Iraq policy shifting soon?

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6057740.stm

Latest polls show that Bush not only has lost the majority of Americans to support his views on Iraq, they also show that currently the democrats are thought to have better competence in the traditional field of Republican's strength: security in general. While that throws a grim shadow on the perspectives for the upcoming elections, it is not really a surprise that now groups within the Republicans are forming up, urging a change of Iraq policies that only a blind man can still refuse to see as having completely failed.

While the one alternative suggested by Baker & friends, is reasonable (phased withdrawal [of most troops, they say, so they plan to nevertheless remain a longterm presence in Iraq?] ), the other alternative they mention make me shake my head : are they really meaning that serious? Inviting Iran and Syria to send assitance into Iraq and help to stop the violance...? :doh:

[bradclark1]

After Senator Waren (R) was on the news saying Iraq was going sideways or backwards more republicans are calling for a change. We'll see.

[The Avon Lady]

This just in: Sunni mujahedin declare separate state within Iraq (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013620.php).

Stay tuned!

[August]

While the one alternative suggested by Baker & friends, is reasonable (phased withdrawal [of most troops
You mean like what Bush's plan was all along? We never intended to stay there forever.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more."
-- President George W. Bush
February 26, 2003


And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....

[bradclark1]

This just in: Sunni mujahedin declare separate state within Iraq (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013620.php).

Stay tuned!

That was just a matter of time. I wouldn't be shocked if it splits into three distinct different states after the civil war ends. Whenever that will be, if ever.

[bradclark1]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....
Thats what you think. The polls have shown different though.
The elections next month will give a window on that so it's not even worth arguing about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

[The Avon Lady]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....
Thats what you think. The polls have shown different though.
The elections next month will give a window on that so it's not even worth arguing about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Where on that poll page is there any specific result for the specific question under discussion?

[August]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security.... Thats what you think. The polls have shown different though.
The elections next month will give a window on that so it's not even worth arguing about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

You mean the same polls that showed Kerry with a huge lead over Bush in the last presidential election?

[August]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security.... Thats what you think. The polls have shown different though.
The elections next month will give a window on that so it's not even worth arguing about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ Where on that poll page is there any specific result for the specific question under discussion?

I really hope that the Democrats do win the next couple of elections. That way when they screw it up, and they will like they always have, they won't be able to pretend it's all the Republicans fault. They'll be forced to actually stand on their own record rather than criticize the other sides.

[The Avon Lady]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security.... Thats what you think. The polls have shown different though.
The elections next month will give a window on that so it's not even worth arguing about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ Where on that poll page is there any specific result for the specific question under discussion?

I really hope that the Democrats do win the next couple of elections. That way when they screw it up, and they will like they always have, they won't be able to pretend it's all the Republicans fault. They'll be forced to actually stand on their own record rather than criticize the other sides.
Last paragraph of New York magazine article Could the Democrats Lose? (http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/powergrid/22797/index.html):

"And what of the longer run? What happens if the party is restored to power after running a campaign where the essence of its appeal was, Bush and his enablers blow? Here’s hoping that its members realize that more is needed to cement a durable Democratic revival. Here’s hoping they grasp that pursuing a nonstop strategy of investigation and prosecution—gloriously cathartic though it would be—is a sure way to turn whatever victory they might win this year into something that Pyrrhus would be proud of. "

[fredbass]

I really hope that the Democrats do win the next couple of elections. That way when they screw it up, and they will like they always have, they won't be able to pretend it's all the Republicans fault. They'll be forced to actually stand on their own record rather than criticize the other sides.

In conjunction with what you've said, IMO, people are giving way too much credit or blame on previous administrations (it's called playing the political game). I will always believe that a current administration has more influence with current events than many deter from, whether its democrats or republicans. And of course it's not all the Republicans fault. :know:

[Skybird]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....
Thats what you think. The polls have shown different though.
The elections next month will give a window on that so it's not even worth arguing about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6057740.stm

Already quoted some days ago, but nevertheless... CNN ran a looping day-long editorial about it some days ago. Polls are still pictures of the moment. Not more - but also not less.

[Skybird]

While the one alternative suggested by Baker & friends, is reasonable (phased withdrawal [of most troops
You mean like what Bush's plan was all along? We never intended to stay there forever.

No, not me, but Baker.

And no, not according to plan to install a democracy by american example and missionise them to Western ideas about freedom and democracy, but in violation of Bushs several-times changed declarations of what the war should achieve, a "plan" (if there ever was oine worth to be called that, I think their preplanning ended with the assumption that the Iraqui military would surrender sooner or later in 2003) which currently has been reduced to this: stay as long as the war has not been "won" and Iraq can't take care of itself and situation has not been stabilized". But the war has been lost since long, and Baker knows that when saying "there's got to be another way", and arguing against "staying the course". Only people dleiberately choosing not to think can still argue that the thing is an open issue and the outcome needs to be seen. The thing is decided - you lost. It's just a question of time until you run out of "arguments" to claim the opposite.

Wake up to reality, August. You are still dreaming, hoping the dream will last forever. It won't.

Now Baker, before him that British chief-of-the-army general some days ago, before him a US Marine general some weeks ago, before them that several high ranking US military leaders. It's over.

[fredbass]

We never intended to stay there forever.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more."

-- President George W. Bush

February 26, 2003


....

I can always count on you for the truth. Good Job. :up:

[Coda]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....

I love it. It is hilarious when people outside the US tell us what we think.

Most Americans KNOW that republicans place a higher priority on national security than democrats.

[HunterICX]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....

I love it. It is hilarious when people outside the US tell us what we think.

Most Americans KNOW that republicans place a higher priority on national security than democrats.

:hmm: O rly, but they dont seeming to care about the american citizens.
take Katrina hurricane for example...they let those people down. they didnt spend much of work helping them...and I might not be right on this one...but just because they where blacks?

and why do they let an private plane of a baseball player fly over NY.
I thought they should prevent that an airplane should fly over that city , just in case. :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

but just because they where blacks?
This is bald faced fiction.

and why do they let an private plane of a baseball player fly over NY.
I thought they should prevent that an airplane should fly over that city , just in case. :hmm:
US security stinks and that's the truth.

[August]

Wake up to reality, August. You are still dreaming, hoping the dream will last forever. It won't.

