Nope, when it rains neocons, it is much more dangerous, on account of their density.


TSC

 

ROFLMAO... glad to see you finally admit your a liberal. You tried for a long time not to be one on these forums. But it is typical of liberals.. always trying to say they are something they are not... Why are liberals so ashamed of saying there true beliefs? obama is trying hard not to show his true colors. He made some serious gaffs today and yesterday.. but the liberals will say so what. The messiah can do anything and the liberal masses will say so what. Just amazing. The guy is so inept it is scary. Jim Jones anyone?

 

I don't hide much about my liberal ideas---my ideas about the war in Iraq, censorship, and the Patriot Act. I do have different views on fire-arm ownership, etc. than other libs...nope...I am not ashamed of who I am and what I believe. But, as you are intent on doing---you say, "AH HA! I PIGEON HOLE YOU AS AS A LIBERAL! That isn't really quite true now..

I do wonder...not that they can vote...but do you think that McCain could round up that number of people to listen to him if he went to Berlin?

TSC

 

I don't give a flying rats *** about mccain. He is nearly as liberal as the messiah obama

 

As I said the errors are not significant. I'll give you one and we'll move along.
Japan attacks Pearl Harbor Dec 7th
Congress declares War on Japan Dec 8th
On Dec 11th, Hitler and Mussolini declared war on America THEN Congress responded in kind.
(You see, it sounds more 'Bush' the way he writes history)

Anyway, about the article's presentation.
My dog didn't like to take his heartworm pill.
I'd put it in his dog bowl, or toss it to him like a treat but, he just wouldn't swallow it.

I discovered that if I wrapped the pill up tight and snug in piece of greasy bacon he swallowed it whole.

Kraft has figured this out too.
His heartworm pill is Bushs' Iraq fiasco.
His piece of bacon is WWII.

I noticed something else that really perturbed me but, I don't want to bring it up on this forum. I prefer to exercise restraint and keep it light.

 

great analogy if it were true. Guess we all look at history from a different point of view. As far as when we declared war.. well that is a matter of history. But your Bush hate makes you see everything with "Bush hate glasses". Sorry.. but Bush wasn't around much during WWII... and the writer who wrote this probably doesn't have any thing to do with Bush. But your Bush hate is SO strong that every thing you see and do has the taint of "did Bush do this? or is it good fortune?" Pretty sad really. especially sense the war is won, and we are doing mop up now. Not saying that will go quick or easy... but face it, alqueda (or however you spell that tard organization) is vanquished. The surge worked. We done good.

 

So we can leave in 24 months?

 

what is your hurry? If we aren't getting killed much, and it helps keep the peace, what is your gripe? We are still in germany, england,turkey,spain, and many other places in europe. Why are you so set against having a base in Iraq? What has harmed your mind so bad that your paranoid of Iraq? I just can't for the life of me figure out why people are hating so bad on Iraq. We need a stable government in the middle east. It is a good buffer for problem countries like iran. It brings stability. It is a good thing all around. And little girls can go to school now. they have more electricity than ever. They can vote. There is no down side. I just don't get it.

 

Thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

 

That doesn't answer my question.. as satisfied you are with mine. Your views seem to be totally emotional in substance. Again, what has happened to you to be so jaded?

 

I don't agree with your assessment, "if we aren't getting killed much...what's your gripe?"
We have agreements with all the Countries you listed.
The Iraq government has stated that 16 months after the election(or 24 months total) would be appropiate for withdrawal.

I guess when they ask us to leave and we don't, the question as to whether we are 'Occupiers' will have been answered.

You do know that there are other countries where little girls can't go to school, ...where there are no schools, little or no electricity...and on and on.

There is no downside?
You're a smart guy, do you really believe that?

 

Please don't compare Iraq to World War II
By Wayne White
June 10, 2008

President Bush, some other leading politicians, journalists, and even talk show hosts cite the fervent and enduring public support for our struggle against the Axis Powers in WWII in an attempt to shame Americans who are tired of sacrificing more lives, keeping much of our global ground forces tied down, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars we cannot afford in Iraq. We will surely hear more of this sort of rhetoric as election campaigns heat up. This comparison, however, simply does not hold water.

Those who believe the Iraq War is similar to our great crusade in WWII either have forgotten their history after more than 60 years or are trying to re-write it. Unlike WWII, the Iraq War was a war of choice, sold to patriotic Americans using flawed or hyped intelligence and a non-existent connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda—possibly even 9/11. Key figures in Washington also went so far as to plan to exploit the Iraq war to change the face of much of the Middle East, revealing their woeful lack of knowledge concerning that complex region. By contrast, WWII was a defensive war forced on the United States by sudden, savage Japanese attacks in the Pacific and declarations of war against the United States by **** Germany and Fascist Italy several days after Pearl Harbor.

The international community has long known the difference between wars of choice and struggles like WWII. In fact, two of the four counts in the indictment in the Nuremberg trials following WWII addressed this issue head-on. Count #1 made a criminal offense of participating in a “common plan or conspiracy” to wage aggressive war (a war unprovoked and viewed as unjustified by responsible nations around the world). Count #2 was actually going ahead and waging such an aggressive war and thereby committing “Crimes Against Peace.” By raising the Nuremberg experience, I am not trying to brand U.S. leaders like President Bush “war criminals,” as have some others. I am merely illustrating why much of the international community did not support the war in Iraq. Also, when key governments around the world do not believe a war is justified, they become that much more unsympathetic when things go wrong.

Afghanistan was a just war by anyone’s standards, with Americans united behind it and with NATO at our side from the beginning. The brutal Taliban regime there not only provided al-Qaeda with its principal base, but fully supported it and used al-Qaeda fighters as elite shock troops in the Taliban’s ruthless struggle against fellow Afghans. Consequently, the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies felt the well-deserved post-9/11 wrath of the American people, as well as that of America’s friends around the world.

Many Americans—rightly or wrongly--have criticized the Iraq War, not because they are unpatriotic, do not have to send their relatives off to foreign battlefields because we have a volunteer military, or because they do not support our troops. Many of them simply came to recognize that the war’s justifications were largely false, appalling errors of policy and command were made, promises of success went unfulfilled for four long years, and the belief that much of the war would fund itself from Iraqi oil quickly faded.

One of the great dangers frequently associated with wars of choice are that they have a tendency to produce consequences far different than the original aims of those who planned them. The Germans and Japanese learned that lesson after their spectacular early triumphs began to go sour in late 1942 — ultimately leading to the destruction of much of those two countries and the deaths of millions of their citizens. And this X-factor also has come into play in the Iraq War. Practically no-one back in March 2003 could have imagined the bloody, dismal and prolonged slog that we have witnessed over much of the past five years.

Let us hope that we are finally on the right course in Iraq, and after all the sacrifice that important Middle East country will be stabilized and the last remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq eradicated (its creation yet another unanticipated consequence of this war of choice).

Unfortunately, the complexity of the situation in that tortured country leads me to believe that we are still a long way from anything that could realistically be called victory.

Wayne White, an adjunct scholar at Washington, DC’s Middle East Institute, is a retired Deputy Director of the U.S. State Department’s Near East and South Asia Intelligence office. He has lived and worked in Niger, Haiti, Egypt, Israel and Iraq. In 2000, he received the National Intelligence Medal for Outstanding Achievement and in 2005 the Secretary’s Career Achievement Award from Secretary of State Powell.

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mas destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
- Barack Obama Oct 2 2002.