you want to know what the real solution is

right wing, pro-american, puppet government set up by the CIA

5/2/2007 11:21:37 AM

It's worked before right?

5/2/2007 11:22:04 AM

^^it worked in Iran in 1953

5/2/2007 11:22:11 AM

it worked in Iran for 38 years

i think right now, we should take what we can get

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 11:25 AM. Reason : 1941-1979]

5/2/2007 11:23:16 AM

Quote :

"Look up the various massacres, murders, and torture of civilians and POWs that have been documented, and over which several soldiers have been punished (with slaps on the wrists, for eg, a year or two for murders etc). Whether animals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, etc al are responsible, is another issue, but war crimes have definitely been committed."

This is stupid. If you can produce documentation that these people knew of, and approved these actions, yes they are war criminals (if in fact they happened). In every war throughout history there have been soldiers who raped women, stole and looted, "tortured" POWs, etc. But you can't just trace it all the way up to the top officials and call them criminals unless it was sanctioned.

The whole Bush, Cheney etc are war criminals angle is a joke.

5/2/2007 11:49:08 AM

Plausible deniability has most definitely defeated "the buck stops here" mentality.

5/2/2007 11:51:39 AM

The Blame Game is still running strong in the Defeatocrat party

5/2/2007 11:53:47 AM

as well as it should

they didn't get us into this mess

5/2/2007 11:55:41 AM

I find it really interesting that the Democrats are so willing, or at least so interested, in pushing for charges / impeachment with regards to "misleading us into war" (something incredibly hard to prove) and not being ALL OVER the massively illegal and widespread surveillance of American citizens.

5/2/2007 11:57:39 AM

they need those tools if they're elected. They don't want to take the toys out of the toybox before they get to play with them.

Plus, a terrorist attack happens on their watch and they're politically ruined.

5/2/2007 11:59:05 AM

Quote :

"Therefore, I have seen many military operations that were swift, but clumsy, but never one which was skillfully executed but prolonged. - Sun Tzu"

Favorable momentum was lost in this war about the time that the Iraqis started looting and we did nothing about it. It was regained somewhat when Saddam was captured but was spent again by sometime in the summer of '04. Since that point, we've essentiall ceeded control of the battlefield to the insurgents. Yes, we are a superior force no matter where we are, and will crush anyone in open battle, but we're essentially playing whack-a-mole both in Iraq and increasingly in Afghanistan. The insurgencies in both countries have the benefits of home terrain, short supply lines, popular support (or lack of a vocal opposition) and time all on their sides. The amout of effort and manpower it would take to effectively regain momentum in this situation is probably politically untenable at this point, and would put an enormous strain on the US Military. It would also be a one shot propsition, if it failed the first time, a repeat would be nearly impossible. But that is just my opinion.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ""]

5/2/2007 12:01:23 PM

Quote :

"If you are an insurgent, and your goal is to fight and kill Americans/American allies...and you know its a tough battle and both sides are taking losses...aren't you going to rejoice when your enemies give you the date of their essential surrender? So you can tell yourself "if we can just wait til this date, we can feel free to wreak havoc without those pesky Americans trying to stop us!""

Using that flawed logic, we would still be in Vietnam.

5/2/2007 12:06:59 PM

I'm still curious as to who said that about Vietnam

5/2/2007 12:08:31 PM

What do you mean who said it? Containing the spread of communism in Southeast Asia was the primary reason we went to Vietnam. Those who supported continuing the war were doing so on the assumption that if we left, that US economic and security interests would fall to the communists.

God damn you are an idiot.

5/2/2007 12:18:43 PM

Glad to see you can back up your sources when asked and not just call someone an idiot

That must be why you're such a respected poster

5/2/2007 12:26:26 PM

I thought the Domino Theory was common knowledge?

5/2/2007 12:29:45 PM

as was getting the French out of power

yet that has nothing to do with the question i asked

5/2/2007 12:33:33 PM

Dude, thats the most simple and rudimentary commonly accepted knowledge. It doesn't have to be a quote. Its like saying that WWI ended after The Treaty of Versailles. You don't have to have a quote. It's everywhere, its common knowledge. I expected you to at least have a minimal amount of basic knowledge on US history. Other than that, you are a troll so I don't really care.