And what dream is that Sky? I don't think anyone, except the Europeans, ever thought our intention was to make Iraq the 51st state.

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.

[Coda]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6057740.stm

Latest polls show that Bush not only has lost the majority of Americans to support his views on Iraq, they also show that currently the democrats are thought to have better competence in the traditional field of Republican's strength: security in general.




Why aren't you upset about this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6057812.stm

Comes from the same news source. I guess you just missed it, or glanced over it because it didn't give you an opportunity to bash America.

[Coda]

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.

After Hitler was removed, a new government was formed. Same thing in Japan. It didn't happen overnight, it takes hard work and patience.

[Gizzmoe]

or glanced over it because it didn't give you an opportunity to bash America.

Please stop the baiting, that´s the second time you try that today...

[Coda]

:hmm: O rly, but they dont seeming to care about the american citizens.
take Katrina hurricane for example...they let those people down. they didnt spend much of work helping them...and I might not be right on this one...but just because they where blacks?

and why do they let an private plane of a baseball player fly over NY.
I thought they should prevent that an airplane should fly over that city , just in case. :hmm:

Katrina's initial failures were the result of recent government re-shuffles of departments under homeland security and mis-communications. The press made it look worse than it was. If you ask me how I know, I lived near there at the time in Houston. I went there with supplies and to help.

There were billions of dollars spent housing, feeding and rebuilding after the initial frenzy. It's only the foolish that think that America "didn't care". That's just an assinine uneducated statement.

Do you do anything to help? Did your country? Did you do anything to help the tsunami victims, the earthquake victims, and any other natural disaster that happens anywhere in the world? If you haven't noticed, the US is usually the first in line to offer a helping hand.

Private planes are allowed to fly because the pilot is an American. General aviation has been around since the first airplane flight took place [in America] and it is a hobby and convenience Americans enjoy, myself included. I'm a private pilot.

America isn't going to run scared every time something bad happens. We aren't going to curtail any of our enjoyed freedoms because of some lunatic who exploited a vulnerability. If you knew how much harder it is for me to just grab a flight on any given weekend now, you'd know better. Airport security is tighter at general aviation airports now, tighter than commercial in my opinion.


Sure, things aren't perfect here, but they are sure a hell of a lot better than other countries. Why don't you go pick on them?

[bradclark1]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....
Thats what you think. The polls have shown different though.
The elections next month will give a window on that so it's not even worth arguing about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Where on that poll page is there any specific result for the specific question under discussion?

:rotfl: I just assumed that you would be smart enough to see across all polls that the Republicans are lagging. I would think that even Ray Charles would see that that would also incompass national security.
If you want you could tag it with the Bush approval rating.

[The Avon Lady]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....
Thats what you think. The polls have shown different though.
The elections next month will give a window on that so it's not even worth arguing about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Where on that poll page is there any specific result for the specific question under discussion?

:rotfl: I just assumed that you would be smart enough to see across all polls that the Republicans are lagging.
Once again, where did I say otherwise?
I would think that even Ray Charles would see that that would also incompass national security.
I'm beginning to believe that Ray Charles could read better than you. :cool:

[bradclark1]

You mean the same polls that showed Kerry with a huge lead over Bush in the last presidential election?
You don't trust Fox? I thought it was the republican heartbeat.

[bradclark1]

:hmm: O rly, but they dont seeming to care about the american citizens.
take Katrina hurricane for example...they let those people down. they didnt spend much of work helping them...and I might not be right on this one...but just because they where blacks?

I'd say you weren't right. But I would assume that that statement is just a dig.

[/quote]

and why do they let an private plane of a baseball player fly over NY.
I thought they should prevent that an airplane should fly over that city , just in case. :hmm:

They can fly along the river without a flight plan. Other then that you have to register a flight plan. The thinking behind the accident is that he was flying a high performance aircraft and was going too fast in the turn and hence ran into the building.

[bradclark1]

I'm beginning to believe that Ray Charles could read better than you. :cool:
I think it's the ability to see that 2+2 equals 4. :)

[Coda]

or glanced over it because it didn't give you an opportunity to bash America.
Please stop the baiting, that´s the second time you try that today...
If I were to post 100 threads on how bad Germany's governemt, or any other countries governments suck, or make general hate statements towards any Euro country, I'd be censored and banned.

But if anyone slams the US, or Americans in general, it's deemed acceptable, and now, encouraged. This thread, along with many other like it, are baiting. baiting, and hating, Americans.

[VipertheSniper]

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.

After Hitler was removed, a new government was formed. Same thing in Japan. It didn't happen overnight, it takes hard work and patience.

I fail to see how you think Germany or Japan after WW2 are comparable with Iraq now, or even 1 day after it was declared by your Commander-in-Chief that the mission was accomplished.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm beginning to believe that Ray Charles could read better than you. :cool:
I think it's the ability to see that 2+2 equals 4. :)
And anyone can tell
You think you know me well.
Well, you don't know me.

[bradclark1]

Last paragraph of New York magazine article Could the Democrats Lose? (http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/powergrid/22797/index.html):

"And what of the longer run? What happens if the party is restored to power after running a campaign where the essence of its appeal was, Bush and his enablers blow? Here’s hoping that its members realize that more is needed to cement a durable Democratic revival. Here’s hoping they grasp that pursuing a nonstop strategy of investigation and prosecution—gloriously cathartic though it would be—is a sure way to turn whatever victory they might win this year into something that Pyrrhus would be proud of. "

Isn't that the reason why any party or president is gotten rid of "Because they blow"? They aren't going to be ousted if they are doing a good job.
Kind of a dorky article.

[The Avon Lady]

Last paragraph of New York magazine article Could the Democrats Lose? (http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/powergrid/22797/index.html):

"And what of the longer run? What happens if the party is restored to power after running a campaign where the essence of its appeal was, Bush and his enablers blow? Here’s hoping that its members realize that more is needed to cement a durable Democratic revival. Here’s hoping they grasp that pursuing a nonstop strategy of investigation and prosecution—gloriously cathartic though it would be—is a sure way to turn whatever victory they might win this year into something that Pyrrhus would be proud of. "

Isn't that the reason why any party or president is gotten rid of "Because they blow"? They aren't going to be ousted if they are doing a good job.
Kind of a dorky article.
I couldn't care much for the article myself. But once again, I was making a specific point and you've dragged out a generality which is not the point that was discussed.

