Four years ago, I felt a great amount of disdain for most Democratic positions, living here in Detroit, which is by some estimates the most liberal city in America and arguably the most dysfunctional of all cities. I have always valued the Republican positions of self-sufficiency, enterprise, free market, restraint in spending, etc.

To argue the beginning of the war, whether it was justified or wrong is pointless now, we have to finish what we've started 100%. This is where I disagree with the Democrats. I would guess most Americans want to finish what we started, even if they are unhappy with the progress of the war.

Careful, though: what I see that is a potential stumbling block to conservatives is the level of arrogance (God stays far from the proud) and the blame game (the latter I know people are tiring of). I think this is going to kill a lot of your chances to gain back more people for the next cycle.

Am I seeing the election results clearly??? Do you realize you lost every county in North and South Dakota? Most of Minnesota? All of Michigan's UP? Large parts of the West? I still can't believe it, looking at the results now! Much of this is rural, conservative country.

The Republicans staged the vote for authorization of the war in 2003 around their political ambitions and the Democrats unfortunately played into their nefarious trap.

Now we have a mess for which there is no military solution whatsoever.

What job is there left to be done in Iraq? What can we possibly do to stop a civil war and the regional, factional strife that goes back many centuries?

If you think Bush is some messiah that God appointed to bring peace to the Middle East or possibly bring on Armageddon, you are horribly mistaken.

Bush and his cabal got a boost from the Religious Right in hopes of bringing about the Second Coming and the corporations who simply saw a profit potential gladly funded this nightmare.

It will end, and unfortunately it will probably end very badly. That's not my wish and I hope I am wrong.

In contrast, Bush never admits to making errors even when they are all too obvious.

Wade

Don't take my word for it, listen to the expert:

Military force alone is not sufficient to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the U.S.-backed government, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Thursday. "This is critical," Gen. David Petraeus said in his first news conference since taking over command last month. He noted that such political negotiations "will determine in the long run the success of this effort."

Wade

Did people vote in anger against Republicans because they wanted us out and damn the consequences? Or, did the vote in anger because the war was bungled and they want us to get serious and win - and THEN come home?

Kahn,people want victory.I am involved in the local GOP and people are furious that our troops are having to fight a PC war.I can tell you as a Guardsman it is totally true.GW can win this war if he allows the military to win.Kahn people are not voting for the Dems,they are voting against Republicans for not fighting back.I have said in other post GW can get his base back if he whips out the Pardon Pen and the Veto Pen and FIGHT!

I live in one of those counties that the neocons lost -- and will never get back in my lifetime.
Kahn, you are still presenting "winning" in Iraq as if it's an option -- that's why you guys are doomed -- the rest of us figured out long ago that there is no positive outcome possible for this fiasco.
The only solution is to get out -- and drive the right back under their rock for another 40 years or so.

Well Kahn from every poll we've seen it looks like overwhelmingly the public believes A) we shouldn't have been there in the first place and B) we should extricate ourselves within a reasonable timetable from a place we should'nt have been in to begin with.

But I forgot, the latest edict from on high is, the public's will be damned and you guy's don't believe in polls anyway. Carry on.

Hmmm...When Obama announced his candidacy for President, he announced he already had a plan to bring the troops home in March 2008. To date, he has not brought forth any plan onto the Senate floor, nor has he even introduced his 'plan' to the fawning members of the MSM.

Has Barak meekly accepted the dictates of his boss Harry Reid, and will shamelessly go along with this new tactic?

So much for his claims of 'independence' from these kinds of partisan politics.

Thats right leftandproud, a poll of 1,003 adults is a good measuring stick as to what Americans want. The Dems got the Mid-term because all they said was "Bush sucks, vote for a change" blah, blah, I'm still shocked that the American public is that naive. They somehow managed to win an election, by critisizing Bush's plans, but not advocating any of their own.

Out of curiosity... why do some people (liberals)want to govern by polls, yet when the people don't want what they peddle, it's the "moral" thing to do?

So leaving Iraq because the one poll you decide to cite says people want a change in Iraq and infer that means leaving Iraq is A-OKAY and we must leave immediately...

But in actual polls (election) people vote to stop same sex marriage and yet those polls don't count?

