Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[cardaway]

No the "Iraqis" that are blowing up women and children, blowing up mosques, planting IEDs, firing mortors at public buildings, killing innocent citizens going about their business, murdering Iraqis in police recruitment lines....HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ARRESTED. What "rights" are you willing to confer on terrorists beyond their 'right to remain silent" or whatever their version of the Miranda rights are?

It's looking like a civil war with two sides, not the OK people the US likes and "terrorists". The people the troops are defending would be doing the same things if the US wasn't there.

 

[LuvDuke]

The "insurgency" are terrorists and in Iraq, the only one that HAD power was Saddam and those whom he chose to bestow it on.

So is it your claim the insurgency are Al-Qaeda terrorists? Or do you just want to label the insurgency "terrorists" to keep yourself from facing reality?

The insurgents are Iraqis fighting an occupying force and are not foreign terrorists. That is the no-win position this administration has put our military in.

There are only about 1200-3000 foreign fighters in Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

You can use all the sematics you want to fool yourself, but you aren't fooling anyone else who can research the information and can read it for themselves.

 

[What the Heck]

Ok for everyone talking about Katrina, how about some facts? To someone who lives here there is a HUGE difference btw breech and tops. Do you want to know why the levee failed at the 17th street canal(the one a block from my grandparents home)? The Corps of Engineers didn't build it correctly. A support beam gave way that shouldn't have. The Govenor and the Mayor didn't even know when/how/ or why levees were failing and they were here, well the Mayor was, the Govenor was at home getting emails about what she should wear in the aftermath to look more commonly. So what more should the President have done? I would really like to know.

As for the thousands dead comment...honestly it was a tradgety that could've been better prevented had more people evacuated. I can gaurantee that at least 1/3 (and I am being generous) had the means to leave, but chose to "ride it out" instead. Maybe if the Mayor hadn't waited until the day before the storm to have a mandatory evacuation, the death toll would have been lower. Again what more could the President have done in this situation?

As for the recovery effort...it is slow but it is happening. The funds are coming, and we are rebuilding.

I really hate these types of threads, but as someone who is actually living here, I feel compelled to add my 2 cents.

Mrs. Kreamer, don't you know that for those who hate Bush no matter what, facts are an unnecessary intrusion? I'm surprised they didn't call you delusional for saying some of the same things I did.

Your 2 cents are always welcome.

 

[eclectics]

The vast majority of Iraqi's do want democracy. Why would they turn out to the polls at great risk to themselves and vote in the numbers that they did ...in several elections? Were they forced at gun point to vote???!! In fact, they turned out in greater numbers to vote than the American citizens. Perhaps that means that Americans don't want democracy! Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Saddam papers in which all of Saddam's generals believed that there were WMDs. If anyone fabricated anything, it was Saddam himself. Our soldiers and Saddam's soldiers had chemical weapons protection gear for a reason. They all thought that they would be dealing with chemical weapons. Again, the reason to remain is Iraq is to complete the job that we have started. We did that in Germany and Japan and it took a lot longer than 3 years!

They turned out to vote because they wanted to make sure their particular religious sect had the most power. A rosy, harmonious democracy between the three religious sects in Iraq is not the reason they go to the polls, as much as this administration would like to believe it. A western style democracy in Iraq will be next to impossible without some serious, intellegent diplomacy and compromises between all three factions. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

 

[DawnCt1]

It's looking like a civil war with two sides, not the OK people the US likes and "terrorists". The people the troops are defending would be doing the same things if the US wasn't there.

What then is the political agenda of those killing innocent people? Are they offering additional rights that they don't have under the present government or are they looking to supress the rights of others? Everyone has been offered a 'seat at the table'. Should 95% of the country have to suffer because less than 5% are intent on chaos and anarchy?

 

[DawnCt1]

They turned out to vote because they wanted to make sure their particular religious sect had the most power. A rosy, harmonious democracy between the three religious sects in Iraq is not the reason they go to the polls, as much as this administration would like to believe it. A western style democracy in Iraq will be next to impossible without some serious, intellegent diplomacy and compromises between all three factions. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

And are you under the illusion that it will happen at all if the USA cuts and runs? Yet that seems to be the answer coming from the left. It seems as if more blood shed is the left's answer as long as they can blame President Bush. I fail to fathom hatred of a man so deep that the answer is to allow Iraq to fail so they can win.