We miss ya, Ray. :cool:

[Coda]

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.
After Hitler was removed, a new government was formed. Same thing in Japan. It didn't happen overnight, it takes hard work and patience.
I fail to see how you think Germany or Japan after WW2 are comparable with Iraq now, or even 1 day after it was declared by your Commander-in-Chief that the mission was accomplished.
Because a tyrant was removed from power and a new government was formed. That took time, it didn't happen overnight.

The only difference between Iraq and Germany/Japan was the difference between reactive and proactive response.

International troops are still present in both those countries to this day. Nobody is crying foul over it.

[The Avon Lady]

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.
After Hitler was removed, a new government was formed. Same thing in Japan. It didn't happen overnight, it takes hard work and patience.
I fail to see how you think Germany or Japan after WW2 are comparable with Iraq now, or even 1 day after it was declared by your Commander-in-Chief that the mission was accomplished.
Because a tyrant was removed from power and a new government was formed. That took time, it didn't happen overnight.

The only difference between Iraq and Germany/Japan was the difference between reactive and proactive response.

International troops are still present in both those countries to this day. Nobody is crying foul over it.
I most strongly disagree. Nazi Germany was vanquished. Islam is alive, well and thriving in Iraq and everywhere around the world.

[bradclark1]

I really hope that the Democrats do win the next couple of elections. That way when they screw it up, and they will like they always have, they won't be able to pretend it's all the Republicans fault. They'll be forced to actually stand on their own record rather than criticize the other sides.
Every day Republicans blame Clinton or the Democrats for everything gone wrong, yet it's been six years since Clinton was president. It's because of the Republican record that they are going to loose. The congress has been titled the "Do nothing congress". They don't say that for a congress that is doing it's job.

[bradclark1]

I couldn't care much for the article myself. But once again, I was making a specific point and you've dragged out a generality which is not the point that was discussed.

We miss ya, Ray. :cool:

:doh: What point are we discussing? That the poll doesn't actually say "National Security"? I would think that if Americans felt that safe the President wouldn't set so far down in the poll's.
Or if we aren't discussing that, what are we discussing?:huh:

[Skybird]

And no, most Americans don't think the Democrats are more competant in areas of national security....

I love it. It is hilarious when people outside the US tell us what we think.

Most Americans KNOW that republicans place a higher priority on national security than democrats.
Before interfering with an ongoing debate, please make sure you red the thread carefully.

I did not told anybody what Americans think, but it is American polling institutes doing so. To their findings I refer.

Noone said that demcrats place a higher priority on security than republicans. The polls since mid spetmeber show that public opinion in the Us has rated democart's competence as higher for the first time since many years, as far as I do know) than that of the republicans (for whom security usually is a safe bank).

Thanks for shooting the messenger (again). If I would get a dollar for every bullet that hit me in the last three years, I would be a rich man today.

[Skybird]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/

[Gizzmoe]

This thread, along with many other like it, are baiting. baiting, and hating, Americans.

Relax. You won´t find many people here that hate Americans and Skybird is most certainly not one of them. He criticises certain aspects of the US government (and also his own and many others) and his intention is not to bait anyone.

[Skybird]

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.

After Hitler was removed, a new government was formed. Same thing in Japan. It didn't happen overnight, it takes hard work and patience.[/quote]

How often do you plan to repeat this thinking mistake, August?

Japan and Germany were totally defenseless and crushed, the many possible - and now present - resistances in Iraq never were, plus the interference frommoutside.

And what is even more important - you are talking about three totally, completely, 100%ly different cultures. If you thought that Iraq woudl work, because Germany worked, than you are really a fool. Look beyond your schemes - your set is far too limited in scope. iraq is a lost war. And Afghanistan is about to be lost if you/we do not put immediate urgency on shifting ressources from the k,lost case Iraq to Afghnaistan. Instead I see a growing tendency of America silently leaving Afghanistan behind and leave it to the stupid Europeans to clean up the mess behind them - which will be beyond NATOs abilities and bring the troops there into extreme trouble sooner or later.

You cannot have both wars a win anymore. If you want both, you will loose both. If you put priority on Iraq (like in the last years) you also will loose both. If you shift priuority from Iraq to Afghnaistan, you will still have lost Iraq, but will have an - already extremely grim - chance to save what is to be saved in Afghanistan. Choice should be easy, I think. That would also mean to rethink western stand towards Pakistan.

[The Avon Lady]

I couldn't care much for the article myself. But once again, I was making a specific point and you've dragged out a generality which is not the point that was discussed.

We miss ya, Ray. :cool:

:doh: What point are we discussing?
I specifically quoted the New York Magazine article in reply to August, regarding his point that if/when the Dems are in control, they may prove to be a bigger failure than what the Republicans have been these past years. I was not addressing you in that post.

[Skybird]

This thread, along with many other like it, are baiting. baiting, and hating, Americans.

Relax. You won´t find many people here that hate Americans and Skybird is most certainly not one of them. He criticises certain aspects of the US government (and also his own and many others) and his intention is not to bait anyone.
Thank you, Gizzmoe. I have given up to make that clear to people, since it always seems to be a lost case for me anyway.

[August]

...even 1 day after it was declared by your Commander-in-Chief that the mission was accomplished.

That's an excellent example of a hostile world media twisting his words to mean something he didn't.

When Bush said "mission accomplished" he speaking to the crew of the ship on which he said it. He was not speaking about the war itself. They had just completed a highly successful deployment, having accomplished the mission they had been assigned, hence the statement. No more, no less.

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6057740.stm

Latest polls show that Bush not only has lost the majority of Americans to support his views on Iraq, they also show that currently the democrats are thought to have better competence in the traditional field of Republican's strength: security in general.




Why aren't you upset about this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6057812.stm

Comes from the same news source. I guess you just missed it, or glanced over it because it didn't give you an opportunity to bash America.

Narcosis beat me to it, so I just commented on it.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99410

I have refered to that general in that and other threads repeatedly since then.

since that man seem to have his senses together, I see no reason to be upset about him - only about Blair trying to distort his comments as mirroring his own views. Blair must be the only man on the isles to believe that. :lol:

And since you maybe have not noticed it, that General has caused a lot of alarmed telephoning between Downing street and the White House. As reported in "the same news source" .