5/2/2007 12:34:21 PM

your parallels with vietnam are reaching at best, yet you dont want to take the time to explain them...suit yourself troll

5/2/2007 12:35:05 PM

I don't see what anything of Scuba Steve says is trolling. I do see you exhibiting troll-like tendencies. Why can't you make any reasonable or logical arguments or back them up?

5/2/2007 12:38:26 PM

you're an alias

so basically nothing you say is worth a fuck since you're scared to say it under your real account

but back to the topic, who in the 70s was saying that if we gave a binding timetable for withdrawal that the Vietcong would just wait it out? Simple enough question

5/2/2007 12:41:13 PM

That wasn't Scuba Steves argument.

5/2/2007 12:42:40 PM

that was my question

5/2/2007 12:43:03 PM

Quote :

"Containing the spread of communism in Southeast Asia was the primary reason we went to Vietnam. Those who supported continuing the war were doing so on the assumption that if we left, that US economic and security interests would fall to the communists."

If you don't see the parallel to Iraq, there is no hope for you.

5/2/2007 12:43:50 PM

You asked him to explain himself, then called him a troll, then tried to restate his argument in a different form, and expect us to give an answer? If we don't answer, you say "you aren't answering my question you troll" if we actually do answer, you claim some sort of victory, then we spend more posts arguing about how you tossed out a strawman.

5/2/2007 12:45:24 PM

Quote :

"people said them same shit about Vietnam. Oh no! The enemy knows we are leaving""

- Scuba Steve

Quote :

"who ever said that about Vietnam?"

- TreeTwista10

that was my question which has still not been answered...wow why the fuck am i arguing with a troll alias?

5/2/2007 12:46:56 PM

Hell, here are three quotes by Richard Nixon

RICHARD NIXON, (April 1964)
"The first issue is what the goal of the United States should be. I believe that the goal can be nothing less than victory."

RICHARD NIXON, (February 1965)
"What is involved here is, in effect, to let the Red Chinese know in Vietnam as we, in effect, let Khrushchev know in the confrontation in Cuba that the United States will not stand by and allow any power, however great, take over another country by aggression.

RICHARD NIXON, (May 1966)
"A retreat by the United States from Vietnam would be a Communist victory, a victory of massive proportions and would lead to World War III."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/series/pt_09.html

5/2/2007 12:48:43 PM

thank you, the 3rd quote actually has to do with something

thanks for answering my question finally since thats all i asked for

5/2/2007 12:49:36 PM

^ Looks like near perfect parallels. Whats the problem TreeTwista?

5/2/2007 12:50:00 PM

looks like scuba steve answered my question, the question which i asked him (not you) by the way

hey why dont you log in as your real account instead of hiding behind that alias?

5/2/2007 12:50:50 PM

everybody knows that the funding wont just "run out" right? and that this is all about whether or not the Administration has a plan for withdrawal?

right?

just checking.

5/2/2007 12:53:24 PM

yes, the funding can run out

in the end, the congress writes the checks

5/2/2007 12:54:27 PM

they'll just take funding from another department or account

5/2/2007 12:54:41 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/02/war.funding/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Quote :

"The standoff between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war funding bill already is delaying some military training and orders for spare parts, Pentagon officials said."

Boy, this is dirty politics at it's worst (or best?). The rhetoric is flying. Which side is doing more damage to the troops, left or right? I dunno why either side would actually be interested in a compromise. Oh wait, I think the Democrats were?

5/2/2007 1:47:35 PM

Quote :

"Oh wait, I think the Democrats were?"

nope...neither side is

5/2/2007 1:49:42 PM

So everybody keeps talking about Vietnam. What about WWII? So I guess we should have left Berlin in... 1950? Don't worry about the Communists rolling in. Yes it wasn't the same atmosphere of insurgent attacks every week, but we were there for a good 45 years before Germany could reunify and effectively govern itself.

Its definitely a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If we pull out, we don't just have to worry about the insurgents taking over, we have to worry about someone like Iran coming in and taking over.