You should have titled this post "Dems Want Iraq Surrender in Time For 2008 Election."

will - like it or not, both parties govern by polls and they are blatant liars for stating otherwise.

the very unfortunate choice the majority now face with respect to iraq is that almost every scenario looks untenable. if we stay - as bush would like it to be - we lose by attrition, fighting amongst a groundswell of sectarian violence that appears to be growing not diminishing - and at great financial and human cost. if we pull out, we leave a vacuum that could possibly further destabilize the region - but would stop the bloodletting of our own servicemen and women as well as plug the drain on our treasury. somewhere in between, there has to be an optimal policy - and that is why the dmes appear to be waffling.

So, a year and a half isn't enough time to secure things and arrange for an orderly withdrawal? I assume that's what labelling it "cut and run" means. This surge is supposedly going to bring about stability releatively quickly, if you believe the words of our leaders.

I thinkw we should bookmark this post, so if a Republican announces tha he wants troops brought home by fall of 2008, we can compare the reception. I assume it will be a bold brilliant decision then.

I will have to start contributing money to a Republican candidate who announces he is in favor of borrowing and spending unlimited amounts in order to keep soldiers in a war zone indefinitely. I may not like the Dems, but I'd like to not see piles of money wasted to fund an indefinite war.

A) we shouldn't have been there in the first place

yet dems voted to go there. do you know what monday morning quarterbacking means?

B) we should extricate ourselves within a reasonable timetable from a place we should'nt have been in to begin with.

straight from the redundancy department of redundancy.

those of you who think that the last election was some mandate for a withdraw from iraq are kidding yourselves. the dems did not win, the republicans lost by not sticking to the reasons why they were elected in the first place. but if you continue to believe that it is a mandate to withdraw where is the legislation? the cutting of funding? where is it dems? for that matter where are all the other things that the dems promised in the first 100 hours? have they done anything?

Matt, good to see you writing an entry.

Now, there is something you need to consider.

I call upon you in your capacity as editor of this blog to sack Mark Noonan in disgrace.

Yesterday, I posted from the caucusofcorruption site - your OWN BOOK - the profile of Mark in which he said he tried to enlist, but could not do so because of age restraints. His profile says that he is 42.

I also posted an article from the army journal which stated that in 2006 the maximum age of re-enlistment was raised to 42, and I called upon Mark to state publically, for the record, that he was going to try to re-enlist again before his 43rd birthday.

His reaction? He deleted the comment. He also lied, stating that the reason for comment deletion was that one of the links wasn't working. They both were, and are, still working fine.

The man does not want to answer the call to arms of his own president. In refusing to do so, and then covering it up with lies, he proves that he is a cynical hypocrite, and that damages the credibility of this blog.

I therefore call upon you as his editor - IN PUBLIC - to sack him in disgrace for failing to answer the call to arms of his own president, whilst promoting other people to go and die in Iraq on his behalf!

Con, once again, the baby is dead before it's conceived according to the left and if your party overwhelmingly voted for Gen. Petraeus, then why not listen to him and give it a last chance? Or will the left continue the cut-n-run rant until it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Try listening for once...would ya.

FGS, your party could have ended this war a number of times through various means and chose not to, instead they chose to ramp the anti-war rhetoric to a point where our enemies are strengthened and emboldened.

At this point, there is nothing your party can say that means diddly squat when it applies to the WOT since your party doesn't believe there is a WOT...period.

Wolf...you're an ass. Pleez go away so we can carry on a productive dialogue....pleez!

My point that the kooks that post here feel that they in some way need to prove that they are superior in one form or another is indicitive of the elitist mentalilty, hence whisperwolf, the lone dog that licks himself because he can.

Navydad, everything I have posted, I have been able to back up. Nothing I have posted has been exclusively my opinion.

Yesterdays exchange which resulted in my discovery that Mark could enlist now the age barrier has been raised, which was then rapidly censored WITH A LIE could not be regarded as anything BUT relevant. Many times this Blog has covered the need for people to go and fight in Iraq. It has been uncovered that one of the contributory writers qualifies, but that contributory writer immediately starts trying to avoid enlisting. The very least he could do is to say why!

I find the people who opposed the war are being more honest here, because at least they say from the start that they wouldn't enlist given a chance. Here we have someone encouraging the war, but refusing to enlist himself. How honest is that?

