Iraq Revisited

[CptSternn]

So, it appears all the war threads were removed or were merged then removed. Only found one dealing with WMD's, so I figured I start a new one.

I'm just curious to where all the pro-bush pro-war people went? When the going gets tough, the tough abandon their thinking and go mainstream, which is now the same accusedly liberal stance I took when I started debating the topic here?

I mean, I remember a few threads and debates on the subject, now we have none and those who were arguing for the war and bush and the existance of WMD's haven't posted in months.

I had an excuse for not being here - where is everyone else?

I'm not one to say I told you so, but...err.., well, I guess I am

Yes, I am trying to stir the pot. It's getting rather dull here, and with the president getting a new scandal in the news everyday, hell, I couldn't start enough new threads on the topic of ol' gw if I wanted to! Tis the main reason I let the website I was hosting and helping run 'The Axis Of Evil' expire. I mean, when I started it back after 9-11 when bush went all security crazy and was talking about war, I had to search every news wire for days just to get a handful full of articles to post. Now, every major news paper, show, radio station, and news wire has a dozen storeys a day that would fix on the site - I got so bogged down trying to keep up I said, 'why the hell am I now trying to setup a clearinghouse website for bush/iraq articles and his abuses when now, every site with a news feed has the exact same articles?'

I went from being labeled as an anti-american, anti-patriotic, left-wing crazy to mainstream lad who is right in line with 3/4 of America overnight. How the hell did that happen?

So, back to my original question - where does everyone stand NOW?

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I went from being labeled as an anti-american, anti-patriotic, left-wing crazy to mainstream lad who is right in line with 3/4 of America overnight. How the hell did that happen?

Hehe... It didn't. 2/3rds of Americans don't find 9/11 funny, don't laugh at pictures of dead US soldiers, and don't consider all Americans to be fat and stupid (of which you are one, if you still possess your dual citizenship, yank).

Ah well. You're back to being a miniscule minority, Sternn. Enjoy your extremism and be proud of your radical beliefs.

And yes, kudos on being arrested. As much as you try to brag about it, being arrested and found guilty is still associated with being a fuck up. But being a fuck up is cool, right? I mean, all of your friends over there are doing it. It must be cool! LOL.

[WolfMoon]

Slightly right of the middle ground.

I don't agree with a lot of the things Bush is supposedly trying to do(like changing laws to get yet another term, if it's even true.), but I still think he's better than Kerry.


I'd actually like to see someone like Obama run for President. He seems like a decent candidate, but I haven't done much research on him.

As far as Iraq goes, I think we all agreed that it's almost impossible for us to think of pulling out. As with sex, it's not always a good thing.

[CptSternn]

Hehe... It didn't. 2/3rds of Americans don't find 9/11 funny, don't laugh at pictures of dead US soldiers, and don't consider all Americans to be fat and stupid (of which you are one, if you still possess your dual citizenship, yank).

Ah well. You're back to being a miniscule minority, Sternn. Enjoy your extremism and be proud of your radical beliefs.

First, I have lost almost 3 stone since moving back to the island, and am currently werkin' on me six pack. (damn, I'm lookin' good) But I digress...

My 'radical beliefs' are now reflected my the majority of American's. In a poll taken in the past month...

http://news.**********/s/nm/20060316/...sh_politics_dc

A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe Bush is "out of touch," the poll found. When asked for a one-word description of Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by "good," "idiot" and "liar." In February 2005, the most frequent reply was "honest."

I mean, his approval rating is almost in the 20's, right where his father was before he left office, but this bush still has a few years and no lights on the horizon. That means over 70% of America is against him - and I'm the minority? I mean even the troops have turned against him...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/030406a.html

...and the funny thing is, 85% of them still believe Sadaam was behind 9/11, because thats what they are still telling the troops to keep them there. Of course 72% say they should be going home now no matter what and that the war is no longer worth fighting. Are the troops now un-american since they no longer support the war?