[The Avon Lady]

That's an excellent example of a hostile world media twisting his words to mean something he didn't.

When Bush said "mission accomplished"
Actually, he didn't. :nope:

[bradclark1]

I specifically quoted the New York Magazine article in reply to August, regarding his point that if/when the Dems are in control, they may prove to be a bigger failure than what the Republicans have been these past years. I was not addressing you in that post.

Ahh. Okay. Let's hope thats not the case or I''ll have to turn around and vote Republican, and after all this........:lol:

[Skybird]

...even 1 day after it was declared by your Commander-in-Chief that the mission was accomplished.

That's an excellent example of a hostile world media twisting his words to mean something he didn't.

When Bush said "mission accomplished" he speaking to the crew of the ship on which he said it. He was not speaking about the war itself. They had just completed a highly successful deployment, having accomplished the mission they had been assigned, hence the statement. No more, no less.

You are the first person I ever heared of who understood it this way. But you always seem to understand a lot of things in a very individual and unique way.

And coming aboard the carrier in flightdress, and a fighterplane as taxi as if he had shared any persoanl risks for health and life like those he send into war - while always having successfully avoided active combat assignment in Vietnam... :down: Reminded me of "Hot Shots" a bit...

[The Noob]

Relax. You won´t find many people here that hate Americans and Skybird is most certainly not one of them. He criticises certain aspects of the US government (and also his own and many others) and his intention is not to bait anyone.

Just for the record on this hot debate, i do not hate Americans in Gerneral. There are only a few people i hate that are from amerca. I just disagree with thier political ideas, and that strongly. But there is no reason to hate anyone.

On other forums i also criticise my own governement, but here, nobody cares for this anyway. And since i am to retarded to Start good topics myself...:dead:

*Ducks away again*

[The Avon Lady]

I specifically quoted the New York Magazine article in reply to August, regarding his point that if/when the Dems are in control, they may prove to be a bigger failure than what the Republicans have been these past years. I was not addressing you in that post.
Ahh. Okay. Let's hope thats not the case or I''ll have to turn around and vote Republican, and after all this........:lol:
The party is not what's important. They both stink at this point in time.

[ASWnut101]

* in a sniper nest 1 mile away, with a tranquilizer rifle*

crap! he ducked away again!:lol: :p :cool:

[The Avon Lady]

...even 1 day after it was declared by your Commander-in-Chief that the mission was accomplished.

That's an excellent example of a hostile world media twisting his words to mean something he didn't.

When Bush said "mission accomplished" he speaking to the crew of the ship on which he said it. He was not speaking about the war itself. They had just completed a highly successful deployment, having accomplished the mission they had been assigned, hence the statement. No more, no less.

You are the first person I ever heared of who understood it this way. But you always seem to understand a lot of things in a very individual and unique way.
See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished). Bush didn't say it and even his speech on the carrier (with the "mission accomplish" banner perfectly placed behind him) indicated that the war was not over.

You are NOT the first person I ever heard who has misunderstood it this way. ;)

[Skybird]

Wake up to reality, August. You are still dreaming, hoping the dream will last forever. It won't.

And what dream is that Sky? I don't think anyone, except the Europeans, ever thought our intention was to make Iraq the 51st state.

No, not a 51st state, but a stronghold of American influence in the centre of global oil production, and a dominant role of american oil companies in the Iraqi business, as well as trying to start a chain reaction that would spread democracy - in the exclusive american definition - in the region: again, of course dominated by american power, in a way so that it's presence would appear to be inevitable and in the best intrest of the loacal people, so that they would not even think to question about the US presence. If you are seen as a welcomed guest, it is less likely you will be critizised as an imperial power, even when bringing the oil industry under your control by influencing coinstitutions nand laws that would maximize economical advabatges for the Us, but leaves losses and risks to the Iraqis and minimizes the benfits their society would gain from these incomes.

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.

And obviously you do not care a bit of how big the price of that is. Maybe because you do not need to pay it. The misery of the Iraqis is not your concern. And when in the longrun the Iraq war will feed back with more open terror than it has ever prevented, it will not be the US being struck first, for you are far away in the other side of the globe, safely guarded by two big oceans on both sides of your country. Europe will catch up the blast first (as if we do not already have anough trouble with the many bad consequences we trigger ourselves...). You wanted your Saddam-removal party, but others behind you need to do the clean.

Your happiness is no reason for war. What your president before gave as reasons for war, and what it has come down to today, and that you "happily" accept to trigger even more violance by your simple presence (although meanwhile it has been made very clear that the majoiirty, the clear majority, of both Sunnis and Shias do not want you to stay) although you have no more chance to reach all what you claim so proudly you want to reach - stability, security, etc etc etc - this is what it is about in the present. Beside that, you risk the life of countrymen of yours all for nothing - by sticking to illusions. Every soldier's ego is hurt to admit he has been defeated, directly or by a mission lost. but it is the case. The objectives can no longer be reached, not this year and not in five years and not in ten. you lost. Your prize is an Iraq that sooner or later will fall the major Shia orhtodox influence, Iran, will be destabilized increasingly (even when being split), will turn into a second Lebanon, and then will be what Bush said in 2003 it already were, but as a matter fo fact was not : a sponsor and major source of international terrorism. You have reached all that you wanted to prevent. You haven't reached any of the official objectives given before the war, escpeically with reagdr to WMDs. Situation is detoriating constantly. When was the first time I said it is detoriating? Must be roughly two years ago. Since then things went down. Iraqis try to flee the country by the thousand. The saudis are building a fence to keep out the masses of refugees they expect in the future. high ranking US militaries having serbed in Iraq have indirectly critised the Iraq policy over the last six months. highest ranking British general today has openly attacked the reasonability of the Iraq war and it'S objectives. the place is a chaos, a place of civil war (you don't acdcept that term, too, don'T you?). Religious extremism and Shia orthoxy is rising faster than you can run. Iran is strengthening it's basis in Iraq. But all that you more or less ignore, and insist on finishing the mission, and leaving not before your socalled objectives are acchieved.

Have I made myself clear what I mean when I said you are dreaming?

[The Noob]

* in a sniper nest 1 mile away, with a tranquilizer rifle*

crap! he ducked away again!:lol: :p :cool:

*In a tunnel right under ASW's sniper nest*

crap! the shovel broke again! :lol: :p :cool:

[ASWnut101]

:p!