"we lose by attrition, fighting amongst a groundswell of sectarian violence that appears to be growing not diminishing - and at great financial and human cost."
Posted by: conscriptor at March 8, 2007 03:01 PM

I really dont know how argue agaisnt a broken record, anyone here have any advice?

Wolf "I find the people who opposed the war are being more honest here"

You leave out the most significant aspect of dissent, post invaision that is, the Monday Morning QB aspect that thus far, every single person that has opposed this war has so conveniently become.

If you'll look back, even you, were, according to the pols, not all that displeased with respect to our invaision, so before you continue to throw stones, remember your roots and back off.

Just because "you" don't believe in the cause, doesn't mean that those that "do" cannot.

The left's agenda has nothing to do with winning the WOT, conversely, only for political gain and to date, your side hasn't let us down.

And you wonder why we get pissed...it's because we don't roll over every time the polls say to, like some we know.

Additionally, regardless of Marks comments, he's one of the hosts and if in fact he's made a mistake...too bad. These guys are much busier than you and I and sh*t happens.

But for you to condemn him....I'd ban your ass.

Matt,

Perhaps you can answer some questions for me:

The original authorization for the use of force against Iraq was voted on in October 2002, one month before an election. By your logic, then, this war was timed around a political schedule. Given that the war was started for political gain, isn't it fitting that the war be ended for political gain as well?

Additionally, which is worse: starting a war for political gain, or ending a war for political gain?

Finally, why in the HELL do you think that removing all troops by September of 2008 will only benefit the Democrats? I think every Republican presidential candidate would love to be out of Iraq before the 08 elections, so they would no longer have to be beaten up for their predecessor's spectacular failures. Removing the war removes a Democratic talking point, so why would ending the war only benefit Democrats?

Salvelinus - Yes. OK. The resultant bloodbath, regional war, and crazy oil prices be damned. We shouldn't drive cars anyways and who cares about people dieing so long as they aren't Americans.

Cool. Good plan.

Your party's similar plan for SouthEast Asia resulted in the killing fields of Cambodia and mass slaughter in the former South Viet nam. But hey, who cares? Get out now!

If you know that an action you want to take will result in deaths, but you want to take it anyways, then you MUST be OK with the deaths your action will cause.

Liberals WANT Iraqi children to die.

Um, before you insult me - try to disprove the logic.

"But for you to condemn him....I'd ban your ass."

Frankly that doesn't surprise me, it comes from the same mentality that says "this person criticizes me, therefore they must be censored/gagged/excluded".

And no, I've NEVER supported the war. The fact that some politicians who called themselves democrat were not strong enough of heart to say from the start that they didn't agree with it, doesn't mean I agreed with it. You're putting words in my mouth, and you're not even putting the right words there.

As regards him being a host here and making a mistake, then yes, if I believed it was a genuine mistake, I'd agree with you. Mistakes do happen. We are all only human. But he has CONSISTENTLY, time and time again, gone in and removed opinions that clash with his own, and the removal of the post with regard to his age qualifying him to serve in iraq was deliberate, because it was specifically edited - and the edit didn't even tell the truth.

Going by the information that it can be assumed he either posted himself or is in full agreement of the posting of (and here I refer to the caucusofcorruption.com site again) he has served in a military capacity before, in the middle east no less, and thanks to the maximum age of enlisting being raised in 2006 now is if anything overqualified to apply. With military service in his background, not just anywhere but right where it's needed - the middle east - I have no doubt that he would be accepted gratefully into the armed services and they would be all too willing to post him back to the middle east. Remember it's HIS words that he tried to re-enlist after 9/11 but was unable to. Now he can. Why won't he?

I'm not going to try to answer that question, but I do believe HE owes it to people here to answer it.

Mark served already, Wolfie--why don't you? I'm sure the RCAF would take you.

'dad, these kooks are acting angry...still. Didn't they take congress in '06? Why are they acting like they didn't?

And when's the President gonna sign that minimum wage bill? Sal wants a raise!!!

"Mark served already, Wolfie--why don't you? I'm sure the RCAF would take you."

Show me a war where the objective is to defend the country from an illegal occupier, or a direct invader, and I'll sign up.

This war isn't it. This is an illegal occupation of another country for reasons unclear, that have changed from month to month.

