2 Trillion Dollars

[ucrzymofo87]

First of all, the arguement of terrorist training in Afghanistan is aroneous. The Soviet Union was our ally to defeat Hitler, even though the Soviets were morally reprehensible. The United States sold arms and materiale to the Soviets, so they could defeat the Nazis. The same sort of situation occured with the Mujahedin and the USSR in Afghanistan. Now, we must fight the terrorists for the existence of Western civilization.

We must not rule out military strikes against Iran or North Korea. Consider the implications of the mulahs with nuclear weapons. With nukes and their new president proving he is a madman, saying Israel should be wiped off the map and denying the Holocaust existed, Iran is especially dangerous. If Iran possessed a nuclear bomb, they can dictate petroleum exports to the entire region. It can threaten the capitals of Europe, which are within a short distance with medium range nuclear missiles. It could effectively destroy Israel with two nuclear strikes as well as threaten American and allied armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world community seems to be unifying because their safety is threatened as well.

Instead of bringing up past issues that are useless to accomplishing our present problems, we should be focused on winning the war in Iraq. However, the Left in this country wants the United States to fail. They do not want our success because if that happens, George W. Bush will receive the credit and they will be out of power for a generation. If you wish to speak of shortsightedness, think of today's Democrat party not fully realizing the implications of a loss in Iraq. First of all, we would lose the respect of the world community because we were not able to keep our word and see conflicts through. Iraq would descend into civil war, possibly even be invaded by Iran. We would be morally downtroden at home and we would not be a great nation anymore. Who would like to volunteer to go through the "maliase" years again? However, that is how the Left views the United States. We are morally evil bigots according to modern and popular culture.

When the war is won and it is being won, the Left will do exactly what they did during the Cold War; pretend that they supported their country. Luckily, George Bush is not a coward and will not withdraw from Iraq. Here is a great picture showing the attitude of our troops and the majority of our people:



story here

[vtwahoo]

I'm sorry...can you clarify? The Soviets are/were the...good guys?

Now that's the first thing you've said that I've agreed with. You better not let the rest of your party hear that...they'll tear up your membership card for being a commie sympathizer.

On a serious note, yes the Soviet Union was our ally in World War II...in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of way. If you will remember, the Soviets declared war against Hitler becuase Hitler INVADED them. We declared war on Hilter becuase...well...becuase he declared war on us and it seemed like the nice thing to do.

But we never trusted the Soviets even when they were our allies and even though we would have been hard pressed to win the war without them. For example, we never told the Soviets that we had broken Enigma nor did we confide in them about our nuclear project at Los Alamos (even though Stalin knew more than Truman). And as soon as the war was over we decided that those goddamned pinko commies were dangerous and---presto---the Cold War.

Most Americans raised in the Cold War Era don't know that the Soviet Union WAS our ally in WWII. That part of history was very conveniently forgotten for about 45 years.

That being said, the United States did things during the Cold War in the name of national security that were far worse than arming the Afghanis who would later become terrorists. Not that they didn't do that too. Becuase they did. And it would be better if we didn't conveniently forget about that for 45 years.

But we will.

[Killfile]

First of all, the arguement [sic] of terrorist training in Afghanistan is aroneous [sic].

Why? Because it's inconvenient to you and your ideology? Let me spell this out for you in small words so you'll be sure to understand: We trained and equipped terrorists. The United States of America gave aid and comfort to terrorists and participated in state sponsored terrorism. By President George W. Bush's own words that makes us a "rogue state" and one that should expect B2s in our skies at any moment.

The Soviet Union was our ally to defeat Hitler, even though the Soviets were morally reprehensible. The United States sold arms and materiale [sic] to the Soviets, so they could defeat the Nazis. The same sort of situation occurred [sic] with the Mujahedin and the USSR in Afghanistan.

Right - well except for the fact that the Nazis were fighting a war of conquest in which the whole of Europe was at stake and the power balance of the world was shifting. In contrast the Soviets were knocking over a country whose major export is/was heroin.