As far as those pics, before I posted them 99% of people here and elsewhere had never seen dead bodies in Iraq as the bush adminstration went through great lengths and expenses to hide all coverage of dead bodies. Now, you see them daily, and look what it's done to the war support. Get a lot more real when you see the truth, and brutality, of what 'war' really is. It's not pretty, and it's not just a word, even though until recently most American's thought of it that way.

And yes, kudos on being arrested. As much as you try to brag about it, being arrested and found guilty is still associated with being a fuck up. But being a fuck up is cool, right? I mean, all of your friends over there are doing it. It must be cool! LOL.

Yes, I have been arrested. More than once. And I yes, I wear my convictions like a badge of honour. I mean, we could cite all the other persons in history who were jailed for their beliefs, but that would sound pretincious, placing myself next to them in some type of martyrs list. So feel free to think of all the men throughout time who fought and died for their beliefs, their ideals, and went to jail to fight unjust governments or civil policies, and know that I might never be as influential in my lifetime, I will however still at least strive to live my life in such a way that reflects what I feel inside no matter what the outcome may be or what overwhelming odds I might face.

If that makes me a 'fuck-up', then I am a proud 'fuck-up'.

[tenet_2012]

President Bush is live on TV right now.

Man, he is media savy. All he does is repeat the same jargon over and over and over.

How could a person like that be elected as our president? I don't think that he can tell the truth anymore.

*shakes head in disgust*

[horrorgirl]

Bush screwed up, no question about that. Remember when he was on that battleship and said that the 'war' was over? HA!!! He is still saying that 'fighting' Iraq is part of the war on terror. What a load of crap. I am totally disgusted with his administration and am glad that I didn't vote for him.

[tenet_2012]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So, back to my original question - where does everyone stand NOW?

When the times and circumstances change, people's minds change. I think that it is unfair for you to come in with that I-told-you-so bullshit. Because that is all it is... bullshit.

I am an American. I pay my taxes, vote and try to follow my country's laws. I never supported war, ever. I did, however, support our soldiers. I have friends over there right now. It would be wrong of me to start parading around picketing this war.

We are there. We made a mess. We now have to clean it up. So is the way of everything.

When people like yourself, start to bitch about a problem that isn't even yours, it annoys me. I will stand behind and support my friends. A self-righteous terrorist like yourself will never be able to change my mind about that.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

My 'radical beliefs' are now reflected my the majority of American's. In a poll taken in the past month...

Again, you never paid much attention, did you, Yank? That's alright, let me hold your hand through this one.

We had several anti-war critics here on this site. Tea, Granny, Dis (shortly before moving to Canada?), and others who were vocal. No one from the 'right' called them anti-American or extremists. That's because what they DIDN'T do that you DID, was post pictures of dead american soldiers while making a pointedly offensive attempt to use them as humor, post sick jokes about 9/11, and repeatedly called Americans in general; fat and stupid on this site.

That makes you about as mainstream as Osama Bin Laden amongst Americans, Sternn. Hey, he was an anti-war critic too!

So feel free to think of all the men throughout time who fought and died for their beliefs, their ideals, and went to jail to fight unjust governments or civil policies, and know that I might never be as influential in my lifetime, I will however still at least strive to live my life in such a way that reflects what I feel inside no matter what the outcome may be or what overwhelming odds I might face.

Welp, if you like to be compared to the likes of Timothy McVeigh, the K*K*k, Eric Robert Rudolph, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, awesome. Go for it. I somehow doubt that a.) your arrests had to do with anything even related to civil rights (especially when I can quote you saying, "Hey, China's not THAT bad!"), b.) were nonviolent, or c.) were significant in any sense, as you're entirely too embarassed to even admit that you were arrested for some misdemeanor violation (probably traffic related).

But whatever. Continue to be extremely vague and act like your Martin Luther King all you want without any kind of back-up. Anyone that really knows you here Sternn can smell the bullshit. You advocate the murder of innocent people/civilians, sometimes with nothing more to justify it than, "Well she was a tattle-tale!"