 

[cardaway]

So is it your claim the insurgency are Al-Qaeda terrorists? Or do you just want to label the insurgency "terrorists" to keep yourself from facing reality?

The insurgents are Iraqis fighting an occupying force and are not foreign terrorists. That is the no-win position this administration has put our military in.

There are only about 1200-3000 foreign fighters in Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

You can use all the sematics you want to fool yourself, but you aren't fooling anyone else who can research the information and can read it for themselves.

Well said. No amount of sematics is going to hide the reality.

 

[LuvDuke]

Actually, Iran would not dare go into Iraq with the status quo, for the same reason we don't go into North Korea - the politics do not allow for it.

So is it your position we should be there forever?

Iran would love to attack Iraq, but dare not while we are there.

Attack Iraq for what?

One of the talking points from the left has been that we helped make Hussein strong by supporting him in the 80's. They don't point out that a Democrat in office would have done exactly the same thing or they would have been laughed out of office. In fact the funding had to go through Congress, and I really don't think there were that many Democrats saying "no, no, this guy is evil". Funny how the disdain only goes one way.

There were no Democrats in the WH while Saddam Hussein was considered a friend to this country.

But while you have your crystal ball working as to what Democrats would've done regarding Saddam Hussein, maybe your crystal ball can tell me the numbers for tomorrow night's lottery. Thanks in advance.

 

[DawnCt1]

So is it your claim the insurgency are Al-Qaeda terrorists? Or do you just want to label the insurgency "terrorists" to keep yourself from facing reality?

The insurgents are Iraqis fighting an occupying force and are not foreign terrorists. That is the no-win position this administration has put our military in.

There are only about 1200-3000 foreign fighters in Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

You can use all the sematics you want to fool yourself, but you aren't fooling anyone else who can research the information and can read it for themselves.

Insurgents who commit terrorist acts are terrorists. How that is not clear to you, I don't understand. They are attacking Iraqi's at a much greater frequency than US forces so that doesn't fit into your scenario that they are 'fighting an occupying force". You will have to do better than that and clean up your own semantics.

 

[LuvDuke]

And are you under the illusion that it will happen at all if the USA cuts and runs? Yet that seems to be the answer coming from the left. It seems as if more blood shed is the left's answer as long as they can blame President Bush. I fail to fathom hatred of a man so deep that the answer is to allow Iraq to fail so they can win.

If you're happy with an open-ended deployment to keep the Iraqis from killing each other, the rest of us say more power to you.

 

[LuvDuke]

Insurgents who commit terrorist acts are terrorists. How that is not clear to you, I don't understand. They are attacking Iraqi's at a much greater frequency than US forces so that doesn't fit into your scenario that they are 'fighting an occupying force". You will have to do better than that and clean up your own semantics.

It's called a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Again, you can label it anything you want, but it does not make it so. And our military has been put in a no-win postiion as target practice for both of them.

 

[punkin]

Insurgents who commit terrorist acts are terrorists. How that is not clear to you, I don't understand. They are attacking Iraqi's at a much greater frequency than US forces so that doesn't fit into your scenario that they are 'fighting an occupying force". You will have to do better than that and clean up your own semantics.

It is a civil war. They are fighting with each other because we toppled Saddam and created a power vacuum. The religious and ethnic sects ini Iraq cannot develop a democracy because they have hated each other since time immemorial. Only a tyrant who tramples on civil liberties can make them get along.

Is that why the US is still there? So we can be the biggest bully on the playground and enforce order?

 

[DawnCt1]

So is it your position we should be there forever?



Attack Iraq for what?



.

Perhaps you need a little historical perspective. Iran and Iraq have always been at odds which was in part why Saddam was given support in the early years; to defend themselves against the extremist Iran after the Shah was deposed. So yes, Iran is a threat to Iraq. Rather than answwer your rhetorical question about how long we should remain in Iraq, I will ask you; How long should we remain in Germany or Japan? Are you troubled by that "occupation"?

 

[LakeAriel]

quote from Dawn:


.... that are blowing up women and children, blowing up mosques, firing mortors at public buildings, killing innocent citizens going about their business,

You mean this administration, correct?

