"Hate Speech" or the Truth?

[ThAnswr]

Facts not wishful thinking...

#1-9/11 hijackers Saudi nationals not Iraqi
#2-Planner of 9/11 Osama a Saudi national not an Iraqi
#3-Support for and training facilities provided by Afghanistan/Taliban not Iraq/Saddam
#4-US response to 9/11 targets Afghanistan and AQ and removes Taliban as support for AQ
#5-No commission/congressional report supports anything but a 1-time meeting on a most casual level with anyone from AQ and an Iraqi. Conclusion no connection between Iraq and 9/11
#6-Iraq has no delivery system of greater than 600 mile range; therefore, cannot reach mainland USA
#7-Other than blustering from Saddam no physical evidence of WMD.
#8-No weapons of anykind from Iraq supplied to AQ or Hamas or Hezballah, etc.

So how was Iraq as outlined in Bush speech in 2002 and Cheney's many speechs an imminent threat to mainland USA. Did Saddam plan on launching a sea/air borne invasion since no long-range missiles? Invading Iraq to support regime change and nation building is and always be a failed policy.

If we sent a time-table for withdrawal one of two things will happend:
1) Insurgents go underground to await our leaving. This will quiet things down in Iraq allowing for rebuilding infrastructure, training of Iraq security forces in a quiet environment and political changes can go forward including elections without intimidation.
OR
2) Insurgents continue attacks.

#1 is what 'we' want so it seems that withdrawall will actual accomplish the USA goals.

#2 is no different from current situation except that Iraqi's will have a deadline by which they will need to gear up to take over and secure themselves from the insurgents and our troops will have a definite date when they will return home to our thanks.

Refute any of the above with facts not 'suppositions and wishfull thinking'.

Bush's approval rating for his handling of the war in Iraq is down to 34%. That's his base and that's what you're seeing here defending the war in Iraq. You're not going to change these people. They not only drank the Kool-aid, they're marinating in it. They can't refute the facts other than with the same old rhetoric that was so successful in the lead-up to the war and of which they are still the true believers. These people would continue to support Bush if he assaulted a nun or ended up in the sack with Michael Jackson.

 

[Viking]

Bush's approval rating for his handling of the war in Iraq is down to 34%. That's his base and that's what you're seeing here defending the war in Iraq. You're not going to change these people. They not only drank the Kool-aid, they're marinating in it. They can't refute the facts other than with the same old rhetoric that was so successful in the lead-up to the war and of which they are still the true believers. These people would continue to support Bush if he assaulted a nun or ended up in the sack with Michael Jackson.

I guess he's to old for Jacko -but wait: I saw a series of pictures with a chimpanzee making faces exactly like Bush, so perhaps he can replace Bubbles

 

[Lebjwb]

Dead terrorists are safer for us than live ones. That wasn't so hard, was it?

So Bu$h's war strategy is to kill terrorists in Iraq so they won't kill us in the states? You bought that argument Joey? See if you can peddle that clap trap to the folks in London Joey. What kind of a response do you think you'll get?Bu$h pimps those talking points just for neo-cons like you. He knows his base has the intellectual depth of a puddle. Even for a moron like Bu$h it's a no brainer.

So Joey, tell us why Bu$h is down to 34%.

 

[bimshire]

So Bu$h's war strategy is to kill terrorists in Iraq so they won't kill us in the states? You bought that argument Joey? See if you can peddle that clap trap to the folks in London Joey. What kind of a response do you think you'll get?Bu$h pimps those talking points just for neo-cons like you. He knows his base has the intellectual depth of a puddle. Even for a moron like Bu$h it's a no brainer.

So Joey, tell us why Bu$h is down to 34%.

Yes Joey, go ahead and tell us, or do you have to call the moron first?

 

[DawnCt1]

"Harebrained" to cowardly old Europe and those who grabbed up Saddam's bribe money.

Most families are proud of their sons and daughters who fought and died for freedom in Iraq. Capturing OBL is no cure against terrorism. Tough, consistent, and long world unity against all terrorists and their supporters is the best cure, but too many think it's someone else's problem or if we are nice to the terrorists then maybe they will go away.

Well said Joe. The men and women who died honorably, in service to their country were all volunteers who knew the risks, understood the mission and were proud to be Americans.

 

[peachgirl]

Dead terrorists are safer for us than live ones. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Not hard at all except that the question was not about terrorists, it was about insurgents....not the same thing.

The men and women who died honorably, in service to their country were all volunteers who knew the risks, understood the mission and were proud to be Americans.

Yes they were, and along with that a great many of them were not in favor of or have become disillusioned with Bu$h's war.

Btw, while they may have known the risks, a great many of them, especially those in the reserves, never expected to become such a major part of the fighting force. Many of them also didn't expect that Bu$h would stretch the military so thin that we'd be calling up middle aged men who are established in their careers or that we'd be holding them in for multiple tours of duty, extended tours..etc.