[CptSternn]

Actually, the only benefit I have found is that I can use it to walk right through the Canadian border without having to go through customs or any other security screening.

But glad to see everyone is now moving towards my side of the argument. No more of that 'we will find WMDs', or 'we DID find WMDs', or my favorite 'Sadaam was behind 9-11'.

I miss all those arguments. Too bad they were all removed so we can't reflect on them. But either way, I look forward to seeing all new comments here.

For example, on bushes speech today, the three things I, and the media, appeared to take out of it...

1. 'Future presidents will decide when we need to pull out of Iraq'
-Obviously expect troops to be there well beyond 2008, and even by his own time table, possibly past 2012

2. 'All war plans are good on paper until you meet the enemy'
- Yeah, no exit strategy, as is yer war plans are that far off, and the leader says wow, our plans were way far off, then yer screwed on an exit strategy.

3. 'Our strategy is to stop civil war...'
- When civil war breaks out, we also have no plan and will be floundering while more US troops die for no reason. Of course don't be surprised when gw goes back to congress in say 3 months for emergency funding to help pay for more troops/equipment/etc to be thrown at the problem of an un-winable war.

Just my observations. Anyone else out there agree/disagree?

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Too bad they were all removed so we can't reflect on them.

It is too bad... that you cried a pool of tears so vast and deep that the previous owner of this site was tired of being harassed about it and deleted them exclusively at your request. Guess you can't lament too much over that, huh?

[CptSternn]

Ahhh binkster - oh how we missed ye! Once again trying to change the topic with personal attacks. If I didn't think it was just yet another attempt to draw attention away from how wrong you were, and still are, on most of those previous arguments I might actually respond to those petty, childish taunts...

Anyone who is NOT afraid of their political views care to comment on how they feel about the current state of Iraq and or bush's current handling of the issue?

My points are pretty defined and laid out. Anyone with something meaningful to say care to comment/debate/challenge?

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Xnguela

So if this is NOT responding, what is responding? Cuz I'm pretty sure that by posting a response to her you were responding.

Maybe that's just me, though.

BA-Zing! filling in the additional words to fill the minimum post quota

[Ben Lahnger]

So, CptSternn, other than this being a big whiney rant about how screwed up it all is, what is your solution? And I mean what should people do today to make it right. Cause I'm thinking that the polls aren't ever going to influence Bush into budging on his policy. But if they did, what could he do?

What could possibly be done now that would make this better than continuing what we are doing now? Withdrawing all our forces from Iraq? What do you think would happen to that country if we just walk away now? How badly damaged would the Middle East become as a result of us leaving the country to that fate?

What would the other countries of the world, countries we rely on greatly for strategic and economic purposes; what would they think of us? How would they treat us and how would it impact us in the future?

I'm asking because I think it just doesn't matter anymore about the why's and how's of the mistakes that got us there. And I think that other than voting for other candidates and other parties in the next elections, that most of this is wasted energy. And I just want to hear what you think we should do.

[tenet_2012]

If we leave Iraq I think that Iran will assume control. And because of that, other Middle East countries will attack claiming that that land is their promised land or something.

We cannot pull-out now. Period. We have to clean-up this mess. Give them another dictator. I don't believe that they can survive with a democratic government.

They are different from us.

[CptSternn]

Ben -

Nice post. My answer would be to pull out. See, your still thinking you can win. You can't. Iraq is unwinable. Like Vietnam, you have to cut and run. Now thats not popular, but as the war drags on and more deaths pile up and the news that comes out gets worse and worse, the American people will demand an immediate pullout.

And yes, all those bad things will happen, but thats how it goes. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, the North Vietnameese poured in and communism prevailed, but hey, was that the end of the world? did America suffer anything other than loss of pride?

Sadaam is gone, there are no WMD's, and so this whole thing has become one big pissing contest to see who has the bigger balls. Bush and his cronies won't back down because he is to narrowminded and has that whole texas thing going on. My opinion is he would be willing to bankrupt the country and let every soldier die there just to prove he isn't willing to back down. Question is, will everyone in American let him?