Bush served already too - but not in a time of war. Sound familiar?

I'm not going to try to answer that question, but I do believe HE owes it to people here to answer it.

Posted by: Whisperwolf at March 8, 2007 06:24 PM

Nice post. I too was deleted for raising the age issue as being one of the reasons recruitment might be higher. Now I see why he deleted it.

Anyway Bush is in Brazil. Maybe he can get some of them to backfill as we redeploy to get Bin Laden.

Wolf, yore (intentionally God) true colors have surfaced. If in fact Mark already served, which I take him at his word, then frankly, you owe him an apology.

of course the democrats want out by 2008 for political reasons. I won't defend their time scale. ALL politicians always are trying to get re-elected and in general don't do the things that are best for those who govern all the time.

None the less , the point remains that every single justification that the Bush administration has provided - and as they have been disproved time and time again the reasons keep changing - has been shown to be patently false. What "job" do you want to accomplish. Unless you can actually define what "winning" is or what "job" we have to finish - it makes no sense to keep arguing.

I have asked this time and time again and I never get an answer in concrete terms. Define for me what this is you want to accomplish so we can discuss it.
Everybody here supports the abstract concepts of freedom, justice, and living a terror free wold. So stop your nonsense about how this a dichotomy about those who want the good and those who want destruction and defeat. Thats not what this is about. What it is about is defining specific strategies on what we should do..

Ill take a stab at it.

The job is to make Iraq self-sufficient to the point that the same terrorist elements which are tearing at the fringes wont have a viable opportunity to destroy its infrastructure, (whether political, social or economic) once we leave.

Its a large-scale strategic vision that has been badly wanting in that region for decades; call it a diffuse form of the domino-theory except that it concerns democracy.

Does this mean that terrorist bombings or attacks will completely cease throughout the country? No, but it doesn mean that the access the terrorists and their supporters have will be choked-off to the point of managability. I know that term is sterile when you consider the damage that a bombing can do, but it is a realistic POV.

You want a strategy, there it is. Show the people of the middle east that they can have options in their lives rather than the dreary fear they live with every day. I listen to the leftist harangue that we cant label all muslims as terrorists and I agree, so lets assist that majority who want to live and work and enjoy life by giving them a fighting chance for something better.

Ok, flame away.

"Wolf, yore (intentionally God) true colors have surfaced. If in fact Mark already served, which I take him at his word, then frankly, you owe him an apology."

The logic goes somewhat askew here.

Somebody says that they did a period of military service, but it was not during a time of war nor was it at a warzone. How does that compare with active service in a warzone?

I'm willing to take him at his word that he was on active service, just as I'm willing to take Bush's word that he was on national guard service, but this does NOT compare with active service in a war, and in a warzone, which he is promoting for others but avoiding himself. Those are the circumstances where I feel that an apology for calling him out over are not warranted.

Fair enough - and I would back down in an instant - if he tried to apply now, and was actively turned down but my argument is that - having said that he would be willing to serve, and having promoted other people serving in the war zone, he does not even appear to be willing to apply himself.

"Its a large-scale strategic vision that has been badly wanting in that region for decades; call it a diffuse form of the domino-theory except that it concerns democracy."

That is actually a very astute attempt at a definition, but the problem in the middle east is that they don't want what in the west we call Democracy. The original ideas behind Islamic rule were that it was that it focussed on God and not on the temptations that mankind tends to succumb to when its own creation - money - is involved.

And thereby lies the catch 22 which is at the crux of the problem. We in the west perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the way forward is through our definition of democracy. But in the middle east they don't want that, because they see corruption and godlessness, and they don't want to be like that.

The end result is that if winning DOES indeed require that they 'convert' to democracy then we have a conflict that can't be resolved. They don't want to be a western style democracy, therefore they'll fight against attempts to make their society like that, therefore we can never 'win' because every attempt to make a democracy is doomed to fail because the people don't want it. Ironically, democracy is all about the majority opinion, and the majority opinion in that region is that there should be an Islamic state, not a democracy. The only point up for debate is which definition of Islam ends up in charge.

But I do commend you for the definition, and I do see where you're coming from. I just don't think given the situation in the middle east that definition can ever happen without a MASSIVE shift in opinion, which I can't see them being willing to contemplate.