*marks spot for tank to drive on*

heheheee!

[tycho102]

Latest polls show that Bush not only has lost the majority of Americans to support his views on Iraq, they also show that currently the democrats are thought to have better competence in the traditional field of Republican's strength: security in general.
The "latest polls" show that we are fed up with:

1. Mexicans, Columbians, Venezulans, Cubans, Iranians, Saudi Arabians, Syrians, Chinese, Nigerians, Libyans, Chadians (??!?!), South Africans, friggin' Irish and Scots, and everyone else in the world being able to swim across the Rio Grande and catch a bus to anywhere in the United States.

2. Social Security, in direct relationship to...

3. Our god d*mn national debt. The Treasury department reports out an $8 trillion debt, but if you add in all the social security loans, it's closer to $50 trillion. No company in America can use the same "accounting" techniques that our Congress does. Microsoft reports a loan when they take it, not when it comes due.

4. Our educational system. With all the historical revision and unaccountability by instructors, students are either getting half the story or they're being given the answers to the test and expected to just memorize them.

5. Contraception. Mandatory contraception, for both the men and the women. By which I'm talking about women who are addicted to crack, show up at the emergency room every 10 months for a delivery, and are unemployed. And the giggalos running around, hittin' dis and hittin' dat. Mandatory planned parenthood.

[Coda]

Wake up to reality, August. You are still dreaming, hoping the dream will last forever. It won't.
And what dream is that Sky? I don't think anyone, except the Europeans, ever thought our intention was to make Iraq the 51st state.
No, not a 51st state, but a stronghold of American influence in the centre of global oil production, and a dominant role of american oil companies in the Iraqi business, as well as trying to start a chain reaction that would spread democracy - in the exclusive american definition - in the region: again, of course dominated by american power, in a way so that it's presence would appear to be inevitable and in the best intrest of the loacal people, so that they would not even think to question about the US presence. If you are seen as a welcomed guest, it is less likely you will be critizised as an imperial power, even when bringing the oil industry under your control by influencing coinstitutions nand laws that would maximize economical advabatges for the Us, but leaves losses and risks to the Iraqis and minimizes the benfits their society would gain from these incomes.

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.
And obviously you do not care a bit of how big the price of that is. Maybe because you do not need to pay it. The misery of the Iraqis is not your concern. And when in the longrun the Iraq war will feed back with more open terror than it has ever prevented, it will not be the US being struck first, for you are far away in the other side of the globe, safely guarded by two big oceans on both sides of your country. Europe will catch up the blast first (as if we do not already have anough trouble with the many bad consequences we trigger ourselves...). You wanted your Saddam-removal party, but others behind you need to do the clean.

Your happiness is no reason for war. What your president before gave as reasons for war, and what it has come down to today, and that you "happily" accept to trigger even more violance by your simple presence (although meanwhile it has been made very clear that the majoiirty, the clear majority, of both Sunnis and Shias do not want you to stay) although you have no more chance to reach all what you claim so proudly you want to reach - stability, security, etc etc etc - this is what it is about in the present. Beside that, you risk the life of countrymen of yours all for nothing - by sticking to illusions. Every soldier's ego is hurt to admit he has been defeated, directly or by a mission lost. but it is the case. The objectives can no longer be reached, not this year and not in five years and not in ten. you lost. Your prize is an Iraq that sooner or later will fall the major Shia orhtodox influence, Iran, will be destabilized increasingly (even when being split), will turn into a second Lebanon, and then will be what Bush said in 2003 it already were, but as a matter fo fact was not : a sponsor and major source of international terrorism. You have reached all that you wanted to prevent. You haven't reached any of the official objectives given before the war, escpeically with reagdr to WMDs. Situation is detoriating constantly. When was the first time I said it is detoriating? Must be roughly two years ago. Since then things went down. Iraqis try to flee the country by the thousand. The saudis are building a fence to keep out the masses of refugees they expect in the future. high ranking US militaries having serbed in Iraq have indirectly critised the Iraq policy over the last six months. highest ranking British general today has openly attacked the reasonability of the Iraq war and it'S objectives. the place is a chaos, a place of civil war (you don't acdcept that term, too, don'T you?). Religious extremism and Shia orthoxy is rising faster than you can run. Iran is strengthening it's basis in Iraq. But all that you more or less ignore, and insist on finishing the mission, and leaving not before your socalled objectives are acchieved.



What's your point?

[bradclark1]

The party is not what's important. They both stink at this point in time.

Yes I know but it's the only two parties we have unfourtunately:cry: and they don't mix and match.
I'm still waiting for that third one.

[ASWnut101]

independents?

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6060544.stm

Iran and Syria will not only take over, no, they really will get asked to do so - according to Talabani. :doh:

You are NOT the first person I ever heard who has misunderstood it this way. ;)

Okay, point taken, the story about the banner I did not know.

What's your point?

.

[The Avon Lady]

The party is not what's important. They both stink at this point in time.

Yes I know but it's the only two parties we have unfourtunately:cry: and they don't mix and match.
I'm still waiting for that third one.
I vote per individual. It's true that at present, I cannot think of any Democratic candidates I'm elgible to vote for that I would vote for but it wasn't always this way.

The Democratic party has veered to the wacky left to a much greater extent than the Republican party has gone off the sharp right edge. Here in Israel, we've watched the same thing happen to both formerly "centrist" parties: the Likud and the Labor (socialist) parties. The Likud has shifted left and is not noticeably different from the Labor party a decade ago. The Labor party is not much different today than Israel's idiotic leftist Meretz party was back then and still is today.

[The Noob]

:p!

*marks spot for tank to drive on*

heheheee!

*marks tank for Bombardment by Hind*

:smug:

*Fixes shovel and goes after ASW*

Don't push it. Let it go...:rotfl::rotfl::up: (Rambo 1)

[HunterICX]

:hmm: I dont hate america, but I dont like the governement of today

and about that private airplane over NY...Now ''He's American'' ''small plane''
dont forget what can be packed inside the SMALL plane. enough to create severe damage to an high building.

If they would allow small private planes fly over NY, and some terrorist groups find a way to do the same thing without too much trouble. Hey you got urself an second 9/11 not as bad as the original one...but enough to shake the world into a second terror.