I mean, the US is the only first world country, supposedly a super-power even, that doesn't have free healthcare. Even emerging African nations are instituting free healthcare. The EU requires it. And right now the US is spending how many BILLIONS a month to fight this war? My advise is to pull out, take it on the chin, and take all that cash flow and re-route it into healthcare for the American people. The politicans always say there is no money in the budget for it, but somehow found BILLIONS a month to pour into war.

What they mean to say is there is no money to be made pouring cash into healthcare as where war makes a small group of companies with close ties to the current administration alot of money.

So my answer, pull out now. You can't win, and the longer you stay the worse off you will be. A good leader knows when to fall back. Hell, bush could even try to do one of those new names for old things and call it a 'strategic advancement to the rear' or something and try to save face.

Yes, it will embolden the enemy, but as you already know but probably haven't figured out, since Sadaam DIDN'T have WMD's, then chances of him attacking the states was nil. So therefore if you pull out, you can be sure the new Iraqi government isn't going to launch some attack, and if they do the troops will be at home to defend, not that it would be much of an issue, as since most of the country doesn't have running water I don't see them launching an attack half a world away. And if yer worried about terrorists, guess what? They are out there and always will be. If you worry about them all yer life then you have already lost the war. If all those new security measures can't protect you now, they won't protect you ever.

At this point bush has started to quote Lyndon Johnson said we can fight them there or fight them here, this war is winnable, and a few other classic Johnson quotes he has since ressurected in this war.

But face it, it is un-winable, and people are dying for no reason. Take the resources and put them where they are WANTED and needed.

So pull out now and at least save a few lives.

[ExistentialDisorder]

Sadam needed to be removed from power. he was.

As for the rest of the war, I don't think Iraq is winnable either. While I think that it's pointless to continue the war, I also think that as soon as the US does pull out, whether it's now or 10 years from now, the pseudo government that is there will collapse.

As for Sadam being behind 9/11, i'm sure he had something to do with it. maybe not in the planning but at least in the funding. somewhere in the mess of things, somehow, he and/or his sons were involved.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by tenet_2012

If we leave Iraq I think that Iran will assume control. And because of that, other Middle East countries will attack claiming that that land is their promised land or something

Tenet-

Your in the right ballpark mate. Remember that whole Iran/Iraq war that took place for like the past few decades? Yeah, the Sheits and Sunnis fighting over who controled Iraq. The US backed the Sunnis to help keep them fighting as we found out in the Iran/Contra affair. By keeping them fighting they couldn't really progress in the world. So the US helped perpetuate the idea that the Iranians did indeed control Iraq and at the same time told the Sunni's that no one should come in and take their land. But in reality, if you go by standard demographics and democratic rule, then the Sheits should be in control, they are the vast majority, and they pledge their allegence to Iran. Thats the crux right there. If democracy DOES take off, much like bush boasting just last year after arafat kicked the bucket that Palestein would have it's first free and open elections, if you give them democracy, they will use it to elect who they want, who is exactly who the US doesn't want them to pick. Oh the irony. But like Russia, Vietnam, and every other country the US has had to concede something to at some point, at the end of the day it's that sovern nations decision. You can't control those nations, so why not just engage in proper diplomacy. Works for everyone else.

Give them another dictator. I don't believe that they can survive with a democratic government. They are different from us.

Also a good observation. These lads were fighting before white men ever even ventured into their neck of the woods. So to think some alien culture can come in with their rules/laws/policies and in a few years turn everything around is just plain ignorant. I mean, many people think of these people as out of touch animals living out in the desert, but guess what? It's by choice. They have the internet, satellite telly, cell phones, and all that good stuff. They choose their own way of life. They, much like the amish, have seen the wonders of the future, but because of their religion choose to live differently. Same goes for their government. What works in one place doesn't work in another. To come from half a world away and expect to force your way of life on a people because you feel it's 'better' is insane. Not only is it offensive, belittling, and immoral, it just won't work in many situtations.