 

[DawnCt1]

Not hard at all except that the question was not about terrorists, it was about insurgents....not the same thing.



Yes they were, and along with that a great many of them were not in favor of or have become disillusioned with Bu$h's war.

Btw, while they may have known the risks, a great many of them, especially those in the reserves, never expected to become such a major part of the fighting force. Many of them also didn't expect that Bu$h would stretch the military so thin that we'd be calling up middle aged men who are established in their careers or that we'd be holding them in for multiple tours of duty, extended tours..etc.

The "insurgents are terrorists. They are one in the same. They are targeting the civilian population along with the military. Frankly, I am at a loss why anyone in the Reserves would NOT expect to become a major part of the deployment. 40% to 50% of our military human assets are in the Guard and Reserves and it has been that way since the 1970's. The military doesn't practice "age discrimination". If you are physically fit to serve, then you can wear the uniform with pride knowing that you can be called at any time to serve your country. Employers must and do hold your job open during your absence, as they should. If a man or a woman doesn't feel that they can leave their families, leave their jobs or careers, they could have resigned.

 

[DisDuck]

Yes, it is a volunteer force but can you explain why enlistment and re-enlistment is down if the troops are eager to support the effort? The Iraq war has been going on for only 2 1/2 years must of those who enlisted before 3/2003 did not expect to go to Iraq.

By the way where is the home-front sacriface that is been asked of us civilians in past wars. LBJ tried to fight a war on a tax cut and look what Viet Nam did to the economy. During WWII, we had rationing and other civilian sacrifaces.

The lesson that has been learned from Viet Nam is that the troops are not at fault. There is no more spitting at returning soldiers; no more being treated as criminals. I suspect that 99% if the anti-war movement has nothing but admiration for our troops. It is the policy makers who has led our troops into a no-win situation. It is these policy makers who have not accepted responsibility for making mistakes and having no plans for what to do after Saddam was overthrown.

 

[DisDuck]

Oh and by the way our military believes that the majority of the fighters are home-grown insurgents, in fact primarly Sunni's still aligned with Saddam and not foreign 'terrorists'. So we are not fighting terrorists over there so as to not fight them over here (a bunch of garbage anyway) but Iraqi's who don't want the US to occupy their country.

 

[DawnCt1]

Yes, it is a volunteer force but can you explain why enlistment and re-enlistment is down if the troops are eager to support the effort? The Iraq war has been going on for only 2 1/2 years must of those who enlisted before 3/2003 did not expect to go to Iraq.

By the way where is the home-front sacriface that is been asked of us civilians in past wars. LBJ tried to fight a war on a tax cut and look what Viet Nam did to the economy. During WWII, we had rationing and other civilian sacrifaces.

.

I think you are always going to have a segment of enlistees who were under the illusion that the military was a scholarship program and not what it is intended to be. While some segments may be "home grown" and large number of the insurgents are from Syria and Iran. With regard to sacrifice, the American people got a tax cut and tax revenues increased. Why would you want to raise taxes and decrease revenue? What "sacrifices" are needed by the government from the American people when our economy is doing just fine and we have the resources we need? Sacrifice for sacrifice sake with no basis in fact seems somewhat disingenuous.

 

[peachgirl]

What "sacrifices" are needed by the government from the American people when our economy is doing just fine and we have the resources we need? Sacrifice for sacrifice sake with no basis in fact seems somewhat disingenuous.

Hmmmmm...Gas at $3 a gallon and going higher, being so dependent on foreign oil that they can practically hold us hostage...

I can think of a few areas where some sacrifice might be in order.

Then again, if Bu$h did that all the keyboard soldiers would start bucking up and might just not be so thrilled with this war. Soldiers dying is one thing, but ask us to give up our SUV's???...Hey now, that's going just a little too far.

If you are physically fit to serve, then you can wear the uniform with pride knowing that you can be called at any time to serve your country.

I said they knew the possibility existed...just don't try and claim that simply because they chose to enlist they're all thrilled with what they're being made to do....they aren't.

 

[DawnCt1]

Hmmmmm...Gas at $3 a gallon and going higher, being so dependent on foreign oil that they can practically hold us hostage...

I can think of a few areas where some sacrifice might be in order.

Then again, if Bu$h did that all the keyboard soldiers would start bucking up and might just not be so thrilled with this war. Soldiers dying is one thing, but ask us to give up our SUV's???...Hey now, that's going just a little too far.



I said they knew the possibility existed...just don't try and claim that simply because they chose to enlist they're all thrilled with what they're being made to do....they aren't.

How about drilling in Alaska? If you own an SUV are you going to give it away? The market will drive the demand for the type of cars Americans are willing to fuel. It happened in the 70's, it will happen again. Soldiers aren't dying for oil so how is giving up SUV's rational? With regard to the soldiers and their families who are deployed and serving in the war on terror. A recent poll determined that 80% support the mission and the president.

