[JBroll]

Originally Posted by Drew

I'll disagree with you in that I'd like to think that it DOES make a difference who we vote for, and some elected officials at least, it not try to do the right thing all the time, then at least not try to do the wrong thing for personal gain all the time while in office, but that could be optimism on my part. Either way, it's the democratic system we're stuck with, and if it's all I've got then I'll fight to make it work.

Maybe there are candidates who do have better interests at heart, but they're not getting the representation because if they don't adhere to party lines they're not getting party approval. Perhaps I'm too cynical to really be able to believe that we'll either have our two-party system start representing our interests or we'll have people actually figure out what's going on and stop being pawns in their game, but if that happens then things will be a lot better off.

Originally Posted by Drew

It's a tossup - if you do that, you have to accept a bloody and protracted civil war, and possible genocide on the part of the Sunni's, Shi'ites, and Kurds (calling them "the Iraqi people" is misleading at best in this context) and possible interferance on the part of Iraq's neighbors. this isn't exactly a rosy exit strategy, but you have to weigh it against Iraq with a US-imposed and US-controlled "democracy" puppet-state with a popular insurgency fighting the, well, effectively the US military, on several fronts for a time period with no foreseeable conclusion, all the while serving as a rallying point and a training ground for anti-American Islamist extremist militant groups that will be taking what they've learned in Iraq and applying it to fight the American army elsewhere in the world.

So, it's a no-win situaton. It's just a question of which outcome is worse, and frankly I wouldn't be so quick to discount the first as a viable "solution." Bush won't touch it with a ten foot pole though, partly because he's a moron and partly because he wants the blame to fall on someone else.

Yeah, good thing we don't have a civil war going on as it is... the only difference will be whether American troops are between their petty bullshit when things get worse.

Jeff

[tonyhell]

Originally Posted by Kevan

Unjustified?
I guess if you don't count the sanctions and ultimatums set forth by the U.N. it would be unjustified.
(U.N. Resolution 1441)

Are you serious? I was shooting down that argument before we even invaded Iraq. Resolution 1441 was a scheme by the White House based on false information that Iraq had WMD. Then the US twisted the meaning of "serious consequences" to justify their premeditated invasion of Iraq. Lots of countries violate UN resolutions. Israel has violated more than Iraq.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by JBroll

Maybe there are candidates who do have better interests at heart, but they're not getting the representation because if they don't adhere to party lines they're not getting party approval. Perhaps I'm too cynical to really be able to believe that we'll either have our two-party system start representing our interests or we'll have people actually figure out what's going on and stop being pawns in their game, but if that happens then things will be a lot better off.



Yeah, good thing we don't have a civil war going on as it is... the only difference will be whether American troops are between their petty bullshit when things get worse.

Jeff

One of the reasons I'll be hoping for a Bloomberg/Gore ticket if the 2008 election becomes a Guliani/Clinton affair is that I think a viable third party in American politics would really shake up the political culture in this country and force the two dominant parties to stop defining themselves as the Not-Democrats and Not-Republicans, and that won't happen until a third party candidate gets the 5% of the vote needed to secure federal funding in the next election season.

I'm guessing that "we don't have a civil war going on..." bit is sarcasm...?

[Kevan]

Originally Posted by noodles

Fool me once, shame on me.
Fool me twice, it's your ass.

Originally Posted by noodles

Lets invade North Korea and China next. They're guilty of everything Hussein was guilty of, plus more.

*checking for UN Resolution regarding forcible removal of North Korea dictator from power for weapons violations and genocide*
404- FILE NOT FOUND

Originally Posted by Metal Ken

Pulling everyone out seems to be the consensus.

If folks think the war is bad, wait until the next president does a one-week/quick removal of all the troops in the area.
HOLYFUCKINGSHIT.
That could possibly be the biggest mistake since Pete Best said, "No thanks."

Originally Posted by ohio_eric

Exit Strategy: We start pulling our troops out of combat and police roles and start getting the national guard troops back to the USA and reassigning the regular military. We leave enough troops behind to train an army and a police force and let the Iraqis figure what they want to do with them and where they want to assign them. A whole platoon walked out once because they were assigned to a part of Iraq they didn't want to go to. So we need to make sure they are an Iraqi force not a force propped up by the USA.

An army? Of whom? "Iraqi people"? See Drew's comment regarding that.
Wait...did you just say "leave enough troops behind"? WTF? I thought you wanted out? You sound like Charles Jefferson's brother in "Fast Times At Ridgemont High".