Look at the US revolution. The colonists fought back because britain tried to rule them as they did their own subjects. That style of rule didn't work half a world away. They were out of touch with the people. Much like the states in Iraq - they can't get a feel for it because they are outsiders who have never lived there, and only know what works in their world, with their people, and in their religous context.

There was a show on BBC the other night where politicans and scholars are now leaning towards the idea that maybe, possibly, Sadaam had it right, at least on some levels, and that his style of rule is the only thing that will keep the peace there. Once again, ironic, but we will see...

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Remember that whole Iran/Iraq war that took place for like the past few decades? Yeah, the Sheits and Sunnis fighting over who controled Iraq. The US backed the Sunnis to help keep them fighting as we found out in the Iran/Contra affair.

WHAT IN THE FUCK are you talking about? Do you even know? It's like you're just trying to make the world as stupid as you are.

Let's review:

1.) Quite a good number in Iraq's military at the time consisted of Shia troops. Iran tried to appeal to the Shia of Iraq, but failed to convince them to rise up in any significant fashion against Saddam. Saddam, in turn, tried the same with Iran's Sunni minority. It resulted in failure as well. Most of these people were nationalistic and stood their ground in Iraq or Iran respectively. So no, it wasn't Shia vs. Sunni. It was Iran verses Iraq.

2.) The war wasn't about who controled Iraq. It was over a boundry dispute.

3.) The Iran/Contra affair showed we backed the Sunnis? You do know we sold arms to the SHIA of Iran in that affair, right? Which was strictly an arms for hostages deal at the time.

4.) "For like the past few decades?" Try one decade.

[CptSternn]

The Shia that fought were factions that have since rejoined the majority in Iraq. It's like this - if you have never lived in an occupied country, you have no frame of reference. There are dozens of lads in the british military who hold allegence to ireland. In fact, the lad just recently arrested for the IRA bombing of the biritsh base in Germany was a former Blackwatch soldier. He was in the Blackwatch, patrolled Belfast, but was a member of the IRA. Just because Shai fought in the Iran/Iran war doesn't mean they were Sadaam loyalists and believed in Iraq winning. It just means they knew how the game was played, got their military training and weapons, and used the system to their advantage. It's what you do when your country is under occupation, play the naive, act the part, rise up when the time is right. Look at every major government thats every been toppled from within.

In fact, thats what the bush administration was counting on when they invaded this time. They talk about it in various pre-war speeches.

The 'boundry dispute' was quite a sizeable chunkn of land, IN IRAQ. Like now, as the different groups tend to live together in various parts of Iraq, that boundry was the difference bewteen a large group of Shai living in Iran or Iraq. Prior to the brits splitting it up just a few decades ago it was one big Shai region.

And yes, you are correct, the US sold arms to the Shia. At the same exact point in time the US was sending aid to Sadaam, seen all those pics of rumsfeld shaking his hand? That was all the same time period under reagan. Furthers my point the US was playing both teams at the same time against each other - outfitting each with weapons to fight each other, but claiming to support Iraq.

But you still have yet to weigh in on what you think about Iraq these days and your solution on what to do...avoiding the question this time not by personalk attacks but trying once agan to nitpick small details that have no real bearing on the agurment. You have spent 3 posts now not saying anything about where you stand or what you think should happen.

If your at a loss say so. If your confused let us know. But really, you should stop avoiding the topic and post something meaningful here.

[CptSternn]

[quote=ExistentialAs for Sadam being behind 9/11, i'm sure he had something to do with it. maybe not in the planning but at least in the funding. somewhere in the mess of things, somehow, he and/or his sons were involved.[/QUOTE]

As mentioned in that article I posted, the us government has now conceded this is 100% false. Just for reference, these groups fight. They hate each other. In fact, Bin Laden supports the Iran faction to take over Iraq. Those groups that rose up that the bush admin were counting on were comprised of men like Bin Laden. To say Bin Laden would have worked with a government he was trying to internally overthrow is insane. Sadaam had his own go-to men for that kind of thing. Tis why Bin Laden stayed in Afghanistan. Sunnis and Shites do not get along.

