Iraq General Thread

[BigSqwert]

You didn't. I was just saying.

 

Our whole government is so corrupt, it's unreal.

That's why I'm writing in Mark Buehrle on the 2008 presidential ticket.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's why I'm writing in Mark Buehrle on the 2008 presidential ticket.

I don't know if they still do it, but I remember in some elections past, they would compile a list of how many tickets write-in candidates would show up on. You'd have a bunch for Micky Mouse or Homer Simpson, or for various celebrities. If all of Soxtalk voted Buehrle, we might push him onto that list.

 

[kapkomet]

I don't know if they still do it, but I remember in some elections past, they would compile a list of how many tickets write-in candidates would show up on. You'd have a bunch for Micky Mouse or Homer Simpson, or for various celebrities. If all of Soxtalk voted Buehrle, we might push him onto that list.

Now see, that's an idea. Except MB isn't old enough. How about me? The next election I'll be 35, just old enough to be President, IIRC my Constitution.

 

 

[mr_genius]

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's electricity grid could collapse any day because of insurgent sabotage, rising demand, fuel shortages and provincial officials who are unplugging local power stations from the national system, electricity officials said on Saturday.

 

I'm not surprised. This whole "national building" idea is such a bad one.

[BigSqwert]

This pretty much sums it up for me. A quote from Tim Russert yesterday on Meet the Press:

“The administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, wrong about the size of the force necessary to occupy Iraq, wrong about the costs of the war, wrong about Shiite and Sunni division. Why should we have any confidence in anything they say about the future of Iraq?”

[kapkomet]

This pretty much sums it up for me. A quote from Tim Russert yesterday on Meet the Press:

And so were the Democrats... it's funny how that little FACT is always left out.

 

So where does that leave us?

[NorthSideSox72]

And so were the Democrats... it's funny how that little FACT is always left out.

 

So where does that leave us?

Hopefully, it leaves us with a President and a bunch of Congresspeople in 2008 who had NOTHING to do with starting the Iraq war (which by the way discludes all the senators who voted for it).

 

[kapkomet]

Hopefully, it leaves us with a President and a bunch of Congresspeople in 2008 who had NOTHING to do with starting the Iraq war (which by the way discludes all the senators who voted for it).

Huh? You mean get rid of them all?

 

, if so.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Huh? You mean get rid of them all?

 

, if so.

Well, not EVERYONE voted for it. Kucinich for example is a candidate who, as a house rep, voted against.

 

[kapkomet]

Well, not EVERYONE voted for it. Kucinich for example is a candidate who, as a house rep, voted against.

I've said before, and it bears repeating, Kucinich is one of the few who actually hasn't changed his mind 15 times. He's stayed right with his convictions, and that's applaudable, no matter how wrong I think he is.

 

As far as the rest of these dingleberries, I wish they all could be sent home and get some people in office that would actually get something done for the common people. Unfortunately, this policial cycle is the same washed up retread beliefs getting tossed around over and over, with no real solutions that actually work.

 

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Good news in Iraq?

 

The Government Accountability Office reports that more than 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and another 80,000 pistols that Washington thought it was providing to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005 are now unaccounted for. More than 100,000 pieces of body armor and a similar number of helmets have also gone missing.

 

These numbers represent the discrepancy between the equipment ordered by the American commander in charge of training Iraqi forces and the equipment actually logged into the property records of those forces. Disturbingly, that commander was Gen. David Petraeus, now the overall commander of American forces in Iraq.

 

 

Link

[Texsox]

This pretty much sums it up for me. A quote from Tim Russert yesterday on Meet the Press:

 

Tim Russert not a lot there to disagree about. Sad.

[kapkomet]

Good news in Iraq?

Link

OMG OMG OMG THAT's GREAT NEWS!!!

 

Please. Try a little harder next time to be just a little more cynical.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

OMG OMG OMG THAT's GREAT NEWS!!!

 

Please. Try a little harder next time to be just a little more cynical.

OK Kap, YOU calling someone else on cynicism. That's priceless.

 

 

[kapkomet]

OK Kap, YOU calling someone else on cynicism. That's priceless.

 

I figured someone would see the irony.

 

 

 

[Texsox]

I've said before, and it bears repeating, Kucinich is one of the few who actually hasn't changed his mind 15 times.

Not specific to Kucinich, but to never making a new decision . . .

 

For those that voted in favor of the war, what does it say about someone who doesn't change their mind after not finding any WMD, after not experiencing anything the administration outlined? I do not see any virtue in not making a new decision once you discover you were wrong, for whatever reason. Blindly sticking by a decision you made years before, when so much new information is out there is wrong.

