plan to get out of Iraq.. because I am with you on this one...

What dont you understand about this position ...
The Dems won't withdraw because they have nothing to gain politically from it, people will always blame Bush and congress gets a free ride. If you doubt that then simply look at how many Dems voted for Iraq and talked about WMD and they took ZERO accountability for that, why on earth would you trust them now? Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it, the Dems lie and pretend that they were never for Iraq or thought there was WMD. You're not a naive guy klaatu, so why would you trust the same Dems now?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
 
Yes ... I look to the Dems because they are calling for Withdraw .. not Bush. Since it is a real possibility the Dems may take the house or the Senate or both .. I want to hear an assertive plan to get out of Iraq.. because I am with you on this one...

What dont you understand about this position ...


The problem is that the dems are horrible at PR battles and they ALWAYS let the republicans set the stage for debate. They've got a machine ready to label anyone a "cut-n-runner" for even suggesting getting out of Iraq as though getting out of Iraq is a bad thing.
 
clean up clintons mess ? Well I would much rather clean up after a donkey than an elephant. It is an issue of volume :)

It's a partisan opinion, you are still clearyly drawing a line between the two!
Why do you see the clinton term as a huge success?
 
The Dems won't withdraw because they have nothing to gain politically from it, people will always blame Bush and congress gets a free ride. If you doubt that then simply look at how many Dems voted for Iraq and talked about WMD and they took ZERO accountability for that, why on earth would you trust them now? Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it, the Dems lie and pretend that they were never for Iraq or thought there was WMD. You're not a naive guy klaatu, so why would you trust the same Dems now?


One word: Lieberman.
 
The problem is that the dems are horrible at PR battles and they ALWAYS let the republicans set the stage for debate. They've got a machine ready to label anyone a "cut-n-runner" for even suggesting getting out of Iraq as though getting out of Iraq is a bad thing.

I have a hard time seeing it that way, in fact I think the dems have been a huge success in the PR battle since the bush administration.
 
Kalatu you were for the war before you were against it ? or at leastr supported the person/group that got us into this mess. And now you expect those who were mostly against it to clean it up :rolleyes:

Well ... didnt you vote for a guy who was for the War and then against it....

USC .. you are not making any snese here.. are you telling me your big tent party isnt going to make room for people like me who have changed their minds about the Iraq Cluster fuck?

Yes... I would like the opportunity to vote for people who have a clear plan for cleaning up the cluster fuck that is Iraq .. .....

Now what is it that you dont seem to get about this position ..?
 
Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it
//

When, where ? I think I must have missed that somehow.
 
One word: Lieberman.
Punishing Lieberman = withdrawing support, NOT withdrawing from Iraq

The bottom line is that the house whips and senate leaders for both parties call the shots and all of those 4 are looking for a national reaction to their platforms, (not a more lefty Connecticut one).
And far more importantly than that why would they sate a group that are already supporting them, what do they have to gain?
Sure most anti-war supporters support Dems, but so do most blacks and both are largely ignored because of their overwhelming support for Dems. These are politicians looking to grow voting bases and it's not enough for them to sate their base.
I'm in the same boat, because Bush has done nearly nothing economically Conservative because Rove knows that it's not like guys like me are going to vote for even worse spending Dems.
 
I have a hard time seeing it that way, in fact I think the dems have been a huge success in the PR battle since the bush administration.

Ummm yeah......as exampled by their minority positions in the house, senate, and WH.

Not at all. I think the dems have had their a$$es handed to them in the realm of PR. There is no rational explanation as to why Bush won in 04. Given his track record at the time, fiscal conservatives especially should have been furious, yet moderates like Klaat and Immy still casted their vote for Monkey boy. The republicans had done a wonderful job swift-boating Kerry, villifying his wife, and painting him as a weak candidate. When hte truth is, he was infinitely better than Bush.
 
Yes .. but if there were no WMD's he than was in compliance ... that's the enitire dispute Evil ... In the beginning I thought the same way as you .. but over time I am in agreement with the left .. we had no business going into Iraq ..and we need to get the hell out of there.

That "really" is the BOTTOM LINE Klaatu!!!

But we do have much bigger problems than we think, and all brought ON by the moves this administration has taken.