I don't have an exit strategy.
Then again, people don't pay me to (and no one has voted for me to) come up with them.
What I DO KNOW is that if you bail out of there quickly, that place will become a harbor for every freaky faction to walk the face of the earth.
When I say "harbor", I mean "entire fucking country".

The only good thing about that is that when the huggy-kissy attempts of the new administration and the loving hand-jobs of the UN fail like Gene Simmon's attempt to re-name Van Halen "Daddy Long Legs", at least we'll know where all the assholes are and won't have to span the globe hunting them.
Now that I think about it...that's not a bad idea: 2-4 years of hundreds of planes being flown into buildings so we can get the Nation Of Assholes all together in one place for one of our "special meetings". Sweet plan!
I just hope I'm not on any of those planes.

Originally Posted by ohio_eric

Ending Terrorism: I hate to play the cynic but terrorism is a tactic and we can't stop it totally. As long as there are people who feel oppressed and lack the military might of their oppressers there will always be terrorism. What we need to do is learn from the mistakes of 9/11 and fix them. We don't need a shitlaod of new beauracracy or more military power. We need better intelligence gathering that is efficient but still within the boundaries of our Constitution.

My question was more rhetorical than anything (and a trick question for those who want to run this country).
I absolutely know that terrorism will never end.

Learning from their mistakes is something our government has RARELY done.
There's a better chance of Paris Hilton winning the Nobel Prize for Physics.
(BTW- cool site: Nobelprize.org. Great reading)

Originally Posted by ohio_eric

Repiaring relations with Europe: Pulling out of Iraq and not threatening to build missile shields in Europe and treating global warming like it's a serious threat would be a nice start.

Why must I always have to educate Eric?
It's not called global warming any more.
It's called "CLIMATE CHANGE".

DO NOT get me wrong:
- GWB is either seriously mentally deficient (or "autistic" as it's hip to say these days), or he's full-on insane. I've stopped trying to figure out which. The wake of damage he's caused (physical and relationship-wise) is vast. I DO NOT LIKE GBW or his politics or his buddies.
- I want every single soldier to come back safe and sound.
- I would prefer not to be fucking around with assholes in the sand AT ALL.


That place is fucked 3 ways from Sunday. It has been for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!! Changing it in 5, 10 or even 100 years won't do JACKSHIT. It's like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
There needs to be a better plan.
Hindsight and finger-pointing solves NOTHING.

[Metal Ken]

Originally Posted by Kevan

If folks think the war is bad, wait until the next president does a one-week/quick removal of all the troops in the area.
HOLYFUCKINGSHIT.
That could possibly be the biggest mistake since Pete Best said, "No thanks."

Man, thats what the GOP is saying ;p

Im not advocating total withdrawl, i'm just advocating putting US Troop levels in Iraq back to what they were in February 2003.

[Kevan]

Ken- I'll go even further:
I'd prefer (4) border guards there in total- two catching rays by a shack, and a pair of guys cruising around the harbor on a Hobie Cat.
Hell, I think I beat Hillary with that one.

[garcia3441]

Originally Posted by Kevan

That could possibly be the biggest mistake since Pete Best said, "No thanks."

[off-topic] For the record, Pete Best was fired.[/off-topic]

[Metal Ken]

I had to wiki pete best to even get the reference

[Kevan]

Originally Posted by garcia3441

[off-topic] For the record, Pete Best was fired.[/off-topic]

Thanks for the correction. I was told he quit. Mental HDD has been updated.

Let's change the reference to:
"...biggest mistake since Gary Kildall said, "No thanks." "

[JBroll]

Originally Posted by Drew

One of the reasons I'll be hoping for a Bloomberg/Gore ticket if the 2008 election becomes a Guliani/Clinton affair is that I think a viable third party in American politics would really shake up the political culture in this country and force the two dominant parties to stop defining themselves as the Not-Democrats and Not-Republicans, and that won't happen until a third party candidate gets the 5% of the vote needed to secure federal funding in the next election season.

I'm guessing that "we don't have a civil war going on..." bit is sarcasm...?

I'm hoping for a Gore or Clinton Dem lineup against Giuliani or Bloomberg for the same reason - of course, I want to see libertarians on speed, but that's a different issue. Ron Paul is supposedly going with the GOP only because if he got his name on the ticket that way he'd have a lot going for him, so as long as he doesn't bend over to party politics like just about everyone else has done he might be a viable option for people who are not only conservative but also able to construct coherent sentences and actually describe the meaning of conservativism.

Yeah, I was almost afraid that someone would think I was serious about there not being a civil war... the only reason FOX can get away with calling it something else is that the feuding parties just don't feel like having televised announcements to declare the obvious.

Jeff