Planes over NY = NO! if ur learned from 9/11 planes must go around and now where near the city at all. but yeah...can u save NY from Terrorist attacks...No not really.there are many ways for terrorist to sneak inside any city in any country to create havoc.


now back to iraq:

The soldiers had to be gone long time ago, if they try to prevent an civil war , forget it, if the soldiers are still there or not...Hell wil brake lose and the american soldiers dont know the bloody reason to stay.

Let iraq be in an state of civil war...after 20 yrs the country will regain his strenght and then we look again of how things are going on.

the longer the american stays in their...the more u piss iraqies off.
get out. bring the soldiers home back to their families

[fredbass]

Just for the record on this hot debate, i do not hate Americans in Gerneral. There are only a few people i hate that are from america. I just disagree with thier political ideas, and that strongly. But there is no reason to hate anyone.


It just doesn't make sense not to agree with our ideals. The political ideals of the U.S.A. are quite simple. We are a democracy, which is a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

So you don't like the fact that we attempt to get everybody else in that same situation? Why wouldn't you? Most of you here in this forum live in countries that have a democratic society. The U.S.A. is the most successful and therefore most powerful. I say, instead of fighting it, you should join it. And then you won't have to complain that you can't do everything that we can. :know:

[August]

You are the first person I ever heared of who understood it this way. But you always seem to understand a lot of things in a very individual and unique way.

I'm the first? Really? I guess it goes to show you just how far off the mark European media can be when it comes to the US. Perhaps you should remember this next time you try to claim expertise of American words and actions....

And coming aboard the carrier in flightdress, and a fighterplane as taxi as if he had shared any persoanl risks for health and life like those he send into war - while always having successfully avoided active combat assignment in Vietnam... :down: Reminded me of "Hot Shots" a bit...

All that has nothing to do with what you claimed (incorrectly) that he said.

And so what if Bush rode in a military aircraft? He is a former fighter pilot after all. If I were president i'd wrangle a ride like that too. CiC does and should have some perks. Heck Teddy Roosevelt once took a ride in a submarine, submerged too, while they were still experimental, and he was only a former assistant secretary of the Navy (and Spanish-American war hero).

Besides, anyone who has made one can tell you that a tail hook landing on a carrier is anything but lacking in personal risk.

The bottom line here is you have way over stretched in your latest attack on our President. You should do the right thing and admit it, better yet stop acting like Mr. Know-it-all all the time.

[Bum]

I understood it that way too, I thought it was pretty evident, the mission accomplished meant the US had staged, moved in, and took control of Iraq. They still have control of Iraq. There is violnce and killing going on there but no serious military opposition.

[August]

It just doesn't make sense not to agree with our ideals. The political ideals of the U.S.A. are quite simple. We are a democracy, which is a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Fred you have to understand that most of these Europeans cannot even concieve of such things. Their entire history is filled with despotic kings and dictators who ruled their subjects by the sword.

We are alien to them and they will never understand us. Worse we understand them all too well and that infuriates them to no end.

[August]

I really hope that the Democrats do win the next couple of elections. That way when they screw it up, and they will like they always have, they won't be able to pretend it's all the Republicans fault. They'll be forced to actually stand on their own record rather than criticize the other sides. Every day Republicans blame Clinton or the Democrats for everything gone wrong, yet it's been six years since Clinton was president. It's because of the Republican record that they are going to loose. The congress has been titled the "Do nothing congress". They don't say that for a congress that is doing it's job.

It's interesting that you should make that claim Brad because the way i see it the problem with the Democrats for the past 8 years is they have run on a platform devoid of ideas and have limited themselves to "vote for us because we're better than the Republicans"

Anyone who knows anything of American political history knows that neither party has a lock on morality, expertise or competance so such claims are always rejected as the voting record shows.

I do really hope the Democrats stop this ridiculous and useless "pot/kettle" comparisons and start coming out with more concrete ideas and plans on how to move the country forward.

[The Noob]

It just doesn't make sense not to agree with our ideals.

My dad says the same about Left Wing ideas. This is strange. :D

The political ideals of the U.S.A. are quite simple. We are a democracy, which is a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Again, the same could be said about the Communistic idea. And i not mean russia, but the theory.

Except about the "free electoral system" wich is a farce to begin with, since the dumb majority wich can easily be manipulated controles the country.

So you don't like the fact that we attempt to get everybody else in that same situation?

If i take my most fafored land, Sweden and compare it to america then no, i don't want it to get another america with all the Crazy and nuts things from there.

Most of you here in this forum live in countries that have a democratic society.

Me too. But as i already have written, there is much difference between "Americanny Democracy" and "European Democracy". And i don't like the american version.

The U.S.A. is the most successful and therefore most
powerful.

How did you archive this power? Yes, with slave work, wich you still have today. The difference is that you pay them enougt not to die istand of feeding them at work. Not to forget different tricks and unfair trades wich you still have today.

Your philisophy is "Buy it or Bomb it!". Can't buy it cause people resist? Then Bomb it.

That made you the richest country in the world.

I say, instead of fighting it, you should join it.

Many people say different.

And then you won't have to complain that you can't do everything that we can. :know:

Wich Complains? I can do everything i want over here.

[bradclark1]

independents?
Independents aren't really a party, it's individuals. Power is in numbers.
However I am voting for an Independent for senate (Lieberman) and (gasp) a Republican for govenor who's in office now. She was lt. govenor then replaced the Republican govenor who went to prison for corruption.

[August]

independents? Independents aren't really a party, it's individuals. Power is in numbers.
However I am voting for an Independent for senate (Lieberman) and (gasp) a Republican for govenor who's in office now. She was lt. govenor then replaced the Republican govenor who went to prison for corruption.

I like Joe as well and think the Democrats really shot themselves in the foot by giving the nomination to that cable mogul.

[Skybird]

It just doesn't make sense not to agree with our ideals. The political ideals of the U.S.A. are quite simple. We are a democracy, which is a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Fred you have to understand that most of these Europeans cannot even concieve of such things. Their entire history is filled with despotic kings and dictators who ruled their subjects by the sword.

We are alien to them and they will never understand us. Worse we understand them all too well and that infuriates them to no end.

We are just blinded by your shining armour, that's all...