-One, we left Saudi Arabian bases behind and moved in to Iraq...with our military, as Bin Laden had asked us to do....(He wanted us out of Saudi Arabia/Mecca, their Holy Land and said that this is the reason he set off 911, if you can remember that far back...but he did say that, cuz I remember reading about it)

So, we oblidged him...and left Saudi Arabia and closed our bases there after we attacked Iraq....:(

Now let me confess, that I was one of the Democrats at the time that thought that we should be removing our troops out of Saudi Arabia...

(in defense of myself)... because it was already 10 years after the gulf war, nothing of significance had happened with Saddam after the gulf war, and I KNEW that I had read that 97% of saddam's arsenol, including all WMD's that he had stockpiled, HAD BEEN DESTROYED....by our armies during the Gulf War and the inspections that did take place and some airstrikes there afterwards.

So I NEVER thought the administration was telling us the truth regarding Saddam's threat to us and was never caught up in the lies we were told or rather "deceitfully implied" by them...regarding Saddam's threat. And in addition to this, I had read that more than 80% of his Army had been wiped out by us in the Gulf war too....

In addition to this, Saddam had it too good imo...he was living the life of luxury, (and it turns out with all the money he was skimming from the oil for food program, he WAS living life on the hog, soto say)....

So why in Heaven's name would he give away some wmd's to terrorists that he had differences with otherwise, so that they could attack us or why would he, himslef attack us with Wmd's when HE KNOWS, THAT WITHOUT A DOUBT, the USA, would blow HIM in to oblivian if he did!

And it has never been said that saddam is stupid or an idiot...

So I thought that it was about time that we "high tailed" it out of there and voiced this at the time!


Okay, back to my point! :)

Two- We have PUT the Shiites in power in Iraq...who are the same BLOOD as the Shiites in power in Iran...the other (and more real) axis of evil.... (supposedly)

There was a protest in Bagdhad of 100,000 Shiite Iraqi's, in support of Hezbollah, and rebuking America and Americans and Israel...that ought to tell ya who the citizen's of Iraq support...NOTE, there was no counter protest in Iraq....

Hezbollah is held up and armed by Iran and Syria....and many, at least 100k of their supporters live in Iraq and are also part of the very people that we are training to defend Iraq from the so called Insurgence.

When if you go deeper in readings, you will find out that the SHIITES are causing most of the suicide bombings and are the ones that are wearing Iraqi police uniforms and slitting the Sunni's throats, TO ENTICE war and unrest...the police say their uniforms were stolen over and over again and crap like that, but COME ON, they are their relatives and tribesmen that are causing alot of the trouble over there...

And these relatives and tribes men that are really one faction of the insurgence, are Shiites FROM IRAN....yes Iran.... not AlQaeda and terrorism, but state sponsored terrorism in a way...imho.

We are in ONE HELL OF A MESS, supporting in gvt the very tribe that is in power in Iran....gees louise, what the hell were we thinking about the invaision of iraq and the further plans thereafter?

Three- Iran had dabbled in enriched uranium when he wasn't supposed to under the Clinton administration...BUT since Bush declared him "an Axis of evil", number two or number three, and Bush had already annialated and attacked number 1 PREMPTIVELY I might add....

Iran has 6 folded his enriched uranium yearly production and an estimate of 5-7 years he should have a few nukes available to him...SINCE PRESIDENT BUSH THREATENED HIM AND ATTACKED IRAQ...

part of this is because we refused to talk to him honestly and the Bush tactics and LACK OF DIPLOMACY SKILLS...

there's more to all this too...but this is already wayyyy too long!

So knowing all of this, what should we do now, with Iraq? Redeploy but most certainly stay in the region and then pursue peaceful means to stop Iran?

Not worry about it?

we are in a pickle in my opinion!


care
 
The Dems won't withdraw because they have nothing to gain politically from it, people will always blame Bush and congress gets a free ride. If you doubt that then simply look at how many Dems voted for Iraq and talked about WMD and they took ZERO accountability for that, why on earth would you trust them now? Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it, the Dems lie and pretend that they were never for Iraq or thought there was WMD. You're not a naive guy klaatu, so why would you trust the same Dems now?


Well ...if you mean setting themselves up for 2008 .. you may be right. But then again .. if they have a majority in both houses .. attempts at forcing a withdraw would also gain them points for 2008.