Now, we must fight the terrorists for the existence of Western civilization.

Are you HIGH? What do you think they're packing? The Death Star? They can fly planes into buildings, and if they're really lucky (and I mean really, really, really lucky) take out Los Angeles with a small nuclear device. I can't imagine that ANYONE from the right wing would consider the nuclear incineration of Los Angeles as even BAD for Western Civilization.

We must not rule out military strikes against Iran or North Korea.

Why not? They allready HAVE nukes (probably)... personally I'd think that antagonizing someone that can lob nukes at us would be on the short list of things not to do in my 2nd Term. But hey! One foreign policy disaster down (Iraq) one to go. I'm glad I live in a small town.

Consider the implications of the mulahs with nuclear weapons.... [fearmongering snipped]

Iran already has India-1, a vaccine resistant strain of Small Pox more than capable of bringing about the viral equivalent of Armageddon. It's not like they'll be better armed with an atomic bomb. Iran is already sufficiently dangerous that we would be well advised to treat them with respect. "Yee-Haw" is not a diplomatic philosophy that will serve us well here.

It can threaten the capitals of Europe, which are within a short distance with medium range nuclear missiles. It could effectively destroy Israel with two nuclear strikes as well as threaten American and allied armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world community seems to be unifying because their safety is threatened as well.

There is a really big difference between the kind of bomb you can build with an emergent nuclear program and the kind of bomb you can strap on to a medium range ballistic missile. One of them weighs several tons and has to be delivered by a specially modified B-29... the other can fit in the trunk of your car. Just because North Korea has a bomb and Iran wants one doesn't mean they're anywhere close to missile delivery. Even so, with US forces spread as thin as they are - it's not as if we could DO anything about the Iranian bomb at this point.

Instead of bringing up past issues that are useless to accomplishing our present problems, we should be focused on winning the war in Iraq.

It's a good thing that those who don't know their history aren't forced to repeat it. If they were, the US might be really worried about knocking over yet another Middle Eastern country that doesn't want us there and creating a new generation of terrorists.

History is a powerful thing - it can save you a lot of trouble. Ask Hitler, who thought he could invade Russia from the West even though no one else had ever managed to pull that trick off before. The US would do well to remember that never once has democracy been artificially implanted in a country without leading to bloodshed, civil war, and (often) genocide.

However, the Left in this country wants the United States to fail. They do not want our success because if that happens, George W. Bush will receive the credit and they will be out of power for a generation.

Your desperate mudslinging doesn't make your argument any stronger; and telling lies only makes you look like a xenophobic politico. I'm not aware of anyone on the left who's actually hoping for defeat in Iraq. Several people have predicted it, but let's not rush to shoot the messenger just yet. Cough up - let's see your evidence on that claim.

If you wish to speak of shortsightedness, think of today's Democrat party not fully realizing the implications of a loss in Iraq.

We realize them. That's why we thought that war should be used only as a last resort and that we should commit nearly three times the number of troops that were used if we had to invade. That's why we thought tax cuts during a time of so called war were a bad idea.

Maybe the right should have thought of all that before W decided that he needed to play "nation builder" with his daddy's old Cold War toys.

When the war is won and it is being won, the Left will do exactly what they did during the Cold War; pretend that they supported their country.

Oooooooh. That evil Left Wing that didn't fight the commies. How dare they pretend to be good Americans. Never mind that Truman, JFK, and LBJ who all served their country during the Cold War.

Pathetic revisionism... really.

[vtwahoo]

"Yee-Haw" is not a diplomatic philosophy that will serve us well here.

Neither is "bring it on."

[Laik]

My bad Darkness. When I was referring to people dying I didn't only mean Americans. There are people from other nations there, people being taken hostage, unarmed people who honestly want to help, innocent people just trying to get on with they lives, scared people trying to avoid the conflict but still getting caught up in it, and I could go on.