Looks like the Democrats are giving the Surge more time than the Generals asked for. They only wanted six months.

The Republicans would not be dumb enough to vote aginst this current troop funding bill.

hank you Light Horse for responding with a reasonable response - this is how to make things interesting.

So - from your response - you seem to be very well intentioned. The fundamental difference - i think - in our view point is the underlying assumption that we should be trying to change political situations in other countries with military pressure - or full scale invasion in this case. In the end - this isn't much different than the Soviets invading other countries to enforce communism. I mean - not that most of the actual leaders were to concerned with it - but the ideological underpinning was that - from there prospective the people of Afganistan, eastern Europe, and South East Asia were suffering from corrupt governments (which of course was true). However the solution of military invasion and the creation of a new government to impose the communist agenda obviously was greatly flawed and fundamentally wrong.

I think its very much the same in this case - if we were to believe the "bringing democracy" argument (which much like the case of the Soviets I don't). Yes - they are in a horrible situation - but military intervention to force a particular government on them is not the solution.

In particular - having the army which overthrew, invaded, and destroyed the country take this role is not a good idea. There is an ugly analogy - in some countries there are laws that if a woman is raped - the man who raped her has to marry her. I think - that even if you believe that we should/could do what you describe we aren't the appropriate force to do it. What you would need is probably UN peace keeping troops. Of course - that s not to say that doesn't come with its own problems - but its a better solution.

Fundamentally - I believe one cannot be justified with a "strategic vision" of transforming an entire regions political, economic, and social situation by invasion.

That is actually a very astute attempt at a definition, but the problem in the middle east is that they don't want what in the west we call Democracy. The original ideas behind Islamic rule were that it was that it focussed on God and not on the temptations that mankind tends to succumb to when its own creation - money - is involved.

This would only be true if one could group all mideast muslims into one larger 'anti western-style democracy' class, and this just simply isnt the case. While we bend over backwards to state that 99% of muslims abhor terrorism, lets also take the opportunity to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can embrace democracy.

Who are we to say that the mideast is incabable of sloughing off a religious mindset that has locked them into virtual slavery for 1000 years? The Kurds themselves are proving your theory false; they have a thriving, vibrant, economically viable society that isnt manacled to a tenth-century islamic mindset.

Iran too, a supposed example of islamic virtue realized in nationhood, enjoys a giant undercurrent of hedonism right under the noses of the mullahs. More and more of the Iranians are embracing their pre-islamic Persian roots, a growing population that would be more than happy to dump the clerics and elect their own leaders.

Fundamentally - I believe one cannot be justified with a "strategic vision" of transforming an entire regions political, economic, and social situation by invasion.

Unfortunately, history will not side with your view.

Its not about invading merely for the sake of invading and hoping to enforce democracy, its getting rid of the elements which would keep it from naturally occuring. Sometimes that goal can be managed with non-warfare means, sometimes it cant.

In the nuclear age, the concepts of erasing tyrannies and protecting our nation coincide; Iraq is a perfect example. A clear and present danger that had been ignored for decades metastasized into a enemy that could finally reach our shores, and our options were basically cancelled until only force was left.

Unless you believe that eighteen sanctions and ten more years of military overflights were going to force Saddam to capitulate, the reason and the means to finally do something in the mideast presented itself. The region is a cesspool and getting worse by the day, a chance presented itself, now it needs to be brought to successful fruition.

no - i didn't support the sanctions either..

i guess thats where the difference lies. I hope then you wouldn't mind if the US was invaded, its infrastructure destroyed, and a new government installed by someone who hoped to improve the democracy in our country

I have to ask, 4th Light Horse, since you're obviously an intelligent poster here (and let's set aside whether we WANT it to succeed or not) - do you actually see the Iraq war as succeeding and concluding any time soon, and if so, would you like to say what you think the scenario would be that it could end soon and the kind of timescale "soon" might be?

With all the namecalling that's gone on, it's good to see someone with a meaningful perspective and a good argument.

Kblack:
You're against war. You're against sanctions. Explain to me exactly how the international community should go about enforcing the responsibilities of nations that a)don't care their people and their rights and b)who kill their citizens instead of feeding them or c)any myriad other ills nations who seek power instead of betterment for their people.

For instance, a nuclear Iran isn't going to feed more people. It's not going to educate 50% of the population that their leaders would rather see covered from head to toe except for eye slits.