You seem to think all reality is exactly like your ancestors have written down rules on pieces of paper, and because they show up to be like this and that in that text, realility would be like that. You believe too easy, and are determined not to see the many distortions, aberations and violations that have taken place since then. By paper-form, the US looks wonderful. By judging it how it once has been meant to be (in a different world, under different situational conditions) it is great. But today is 2006, globalised trade, megalomania, imperial structures, strong plutocratic elites. the simple fact that Iraq war 2003 took place illustrated how badly damaged your system already is, and how damaged your rules and institutions already are. Hollowing out, this phrase is always on my mind when thinking about the US and the EU.

and on that theatralic carrier thing again, AL's hinting to the Wikipedia really sums it up nicely:

Bush's historic jet landing on the carrier, the first by a sitting president, was criticized by opponents as an overly theatrical and expensive stunt. For instance, they pointed to the fact that the carrier was well within range of Bush's helicopter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter), and that a jet landing was not needed. [1] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml) Originally the White House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House) had claimed the carrier was to be too far for a helicopter landing, and a jet would be needed to reach it. On the day of the speech, the Lincoln was only 30 miles from shore but the administration still decided to go ahead with the jet landing. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Fleischer) admitted that the president "could have helicoptered, but the plan was already in place. Plus, he wanted to see a landing the way aviators see a landing". [2] (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york060303.asp) It was never explained why the President couldn't have simply visited the ship while it was in port (although, if he followed usual Presidential travel procedures, he still would have had to use a helicopter to make the final leg of his journey.) The Lincoln made a scheduled stop in Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor) shortly before the speech and returned to its home base in Everett, Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett%2C_Washington) on May 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_6), 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003).

The banner stating "Mission Accomplished" was the main source of controversy and criticism. One crew member stated the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's mission (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself and the White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship. Afterwards, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy's idea, White House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House) staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel.

The banner stating "Mission Accomplished" was the main source of controversy and criticism. One crew member stated the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's mission (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself and the White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship. Afterwards, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy's idea, White House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House) staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel. [3] (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/) This version has since been disputed. The event was carefully choreographed by administration staffers, including positioning cameras to capture the president with the banner over his shoulder. According to John Dickerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dickerson) of TIME magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIME_magazine), the White House later admitted they actually hung the banner. [4] (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html) In spite of the controversy, it has continued to be standard practice to hang banners with patriotic slogans behind President Bush, especially when he speaks to military gatherings.
The event was criticized by many as premature — especially later as the guerrilla war began. Subsequently, the White House released a statement alleging that the sign and Bush's visit referred to the initial invasion of Iraq. The speech itself noted:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." [5] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml)
However the speech also claimed that:
"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[6] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml) When he received an advance copy of the speech, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:"I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back…they fixed the speech, but not the sign."

AL,
I misunderstood a whole paragraph after first reading it, now realise what it really says. Thus, I correct my former acceptance of your correction and reject to take your point as stated before! http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/b330.gif

[fredbass]

Except about the "free electoral system" wich is a farce to begin with, since the dumb majority wich can easily be manipulated controles the country.

If i take my most fafored land, Sweden and compare it to america then no, i don't want it to get another america with all the Crazy and nuts things from there.

there is much difference between "Americanny Democracy" and "European Democracy". And i don't like the american version.

How did you archive this power? Yes, with slave work, wich you still have today. The difference is that you pay them enougt not to die istand of feeding them at work. Not to forget different tricks and unfair trades wich you still have today.

Your philisophy is "Buy it or Bomb it!". Can't buy it cause people resist? Then Bomb it.

I can do everything i want over here.

Well I'm glad you can do what you want over there, Noob. In the mean time my country will continue to thrive and millions of people from all over this planet continue to move here so they can be an american like me. :ping: :ping: :ping: :ping: :ping: :ping: :ping:

[The Noob]

Fred you have to understand that most of these Europeans cannot even concieve of such things.
Remember: Americans are Europeans too. From where do you think you Come from? You people not appeared out of nothing.

Their entire history is filled with despotic kings and dictators who ruled their subjects by the sword.
Yes. And you think you escaped your history just by moving in another part of the planet? I hope not, this would be very foolish.

[bradclark1]

It's interesting that you should make that claim Brad because the way i see it the problem with the Democrats for the past 8 years is they have run on a platform devoid of ideas and have limited themselves to "vote for us because we're better than the Republicans"

Anyone who knows anything of American political history knows that neither party has a lock on morality, expertise or competance so such claims are always rejected as the voting record shows.

I do really hope the Democrats stop this ridiculous and useless "pot/kettle" comparisons and start coming out with more concrete ideas and plans on how to move the country forward.

Snap thought "Republican"
1st thought :- Made a total balls up with Iraq.
2nd thought :- Do nothing congress.
3rd thought :- Doesn't do nothing unless it involves money making more money.
4th thought :- So damned arrogant it disgusting. So arrogant they are blinded to reality.
5th thought :- Their way or no way.

Those five snap thoughts go through my mind when I think Republican.
I think thoughts 1 through 3 are going through a lot of voters minds.
Notice that I didn't note one Democrat thought. Why?
Because this present system teach's how not to do something. Therefore things will "change" and be "different".

[Coda]

:hmm: I dont hate america, but I dont like the governement of today


There are quite a few Americans that feel the same way.


and about that private airplane over NY...Now ''He's American'' ''small plane''
dont forget what can be packed inside the SMALL plane. enough to create severe damage to an high building.

If they would allow small private planes fly over NY, and some terrorist groups find a way to do the same thing without too much trouble. Hey you got urself an second 9/11 not as bad as the original one...but enough to shake the world into a second terror.

Planes over NY = NO! if ur learned from 9/11 planes must go around and now where near the city at all. but yeah...can u save NY from Terrorist attacks...No not really.there are many ways for terrorist to sneak inside any city in any country to create havoc.


Well, let me try to explain to you what it means to live in America.

General aviation is part of our country. [Airlines are commercial aviation, different issue] It's something that many Americans enjoy. We do it as sport, hobby, convienence and competition. It's part of our way of life.

Just because some fanatics attacked our country using airplanes, it doesn't mean we are going to stop flying. It doesn't mean that we are going to close down airspace around cities where small planes fly. It means we will take more precautions and possibly stronger regulations to prevent a repeat occurance.
Some things have changed. Life may be a little more difficult. Regulations are enforced and security is tighter.