Also, what I mean was that rushing into things usually don't give promising results. Instead of a well thought out plan, it just looks like like a series of mistakes with a bump or two that makes some people believe everything is alright.

Just because I don't see many good times ahead, I want the United States, the place where I live, to lose the 'war'? Not at all I'll be happy if I was wrong but what exactly is win in this case? What if this is just the first domino that is going to fall down? I know the military is going to come out on top but what exactly consitutes the victory you are talking about? What comes after that victory?

He make think he's giving terrorism a punch or two but what is he doing in the process? Getting people killed? Check. Murdering civil liberties? Check? Hmm, and I'll just throw in that he doesn't care about black people for the fun of it.

[Quest]

stumbled upon this article. suddenly my view of the world and america became a whole lot clearer.
=)
note the date on the article as well.

http://us.altnews.com.au/nuke/article.php?sid=4645

beginning of the article, not the whole article:

The Americans could live with Saddam until he started selling oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars. Then the Europeans could live with him.

GOOD AS GOLD
At the end of World War II, the USA was the world's biggest national economy and the only great power whose industrial base was not damaged by the war. America's huge productive capacity made the U.S. dollar the easiest currency to spend in the global market and consequently the most acceptable foreign currency outside the USA. By the late 1950s, however, the recovery of Europe and Japan caused a suspicion that there were too many dollars in circulation. Central bankers began to exchange their dollars for gold under the terms of the 1944 Bretton Woods treaty, whereby the currencies of participating countries were backed by gold. In 1971, in response to the depletion of U.S. gold reserves, President Richard Nixon announced that the dollar would no longer be redeemable for gold. So the system of fixed exchange rates via gold-backing fell apart. It was thought that the dollar would decline in value as traders relied less on the dollar and more on the emerging European and Asian currencies. But support for the dollar came from an unlikely quarter.

Why America is wealthy:

So America can export dollars, which cost nothing to produce, and receive real goods and services in return.

Why invade Iraq:

The third and most blatant offender was Iraq. In October 2000, Iraq persuaded the United Nations to allow Iraqi oil to be sold for euros instead of dollars, with effect from November 6.

In the probable future:

If the euro becomes a global currency to rival the dollar, central banks and other traders will sell down their dollar reserves, causing the value of the dollar to plummet (and devaluing the debts of poor countries at the expense of their creditors). The unwanted dollars will be withdrawn from the U.S. asset market and will flood the market for U.S. goods and services. The U.S. property market will deflate (so that poor Americans can more easily afford homes, at the expense of current property owners). The U.S. stock market, being more volatile than the property market, will fall faster. The real prices of property and shares will fall further than the dollar prices because the dollar itself will be devalued.

[psi29a]

you are correct, and killfile has mentioned this multiple times in other threads.

[Killfile]

I love how no one actually reads what I write.

Yes, the Euros for Oil motive is a strong one. Doubly so when you realize that Iraq's oil production capabilities in conjunction with other countries that allready sell oil in Euros (but haven't been under ariel bombardment for the last 10 years) would constitute a majority of OPEC oil production.

So if Iraq goes to Euros, there's a real risk that OPEC would STOP selling oil in dollars.

.... and then we'd be really screwed.

[ucrzymofo87]

Why? Because it's inconvenient to you and your ideology? Let me spell this out for you in small words so you'll be sure to understand: We trained and equipped terrorists. The United States of America gave aid and comfort to terrorists and participated in state sponsored terrorism. By President George W. Bush's own words that makes us a "rogue state" and one that should expect B2s in our skies at any moment.

First of all, it is pathetic that you have to insult my intelligence just to get your sad point across. However, I digress. Your argument is convoluted and it is an attempt to say that since we armed the terrorists to fight the Soviets, we should not fight them after they attack us. Say for example, if I sold you a gun and you turn around and try to shoot me, then I have a right to defend myself. It is simple common sense which seems to be lacking in the Democrat party and is self-evident by their recent dismal election results.