 

I thought back then our country was in a very tough situation. Are there WMD there and could we find them? It seemed amazing to me, with all the countries around the world, that Iraq could be the only one, and the most dangerous. But, if asked to vote, I would have voted to invade. Now, after seeing everything that has happened, I realize that was a mistake, and with the benefit of hindsight would have voted against. Why would continuing to support the war make me a better leader?

 

We need leaders who can change and adapt to a new world. The world changes itself constantly and new decisions need to be made all the time.

[StrangeSox]

For those that voted in favor of the war, what does it say about someone who doesn't change their mind after not finding any WMD, after not experiencing anything the administration outlined? I do not see any virtue in not making a new decision once you discover you were wrong, for whatever reason. Blindly sticking by a decision you made years before, when so much new information is out there is wrong.

 

Like most of politics, it's not clear-cut or black-and-white.

 

Pandering to CNN's latest polls and never taking a true stance on issues is not an honorable trait. Neither is steadfastly sticking with a position that has been shown to be erroneous. I don't know why or when it became such a deplorable thing for people to change their minds when presented with new evidence.

[kapkomet]

Like most of politics, it's not clear-cut or black-and-white.

 

Pandering to CNN's latest polls and never taking a true stance on issues is not an honorable trait. Neither is steadfastly sticking with a position that has been shown to be erroneous. I don't know why or when it became such a deplorable thing for people to change their minds when presented with new evidence.

It hasn't, but when it becomes "dangerous" is when it's for pure polictical fodder. That's my issue with it.

[StrangeSox]

It hasn't, but when it becomes "dangerous" is when it's for pure polictical fodder. That's my issue with it.

 

I agree with the second half, but not the first.

 

ANY indication of a candidate or politician changing their positions, even if its one vote 10 years ago, is harped on by his or her political opponents as a sign of weakness.

[Texsox]

It all started with the flip flop strategy that worked.

[kapkomet]

I agree with the second half, but not the first.

 

ANY indication of a candidate or politician changing their positions, even if its one vote 10 years ago, is harped on by his or her political opponents as a sign of weakness.

I see your point, and it's a valid one, but it's usually because the ultra extremes of the parties like to rip on people because of the so-called "political fodder" I'm mentioning. It drives me crazy.

 

To expand a bit, though, Mrs. Bill Clinton's vote on Iraq was pretty clear. At one point, she was claiming she didn't know what she was voting for (read: giving the president authorization for going into Iraq)... which is either a bald face lie, or she's too f***ing stupid to be president. Either one is not acceptable. Now, that type of "rethinking" one's stance is for political purposes and nothing more.

 

On the other hand, if Bush would come out and say - our course in Iraq has been incorrect, and here is what we need to do based on the circumstances on the ground - and actually lay out a real plan, most people would buy it. But for some reason, he is so damn hell bent on his "image" that he has lost all face. It's a shame really, because it was all for the other side of the "political fodder" and for no reason.

[StrangeSox]

I'll agree to that 100%.

[Balta1701]

I see your point, and it's a valid one, but it's usually because the ultra extremes of the parties like to rip on people because of the so-called "political fodder" I'm mentioning. It drives me crazy.

 

To expand a bit, though, Mrs. Bill Clinton's vote on Iraq was pretty clear. At one point, she was claiming she didn't know what she was voting for (read: giving the president authorization for going into Iraq)... which is either a bald face lie, or she's too f***ing stupid to be president. Either one is not acceptable. Now, that type of "rethinking" one's stance is for political purposes and nothing more.

Of course, if one believed the very words coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth, voting for the war resolution by no means made the war inevitable; it was supposed to give the President the authority he needed. That's what Mrs. Clinton said when she voted for the thing, just like Mr. Kerry.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

 

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

Or, from President Bush's own words:

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Of course, I read that speech thinking he was baldly lying, that no matter what Iraq actually did, if the resolution passed, the war was inevitable, and it turned out that my judgement was better than that of Hillary et al. Which is the single greatest reason I will not vote for her in the primary; if my judgement of GWB was more accurate than hers, why should I trust her judgement with others?

[kapkomet]

So she voted to give the president the authority, all while lying to herself and her constituents. Nice! But it leaves her (today) the wiggle room she needs. Beautiful. That's why I can't stand her.

[Texsox]

I am not going to defend Hillary but the amount of lies and misleading statements leading up to this war is sickening.