However, there is no way in hell we will ever give up our way of life or any freedom in our country because of the actions of some terrorist. To do that, to live our lives in fear, to take away any portion of our way of life, is surrenduring to the terroist in defeat.

[Skybird]

:hmm: I dont hate america, but I dont like the governement of today


There are quite a few Americans that feel the same way.


and about that private airplane over NY...Now ''He's American'' ''small plane''
dont forget what can be packed inside the SMALL plane. enough to create severe damage to an high building.

If they would allow small private planes fly over NY, and some terrorist groups find a way to do the same thing without too much trouble. Hey you got urself an second 9/11 not as bad as the original one...but enough to shake the world into a second terror.

Planes over NY = NO! if ur learned from 9/11 planes must go around and now where near the city at all. but yeah...can u save NY from Terrorist attacks...No not really.there are many ways for terrorist to sneak inside any city in any country to create havoc.


Well, let me try to explain to you what it means to live in America.

General aviation is part of our country. [Airlines are commercial aviation, different issue] It's something that many Americans enjoy. We do it as sport, hobby, convienence and competition. It's part of our way of life.

Just because some fanatics attacked our country using airplanes, it doesn't mean we are going to stop flying. It doesn't mean that we are going to close down airspace around cities where small planes fly. It means we will take more precautions and possibly stronger regulations to prevent a repeat occurance.
Some things have changed. Life may be a little more difficult. Regulations are enforced and security is tighter.

However, there is no way in hell we will ever give up our way of life or any freedom in our country because of the actions of some terrorist. To do that, to live our lives in fear, to take away any portion of our way of life, is surrenduring to the terroist in defeat.

just in principle, and without wanting to refer to anything specific: would you agree to this statement: "One person's (nation's) freedom ends where that freedom starts to limit the freedom of another person(nation), nobody has a right to live at the cost of somebody else", a simple Yes or No would be enough?!

[Coda]

just in principle, and without wanting to refer to anything specific: would you agree to this statement: "One person's (nation's) freedom ends where that freedom starts to limit the freedom of another person(nation), nobody has a right to live at the cost of somebody else", a simple Yes or No would be enough?!

Yes or No

[Skybird]

I take this evasive action as a No.

[August]

Remember: Americans are Europeans too. From where do you think you Come from? You people not appeared out of nothing.

Only some Americans are of European extraction, not all. How typically European of you to think so.

Yes. And you think you escaped your history just by moving in another part of the planet? I hope not, this would be very foolish.

Actually that's exactly what the Americans of European extraction did. We left you. :yep: That's why we call it "The New World".

[Coda]

nobody has a right to live at the cost of somebody else


This part I agree with.


The rest looks like a trap......

[August]

Because this present system teach's how not to do something. Therefore things will "change" and be "different".

It still doesn't answer the question what should be done. This inability to produce a positive plan of their own is, I believe, the Democrats major failing and the reason why they lost control of the congress and the white house in the first place.

Hey, don't get me wrong Brad. If you're right about numbers 1-3 it might actually put the Dems back in power, but then they are going to have to come up with something more substantial or they'll be back out again in short order.

[bradclark1]

Hey, don't get me wrong Brad. If you're right about numbers 1-3 it might actually put the Dems back in power, but then they are going to have to come up with something more substantial or they'll be back out again in short order.

I know. If they get some power this November it will give them a few years to make it or break it. The only thing I can say is time will tell.

[The Avon Lady]

Hey, don't get me wrong Brad. If you're right about numbers 1-3 it might actually put the Dems back in power, but then they are going to have to come up with something more substantial or they'll be back out again in short order.
I know. If they get some power this November it will give them a few years to make it or break it. The only thing I can say is time will tell.
Gentlemen, start your stopwatches (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/17/video-charlie-rangel-on-so-called-terrorists/).

[August]

Hey, don't get me wrong Brad. If you're right about numbers 1-3 it might actually put the Dems back in power, but then they are going to have to come up with something more substantial or they'll be back out again in short order. I know. If they get some power this November it will give them a few years to make it or break it. The only thing I can say is time will tell. Gentlemen, start your stopwatches (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/17/video-charlie-rangel-on-so-called-terrorists/).

I often wonder why the Democrats put up with Charlie Rangel. I believe he's responsible for more lost dem votes than just about anything else.

[bradclark1]

I often wonder why the Democrats put up with Charlie Rangel. I believe he's responsible for more lost dem votes than just about anything else.

Because if the dems say anything, racism would be screamed and most voting blacks are democrat. But you knew that anyway.

[August]

I often wonder why the Democrats put up with Charlie Rangel. I believe he's responsible for more lost dem votes than just about anything else.

Because if the dems say anything, racism would be screamed and most voting blacks are democrat. But you knew that anyway.

I knew what Brad? Fear of racism accusations don't stop the Dems from badmouthing Rice, Powell, or Thomas. It's no secret to anyone that Rangel is a REAL racist and as such he alienates a far larger number of people than would be mad if he were dumped like they did to Joe Leiberman. Besides, how could anyone claim racism if someone like Obama were to drive the effort?

Loose 5 votes to save 1? Sounds like a penny wise pound foolish approach to me...

[The Avon Lady]

I often wonder why the Democrats put up with Charlie Rangel. I believe he's responsible for more lost dem votes than just about anything else.

Because if the dems say anything, racism would be screamed and most voting blacks are democrat. But you knew that anyway.
Please join Michelle Malkin for milk and cookies (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/19/liberals-and-oreos/). :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

I often wonder why the Democrats put up with Charlie Rangel. I believe he's responsible for more lost dem votes than just about anything else.

Because if the dems say anything, racism would be screamed and most voting blacks are democrat. But you knew that anyway.
Please join Michelle Malkin for milk and cookies (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/19/liberals-and-oreos/). :yep:
I just realized now that there are fresher cookies (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006141.htm), still hot.

[bradclark1]

Loose 5 votes to save 1? Sounds like a penny wise pound foolish approach to me...
It's the voters that make or break who's going to be their politician.

[August]

Loose 5 votes to save 1? Sounds like a penny wise pound foolish approach to me... It's the voters that make or break who's going to be their politician.

Yeah but it's the party who encourages or discourages challengers to the nomination. Is Rangle that powerfully entrenched with his constituency that suitable replacement cannot be found?