If we don't, we face the very real possibility of being in Iraq for the next 20-40 years. Because a disorganized force like insurgents is going to be impossible to "defeat", all you can do is control them indefinitely. We easily defeated the Iraqi dictatorship. But its the same with terrorist organizations... it will be hard (if not impossible) to completely eliminate them because they can function as cells even if you take out the leaders.

5/2/2007 2:09:27 PM

^^ You don't agree that giving the funding the president wanted, but with a timetable is a compromise?

The Dems want zero funding, prez wants full funding. Seems like to give funding but a timetable is a compromise.

5/2/2007 2:38:14 PM

Quote :

"The House of Representatives fails to override President Bush's veto of a $124 billion war spending bill."

-CNN's big news alert on the top page.

I think anyone who reads that, if they are the kind of person who only goes for sounds bites which a lot of Americans are, will take it as the president's stubbornness causes funding delays & not the other way around.

5/2/2007 2:46:58 PM

What was the quote about reality having a liberal bias?

5/2/2007 2:53:05 PM

Quote :

"The Dems want zero funding"

i don't think that's true. i think that many want the troops to come home, but even that takes funding.

5/2/2007 3:07:08 PM

havent they also mentioned giving funding but with measurable goals? why does the white house have a problem with that?

5/2/2007 3:10:50 PM

it's funny, the bill with benchmarks has a clause that does not bind the president to withdraw based on benchmarks

fucking stupid

5/2/2007 3:13:20 PM

Because they have an absolutist belief structure, based on the assertion that they couldn't possibly be wrong. Therefore, negotiation is irrational. They have had six years without any meaningful checks and balances. They are unwilling to accept anything else but their own viewpoint.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 3:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/2/2007 3:13:51 PM

Quote :

"What was the quote about reality having a liberal bias?"

well since reality is perception...reality has whatever bias a particular person perceives it to have

5/2/2007 3:29:45 PM

The Raleigh Rally starts in about half an hour if anyones going.

Quote :

"02 May 04:00 PM Can You Hear Us Now?! - 4 miles away Moore Square, downtown Raleigh (Blount and Hargett) Raleigh, NC 27601 55 registered participant(s) (150 maximum) For those of you unfamiliar with this location, it is an outdoor public square in downtown Raleigh. http://johnedwards.com/r/12075/813727/"

5/2/2007 3:35:18 PM

Is Edwards himself going to be at any of these?

5/2/2007 3:42:54 PM

Quote :

"havent they also mentioned giving funding but with measurable goals? why does the white house have a problem with that?"

benchmarks isn't what the white house is against... but you wouldn't know that if you listened to communist steve. They're against a date. The Democrats want everyone out by Oct. 2008. No ifs ands or buts. And that's incredibly retarded and the generals on the ground say this is a bad idea.


But lets continue to let Congress play Commander in Chief... since the Constitution does give them this right...







no wait...

5/2/2007 3:43:59 PM

^ I know that the president is Commander in Chief per the laws of the US, but what military credentials does Bush have that allow him to effectively lead the war? Other than the fact that he is legally CiC, he is "playing" the role as much as Congress is.

That argument is so tired. "Bush is CiC, not Congress". Congress has a moral and legal responsibility to check the administrative branch of our government. In this case, they feel that his decisions regarding the war are not in the best interest of the nation and are trying to do something about it. The Bush administration is trying to make it sound like Congress is a bunch of misfits who should be tried for treason because they disagree with his handling of the war. I'm not saying I think pulling out of Iraq today is a good idea, I'm just saying that it's about damned time that there are some checks and balances in the federal government.

5/2/2007 5:04:53 PM

Quote :

"but what military credentials does Bush have that allow him to effectively lead the war? "

he was voted in...conversely, what military credentials do Congress have that allow them to know more about how to run a war? Because they have the support of the people? The people, who have even less ideas about how to run a war than the Pres OR Congress?

5/2/2007 5:06:41 PM

why don't you go downtown raleigh, or wherever you live and express your expertise knowledge on how to run a war.

5/2/2007 5:07:25 PM