 

[peachgirl]

How about drilling in Alaska? If you own an SUV are you going to give it away? The market will drive the demand for the type of cars Americans are willing to fuel. It happened in the 70's, it will happen again. Soldiers aren't dying for oil so how is giving up SUV's rational? With regard to the soldiers and their families who are deployed and serving in the war on terror. A recent poll determined that 80% support the mission and the president.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought some drilling in Alaska had been approved? At any rate...drill away. It won't make a significant difference though.

I'm not suggesting people give up their SUV's, I'm suggesting some type of gas rationing. Would that make it tough on those who own gas guzzlers? Yes. Would it be hard on a lot of people? Sure...that's why it's called sacrificing.

Soldiers aren't dying for oil

I'd like to see that poll rather than take your word for it if you don't mind.

Btw....In all honesty...Keep driving the gas guzzlers for all I care. I live in Oklahoma and I have to tell you, we're pleased as punch that gas is going as high as it is. Every field I drive by that has wells that have been idle for years are pumping like crazy.

Our wonderful Democratic governor is getting the credit for a booming economy, teacher pay raises along with full insurance benefits with 100% of the premiums being paid by the taxpayer, along with the promise of a nice tax rebate this spring are just a few good things happening here since gas went sky high.

It's not a good thing for the country, but from a purely selfish standpoint..it's a great thing!

 

[Viking]

Forget it, Peachgirl. She won't get it.
In another thread some time ago I said that one of the incentives for the Iraq war was oil and she and other neo-con posters stated that the fact that the oil-pice is higher now than before the war is proof enough that this wasn't a war for oil
Just because Bush and his cronies are to stupid to bring peace to that country and thus can't control Iraq's oil, they're trying to use their own failure as an argument against their opponents

As long as mommies can shuttle their kids to kindergarten or school in Hummers or Escalades, gas is far too cheap.

 

[ThAnswr]

Forget it, Peachgirl. She won't get it.

And they can't get it because the Bush true believers are so buried in the Bush myth. At a 34% aprroval for the handling of the war in Iraq, you're at the base. Unless something drastic happens, the base is going to stay solid for Bush. And, frankly, he can have them.

 

[treesinger]

I see a lot of complaining about how the war in Iraq was been mishandled. Point taken. Horse beaten. What I'd really like to know is, "What do we do now?" Should we pull out immediately? Carpet bomb. Set a short time limit? Do the hokey-pokey? (yeah yeah, some of you probably think we already are...).

Complaints abound. Solutions however are non-evident. So let's get constructive. Let's take it for granted that we royally screwed up in Iraq. What should be done now to correct it?

 

[treesinger]

I also agree that people who needlessly drive SUV's have no right to complain. I do hope though that you aren't begrudging larger families that need the room (I have a minivan 18-ish mpg) from owning what they need.

 

[treesinger]

How about drilling in Alaska? If you own an SUV are you going to give it away? The market will drive the demand for the type of cars Americans are willing to fuel. It happened in the 70's, it will happen again. Soldiers aren't dying for oil so how is giving up SUV's rational? With regard to the soldiers and their families who are deployed and serving in the war on terror. A recent poll determined that 80% support the mission and the president.

I'd love to support you there, but drilling in Alaska wouldn't make a worthwhile dent, except for the residents of Alaska that would benefit in jobs and income.

 

[treesinger]

At least we didn't support Saddam and OBL with money like the Reagan-administration did.
Do you really believe the crap you're posting? i.e. freedom in Iraq, War on terror, WMD in Iraq need any more proof for 'harebrained'
BTW, even a majority in the USA has meanwhile discovered that this war stinks.

I have to disagree with you on the "War on terror" charge being false. Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 for doing their dirty deeds. Known terrorists also were living in Iraq (Abu Nidal) and Saddam was ok with that. So Saddam harbored terrorists and aided and abetted in terrorism.

 

[ThAnswr]

I see a lot of complaining about how the war in Iraq was been mishandled. Point taken. Horse beaten. What I'd really like to know is, "What do we do now?" Should we pull out immediately? Carpet bomb. Set a short time limit? Do the hokey-pokey? (yeah yeah, some of you probably think we already are...).

Complaints abound. Solutions however are non-evident. So let's get constructive. Let's take it for granted that we royally screwed up in Iraq. What should be done now to correct it?

Pardon me, but mishandling a war is not one of those "gee, I'm sorry" situtations. There is no wiping the slate clean.

If you're truly interested in "solutions" the first thing you do is hold those accountable who mishandled this war. And that is one thing the American people failed to do. So basically, you got what you wanted.

There are lots of solutions and ideas out there. The Bush administration, because of their own arrogance in refusing to admit mistakes, isn't listening.

If you want to see solutions offered on this very board, you can do a search and you'll find quite a few solutions offered.

And if you to see a horse that's not only dead, but unrecognizable pulp, try telling Bush he's wrong. The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one. It isn't going to happen with Bush.

The only way you're going to solve the problems of this mishandled war is to, first, get rid of the biggest impediment to solutions there is, the Bush administration.