Are you saying we just let ANYONE who happens to rise to power in a country do whatever it wants and just shrug saying "oh well, nothing we can do?"

Are you saying that talking with no threat of action will solve the problems of the international community?

I for one would be FULLY excited if the nations of the world all got around a table and agreed to address their issues and problems peacefully, but it's clear that there are leaders and terrorists (not always separate and not always connected) that know full well that violence, against peaceful nations, will get them everything they want if their enemies aren't strong.

Please explain further why you think it's okay to let thug leaders go about doing whatever they want, not paying any consequences for their actions...

This should be good.

Whisper and kblack--you're Siamese twins, conjoined at the pea-brain, aren't you?

whisper, never having served yourself, I can kind of understand your ignorance. But to be clear, you are ignorant. When you join the service it is for a period of years. You have no idea what might happen during those years.

Sailors, Marines, and soldiers who signed up in peace time died at Pearl Harbor and Guadalcanal and other places.

Sailors, Marines, and soldiers who signed up in peace time died defending the Pusan perimeter.

Sailors, Marines, and soldiers who signed up in peace time died in Viet Nam.

Sailors, Marines, and soldiers who signed up in peace time died In Beruit (my brother knew many as his unit was hit).

Sailors, Marines, and soldiers who signed up in peace time died in Panama and Grenada.

Sailors, Marines, and soldiers who signed up in peace time died in Kuwait.

Sailors, Marines, and soldiers who signed up in peace time died on 9/11. By the way, Rumsfeld was there - combat... vet.

Sailors, Marines, and soldiers who signed up in peace time died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You really realll really are an ignorant person.

And you don't care about the regional war that will break out in the mid-east if we pull out too early. You don't care about all the people who will die. And (less importantly) you'll be screaming about the oil companies when gas goes to $7 a gallon. You don't care that our credibility will be shot. You just don't care.

Why? Is your hatred that blinding? When you talk about America do veigns stick out on your neck? I say - your leaders have conned you. They could force an end RIGHT NOW. Except they are not as stupid as they pretend to be. And though they spout crap for fools like you to eat, they don't even believe it themselves.

Wally

Absolutely not.. The point is this - there are specific ways about going about things. Unless you can make the case for the necessity of immediate military intervention - you can't just go around invading other countries. There are in fact, specific rules which are part of the Geneva Convention and various other accords that we have signed and ratified which lay all of these out. Of course - almost every administration (republican or democrat) has completely ignored them and done their best to pretend like they don't exist.

If you want to take such an action you bring a case either at the UN or the world court - depending on the exact nature of what your contention is.
Then you follow the agreed upon procedure - something along the lines of what happened with the first gulf war. A resolution was passed giving the authorization of force if Iraq didn't withdraw - UN resolutions 660 and 678.

Then you know the rest. Not that this procedure is perfect of course - as quite often the UN is pressured to pass things by nations that have the most power because they can exert a lot of pressure on others.

But - at least in principle - this is a reasonable procedure. You state your case to the World Court or the UN - and then if this is authorized you move ahead. Clearly - of course - this doesn't hold if you have to act quickly due to self defense. And - its not perfect - but its a reasonable procedure.

So in the first gulf war - you had a clear violation of the sovereignty of Kuwait (not that I think that was the primary motivation for us). GW I went through the proper channels, formed a coalition of some 30 countries, had a resolution passed in the UN and then acted when it wasn't complied with..

So that would be a start at least. To present your case and have an authorization of the use of force from the UN. Of course - Bush II couldn't get this - and you know what - all of the reasons that they gave were WRONG and almost nobody else believed it. Amazingly enough - a few nations actually acted on this - France, Russia, and China threatened to veto this in the security council. So rather than have it specifically denied they went ahead anyway..

But do you really believe that this is why Bush decided to invade? I thought it was WMDs.. or connection to 9/11 - what happened to those???

I mean - there are a whole slew of places where there are horrible things going on - and there have been UN resolutions brought up and passed. But of course the Bush administration doesn't do anything in these cases - guess why?