Look.. I believe that Iraq was a big mistake .. I tend to agree that our presence there has fueled the fire. Iraq is not part of the War on terror .. Iraq is a power struggle for regional dominance... and we really are on the wrong path with that type of thinking. The path we should be on is Energy Independence so we could lesson our reliance on the middle east.

If the Dems are calling for a quick withdraw and they have a realistic plan ... They will have my ear.
 
Bush may have fucked up but at least he took accountability for it
//

When, where ? I think I must have missed that somehow.

Bush wanted Iraq because of WMD, many Dem senators wanted Iraq because of WMD. Which of those 2 tries to pretend that they were never for Iraq and that is was all the other guy's opinion about their being WMD in Iraq?

Bush doesn't come out and say he is responsible, but he doesn't deny it either and that is at least a cut above Dems.
 
And precisley why I made the question optional! But now that I have read your statements here are you saying that Israel was at fault during that conflict? is this about sides again? are you suggesting that terrorist groups are a solution to israel, or at least a path of no choice?

I am quite PRO-Israeli... I DO think, however, that Israel was less than precise or proportional in its latest lebanon offensive. I know that as long as Israel controls the old city of Jerusalem and as long as there are muslims in this world, there will not be peace.

So we are back to questioning ones courage who have not yet served? So in essence you are saying that those who are in support of this war are the ones who help bring it about? well if that is the case I would think it would serve you well to go back to lebanon and join the uprise against israel then, you have pretty much used your time served as an argument here against israel, so would it be the proper assumption to make?

Again...you have misunderstood my position - especially about Israel. I am a strong Israel backer.... That does not mean that I do not reserve the right to be critical of Israel if it acts irresponsibly. Bombing Christian neighborhoods in east Beirut, bombing Lebanese Army barracks in Tripoli - are irresponsible acts and only serve to UNITE the arab world against them. Israel miscalculated the temperment of Lebanon. They felt if they could inflict harm on the country and make the point that it was Hezbollah's fault for starting it, that the sunnis, christians and druze in Lebanon would disenfranchise the shiites in hezbollah. They were wrong.

And yes.... I firmly believe that without the support of a majority of America - Bush would not have been able to wage war against Iraq. Those Americans who supported the war AND CONTINUE TO DO SO and are of fighting age need to go fight in it. The Marine Corps just called up INACTIVE fucking reservists yesterday, for crissakes! Asking reservists who had done their active and reserve bits to leave their jobs and families to go fight in this war while there are supporters of fighting age who hide behind someone's petticoats is despicable
 
Well ...if you mean setting themselves up for 2008 .. you may be right. But then again .. if they have a majority in both houses .. attempts at forcing a withdraw would also gain them points for 2008.
With who? People that already support them? See my message above to LadyT.

Look.. I believe that Iraq was a big mistake .. I tend to agree that our presence there has fueled the fire. Iraq is not part of the War on terror .. Iraq is a power struggle for regional dominance... and we really are on the wrong path with that type of thinking. The path we should be on is Energy Independence so we could lesson our reliance on the middle east.
You're right that Iraq was a mistake, but trying to morph a mistake into an agenda is disingenuous. We are not interested in regional dominance as we pulled out troops from Saudi Arabia after Iraq (which has far more oil).
We don't need to become energy independent anymore than we need to be clothing independent. That's what trade is for.

If the Dems are calling for a quick withdraw and they have a realistic plan ... They will have my ear.
The Murtha resolution included no calendar dates, purposely.
 
That "really" is the BOTTOM LINE Klaatu!!!

But we do have much bigger problems than we think, and all brought ON by the moves this administration has taken.


So knowing all of this, what should we do now, with Iraq? Redeploy but most certainly stay in the region and then pursue peaceful means to stop Iran?

Not worry about it?

we are in a pickle in my opinion!


care


I say withdraw asap(that doesnt mean tomorrow) ...use a withdraw of Iraq to bargain with Iran ... hold fort in area's that will peacfully accept us ..
Moving out of the region as much as possible will or should signal attempts to resolve with peacful means ..
Now.. this will prove out a couple of things ... we will be able guage the reaction of Iran ... Iran will be tested on the world stage ....
 
Back
Top