It would be like saying the IRA was working with the loyalists to help the british government occupation.

Or saying that back in the 1700's, the Minutemen in America worked with the tories to help further the british occupation there.

Things that just would never happen, no matter what.

[Binkie]

First off, Sternn, shut the fuck up about Northern Ireland. I just don't give a fuck what happened in that tiny little part of the UK. You only moved there long after the Good Friday Aggreement. Next to that, the UK is NOTHING like Iraq. Nothing. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, in case you didn't get the memo. You're not being occupied if it's your own god damn troops being stationed there. And don't come back trying to tell me about Ireland should be as one and all this bullshit cause I don't care and it doesn't negate the fact that the UK has it's own troops stationed on IT'S OWN TERRITORY in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, your bullshit arguements of, "Well, you know, the history books may say I'm bullshitting but I have first hand experience," don't hold any weight. Sorry. It's still bullshit and you're still factually wrong as hell. Try picking up a book, reading an encycopedia, or enroll in a college course to learn, because chances are, you're not just going to suddenly alter history on the Iran-Iraq war because YOU lived in Northern Ireland for a few months.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Just because Shai fought in the Iran/Iran war doesn't mean they were Sadaam loyalists and believed in Iraq winning. It just means they knew how the game was played, got their military training and weapons, and used the system to their advantage.

I love how you also simplfy it down to Sunni vs. Shia, completely neglecting the fact that it was also about Arab vs. Persian. Again though, many Arabs in the provice of Khuzestan remained there to fight against Iraqis. Nationalism reigned supreme in the Iran-Iraq war. And yes, they did believe in Iraq winning, my man, that's WHY THE SHIA CITIZENS OF IRAQ FOUGHT the Iranians in Basra and WHY THE ARAB CITIZENS OF IRAN fought the Iraqis in Khuzestan. They viewed the Iranians and Iraqis as the invaders respectively, but hell, I shouldn't need to talk to you about this. YOU LIVED IN NORTHERN IRELAND FOR A FEW MONTHS!

It's what you do when your country is under occupation, play the naive, act the part, rise up when the time is right. Look at every major government thats every been toppled from within.

R-i-g-h-t. So you're telling me if Libya had invaded Northern Ireland/UK in the 80s, no one from the IRA would have joined alongside of Libyan forces?

The 'boundry dispute' was quite a sizeable chunkn of land, IN IRAQ.

IT WASN'T IN IRAQ. This just SHOWS how little you know of what you're talking about. Iraq was the aggressor in this war, FYI. It was Khuzestan inside of IRAN. It's been the subject of many historical battles between Persia and Mesopotamia - that being one of the reasons there's a large Arab population in this province. And no, it's not that big a chunk of land. But it does step on Iran's soverignty to annex it.

[quote]Furthers my point the US was playing both teams at the same time against each other - outfitting each with weapons to fight each other, but claiming to support Iraq.[/quotes]
They weren't playing both sides of the field - the situation was somewhat forced, as Iran had direct influence in whether or not Lebonese terrorists would release American hostages from a hijacked plane. They used that to bring the US to the table and aquire badly need arms sales, as they were running real short, real quick.

You have spent 3 posts now not saying anything about where you stand or what you think should happen.

I've rarely, if ever, argued beliefs, Sternn. But everytime you say something factually incorrect in your off-topic tirades, you can bet I'll be there to straighten your shit out.

[CptSternn]

Wow, once again, not one mention of the current state of Iraq, bush and his policies, and nothing about how you think it should be fixed.

But good job dodging the question once again and trying to drag me into some personal flame war.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Ben -

Nice post. My answer would be to pull out. See, your still thinking you can win. You can't. Iraq is unwinable. Like Vietnam, you have to cut and run.