So if you are going to argue that this is justified by some global plan to bring peace to the earth - why ignore Saudi Arabia, Darfur, the west bank, Indonesia, etc.. Because of course - they could really care less about all of this. Their motivations are much more base...

kblack -

1. After the first gulf war Iraq repeatedly tried to shoot down our planes. These were clear violations of the peace agreement. Add that to...
2. Sadaam was trying to convince the world he had nukes because he thought that would make him untouchable. If you believed he was working on WMD, as he wanted you to believe, as everyone believed, then you had to stop him.
3. Sadaam continously corrupted the oil for food program by paying off UN officials and made boatloads of money off it.
4. Sadaam DID support Hamas and Fattah (spell?) and gave shelter at least to Al Queda operatives.
5. Sadaam ruthlessly commited genocide against Kurds and Shiite (now convicted). Before you say that wasn't our problem (like Dems did about Rwanda and Cambodia), think about the current effort to get us to into Dafur.... to stop genocide.

Now - what to do now? Regional war? Or new way of doing things in the region. You choose.

"And you don't care about the regional war that will break out in the mid-east if we pull out too early. You don't care about all the people who will die. And (less importantly) you'll be screaming about the oil companies when gas goes to $7 a gallon. You don't care that our credibility will be shot. You just don't care."

Actually I already chose a vehicle that runs on alternative fuel. Yes, it uses diesel to warm up, for efficiencies sake - but then it switches over to non-petroleum oil based fuel, and runs on that for 80% of its active life. When you're paying $7 a gallon at the pump for a full tank, I'll only need a gallon to take me hundreds of kilometres.

"Why? Is your hatred that blinding? When you talk about America do veigns stick out on your neck? I say - your leaders have conned you. They could force an end RIGHT NOW. Except they are not as stupid as they pretend to be. And though they spout crap for fools like you to eat, they don't even believe it themselves."

And here we go again. There is a difference between hating Bush's policies and his warmongering and hating America. It is entirely possible to hate Bush's policies and the war, and still love America, contrary to what Bush supporters seem to believe. No, I don't hate America, and I don't hate the American people as a whole, but I DO hate those who profiteer from unnecessary wars, and I DO hate those who would risk others lives to maintain either their own power, their own wealth or their own worthless lives. And judging by the reactions of some people, most recently the 30 towns in Vermont, I'm not the only one to think this way by an extremely long way.

The next president, be he Republican or Democrat is going to have a lot of work to do repairing the damaged reputation that this president will leave behind.

And try as I might I can't think of the relevance of you pointing out that combat troops do indeed die even in times of peace - this still does not excuse those who claim the war is a good idea until someone asks them to serve in it, particularly those with military experience. If you believe as strongly as it appears this person does in the war, and you find out suddenly you're eligible to enlist, then you go out and you enlist. You don't suddenly go completely silent and try to wait it out until you're not eligible again. If you do, it proves that you don't believe in the war seriously enough to put your own life on the line, and if that's the case you should NOT be asking other people to do it, or to stay in the war zone because of a lack of replacements. It just isn't honourable.

Finally, I just thought I'd mention that so far THREE war apologists have turned to personal insults when their arguments don't work any more. "You're ignorant" is just the latest in a series. Who's next to show themselves up by resorting to insults when it's clear their arguments can't cut it?

Wolfie, this war wasn't started for profiteers. You are ignorant. Maybe you ought to take a trip to Europe, and see what the radicals are doing there.

Of course, you'll have to wait until you grow up, or have mommy take you...

warmongering? But you will be causing the war by pulling out! You can't see past this week can you?

Oh and the soldiers die during peacetime, or more accurately when war breaks out was in response to claims that Noonan and Bush didn't really serve because they didn't go to war.

Even in whispers response to my statements about a regional war, he ignored the possibility of a regional war and attacked Bush. This is blindness.

The House minority leader threatened Thursday to get his members to vote against a $96.3 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if Democrats persist in plans to attach conditions to the money that would tell President Bush how to conduct the wars.

So after President Bush essentially won reelection by claiming that John Kerry voted against funding the troops, and after an Iraq debate where Republicans said 1,000 times that "you can't support the troops without funding the troops," Boehner now says he and the Republicans in Congress will do exactly the same thing they've denounced Democrats as traitors for even suggesting. Once again, for Republicans, they support the troops just so long as the troops are their useful little pawns and props for their cynical political arguments.

Sure morphie - go shoot some more.. morphine