 

[DawnCt1]

It is a civil war. They are fighting with each other because we toppled Saddam and created a power vacuum. The religious and ethnic sects ini Iraq cannot develop a democracy because they have hated each other since time immemorial. Only a tyrant who tramples on civil liberties can make them get along.

Is that why the US is still there? So we can be the biggest bully on the playground and enforce order?

There is not a power vacuum, there is a power struggle. They won't be the first country that will have to resolve their religious and ethnic differences and get along. I believe the United States had to do the same. We are trampling on no one's civil liberties, a phrase that didn't exist in Iraq by the way, until Americans liberated them. Again, we are there until they can defend themselves. Would you prefer anarchy and chaos???

 

[DawnCt1]

quote from Dawn:


.... that are blowing up women and children, blowing up mosques, firing mortors at public buildings, killing innocent citizens going about their business,

You mean this administration, correct?

I think that your question is absolutely demeaning to the men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis in Iraq. You really NEED to familiarize yourself with the rules of engagement before you make such outrageous, ridiculous commentary. You are truly misguided. Our soldiers have been very judicious in their use of force, often at great peril to themselves. You truly should be ashamed.

 

[eclectics]

And are you under the illusion that it will happen at all if the USA cuts and runs? Yet that seems to be the answer coming from the left. It seems as if more blood shed is the left's answer as long as they can blame President Bush. I fail to fathom hatred of a man so deep that the answer is to allow Iraq to fail so they can win.

And just where did I suggest we cut and run? If anyone here is under any illusion, it is you and your blind hatred of anyone who disagrees with this administrations handling of this situation. Even Senator Graham last night admited the administration made tons of mistakes. I wish very much for Iraq to become a democracy. All I said is that it is going to take a hell of a lot more effort from others, as well as us, to accomplish this. Fighting the insurgents is just part of the problem. It seems to me that we learned nothing from the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Russian occupation of Afghanistan as to the mind set of peoples who have hated each other for centuries.

 

[What the Heck]

So is it your position we should be there forever?

No, but it is my position that we should never cut and run. Never. We did in the 90's and it led to 9/11. I could turn it around and ask do you want to see more of our cities being attacked?

I can hear the screams from the left as they begin thier "it's not the same, you are blaming Clinton for 9/11" routine. There is a direct corelation. They (those from the mideast) simply do not live in the same part of the world as we do. They have different values. And they watch everything we do. Do we have to accept those values as our own? No, but we must respect them. If we ignore them, and Clinton did ignore them with just about every action he took, we invite another attack.

Attack Iraq for what?

Ever see "Cats and Dogs"? There is one scene where the main cat (towards the end of the movie) is burning down the factory, and he has one of his underlings stay behind. When asked why, the answer comes "Because I hate you".

They fought a war for 8 years in the 80's (remember the talking point from the left that the Republicans were responsible for Hussein?) that in some peoples minds is still going on. They hate each other.

There were no Democrats in the WH while Saddam Hussein was considered a friend to this country.

But while you have your crystal ball working as to what Democrats would've done regarding Saddam Hussein, maybe your crystal ball can tell me the numbers for tomorrow night's lottery. Thanks in advance.

And no democrats in the Congress? You know, the part of the Federal Government given responsibility for the budget by the Constitution? Wow, I must have slept through that clean sweep. Never claimed there was a Democrat in the White House (what a great 10 years that was).

Foreign policy is not exclusively decided by who is in the White House. They have a major part, but funding must be appropriated, and it is not always just a rubber stamp. So, what Democrats were saying how evil Hussein was in the 1980's? What Democrats were saying no to funding for Iraq (and risking losing the next election at home because that would be backing Iran)?

 

[cardaway]

Again, we are there until they can defend themselves. Would you prefer anarchy and chaos???

Until who can defend themselves? All sides on this issue arew Iraqi, and without our involvment, they all would be committing "terror" acts on eachother.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

as much of all of us hold abhore the criminal acts committed by Hussein, you've got to admit he held an incendiary country together. our forced democracy sure isn't doing the trick. like it or not, guerilla warfare is extremely effective. George Sr. warned little muffin-head not to invade Iraq because there was no exit strategy. otherwise he would have done it in the first Gulf war. you can't fight fanatical religious types, they'll always follow their leader or their brainwashed beliefs. that applies to the 34% left in this country as well.