I don't believe a democracy is sustainable in Iraq as it stands now. I think Tenet is right about those people being different. But I also happen to think that no amount of poll results or blogging or protests are going to make Bush pull out. You might get Congress to act if enough of them thought their jobs were in peril, but Bush just isn't listening. So yell "Pull out!" all you want ... I just don't think it's going to happen. And that's why I said in my last post "And I think that other than voting for other candidates and other parties in the next elections, that most of this is wasted energy." Because someone has to come up with a better answer than "Let's all protest until Bush decides to pull our troops out." That ain't happening.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

And yes, all those bad things will happen, but thats how it goes. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, the North Vietnameese poured in and communism prevailed, but hey, was that the end of the world? did America suffer anything other than loss of pride?

That is true, but the region of the world where Vietnam is was nowhere nearly as important to our economic and political future as the middle east. I think everyone can see that the repurcussions of just walking away and letting it colapse into civil war are far greater than Vietnam ever was.

And by the way, I would suggest that we could have won Vietnam if we had really committed to it. If we'd have bombed North Korea to the stone age when we could, would we be dealing with the monster that is developing nuclear weapons there now?

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Sadaam is gone, there are no WMD's, and so this whole thing has become one big pissing contest to see who has the bigger balls.

There may indeed have been some testosterone checking going on, but there is no question that Iraq was (and still is) harboring members of Al Queda. I just don't think Saddam had much to do with that, Hell, Pakistan can't even police them, and the president there WANTS them out.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I mean, the US is the only first world country, supposedly a super-power even, that doesn't have free healthcare.

Okay, this is where you bring peripheral issues in and start rambling a bit. The health care and other economic questions are moot if you can't convince Bush to pull out.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So my answer, pull out now. You can't win, and the longer you stay the worse off you will be. A good leader knows when to fall back. Hell, bush could even try to do one of those new names for old things and call it a 'strategic advancement to the rear' or something and try to save face.

So pull out now and at least save a few lives.

I'll tell you the best possible, real solution to this mess as I see it now. Bush keeps us there for the remainder of his term. Lives are lost, people complain and protest about the increasing tragedy, but he refuses to be swayed. As he says every chance he gets "I don't pay attention to the polls."

So next election (2008) we get a Democrat or maybe (there are a few out there) an enlightened Republican in the office. And the new guy doesn't have all the baggage of the whole debacle with the UN. So he (or she ... it's a possibility) has two outs.

Declare that it is no longer in our interest to be there and pull out. No skin off his nose, 'cause it wasn't his policy in the first place. And the world can't look at him/her and say "You didn't keep your word." No problem.

Or, go to the UN and ask for them to institute a mutlinational peacekeeping force. Less likely, but that route is impossible right now because most of the members are still pissed at Bush for invading. New guy gets a chance because he's not Bush. Hell, he can even go before them with his hat in his hand and go "I wish you folks would help us out, 'cause frankly, I don't know what that cowboy was thinking." Okay, longshot at best, but still worth an effort. Especially since it's in a lot of those folks back yard, and having it disintigrate into a civil war is definitely not in their interests.

But get over this call for pulling out, because our fearless lonestar leader has a 10 gallon hat full of stubborness ... and earplugs.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Wow, once again, not one mention of the current state of Iraq, bush and his policies, and nothing about how you think it should be fixed.

But good job dodging the question once again and trying to drag me into some personal flame war.

Frankly, I really don't care about your question there, bub. It was unrelated to what I was talking about and it's only purpose was to serve your own interests in changing subjects from one you cited false information on repeatedly (kind of like bringing up Northern Ireland when the discussion was on the Iran-Iraq war).

[tekajo]

This reminds of the Band Camp chick.
"According the best seller novel by Brown, Jesus was-"
"...yeah yeah mate, but this one time in Northern Ireland..."

"The earth, my people, is indeed not flat for I calcu-"
"...but I'm a dual citizen, and this one time, in Northern Ireland I stumbled outta pub and..."

Everything reverts to Northern Ireland. No matter what you talk about.

i still stand by my original beliefs, mate.

Oh, and *hugs Binkie.
No Sternn, you can't have any.