Right - well except for the fact that the Nazis were fighting a war of conquest in which the whole of Europe was at stake and the power balance of the world was shifting. In contrast the Soviets were knocking over a country whose major export is/was heroin.

There was a larger principle behind defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Soviet invasion was Afghanistan was an invasion intent on effectively colonizing Afghanistan. The danger this invasion showed to the world was that instead of trying to repress unrest in their satellites i.e. Poland and Czechoslovakia, they would outright invade another country. The Afghan rebels were essential to defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Are you HIGH? What do you think they're packing? The Death Star? They can fly planes into buildings, and if they're really lucky (and I mean really, really, really lucky) take out Los Angeles with a small nuclear device. I can't imagine that ANYONE from the right wing would consider the nuclear incineration of Los Angeles as even BAD for Western Civilization.

This statement of yours shows the danger of calling it quits too soon. You seem to be very short-sighted when it comes to the future. If you would have what you want, the United States would leave Iraq to the terrorists, Iran would be more emboldened to throw its weight around, and our allies would no longer respect us to keep our promises. Since George Bush has kept us safe since September 11th, Americans have become complacent in thinking that we are safe again.

Why not? They allready HAVE nukes (probably)... personally I'd think that antagonizing someone that can lob nukes at us would be on the short list of things not to do in my 2nd Term. But hey! One foreign policy disaster down (Iraq) one to go. I'm glad I live in a small town.

Firstly, Iraq is not a disaster. We are winning the war there. We have successfully held two elections where the Iraqis have elected their government. American and coalition casualties have been minimal compared to past wars. Second, if the world community shows unity and demands Iran abandon their nuclear efforts, then they would be compelled to face military action or be forever excluded from world affairs.

Iran already has India-1, a vaccine resistant strain of Small Pox more than capable of bringing about the viral equivalent of Armageddon. It's not like they'll be better armed with an atomic bomb. Iran is already sufficiently dangerous that we would be well advised to treat them with respect. "Yee-Haw" is not a diplomatic philosophy that will serve us well here.

By respect, I hope you don't mean bend over and grab our ankles in front of the Iranians (which you probably do believe we should do). We have to show that we are determined to make sure they do not have nuclear weapons, otherwise they will feed off of our division and make even more dangerous threats. As I said earlier, there is more danger to them having nuclear weapons that most people realize.

There is a really big difference between the kind of bomb you can build with an emergent nuclear program and the kind of bomb you can strap on to a medium range ballistic missile. One of them weighs several tons and has to be delivered by a specially modified B-29... the other can fit in the trunk of your car. Just because North Korea has a bomb and Iran wants one doesn't mean they're anywhere close to missile delivery. Even so, with US forces spread as thin as they are - it's not as if we could DO anything about the Iranian bomb at this point.

In this statement, you make an even better case for why the Iranians should not have nuclear weapons. They can pawn these weapons off to terrorists, with whom we know Iran is fairly chummy with. Islamic radicals with nuclear weapons is not something I think we can afford to wait and see what the effects are.

It's a good thing that those who don't know their history aren't forced to repeat it. If they were, the US might be really worried about knocking over yet another Middle Eastern country that doesn't want us there and creating a new generation of terrorists.

There is a difference between "knocking over another Middle Eastern country" and making precision airstrikes to take out specific targets.

History is a powerful thing - it can save you a lot of trouble. Ask Hitler, who thought he could invade Russia from the West even though no one else had ever managed to pull that trick off before. The US would do well to remember that never once has democracy been artificially implanted in a country without leading to bloodshed, civil war, and (often) genocide.

You can also say that no President who has lost the popular vote in an election ever won reelection, wait, except of course for George W. Bush. Democracy is not being implanted on Iraq. If the Iraqis did not want to vote, they did not have to vote. They turned out in fantastic numbers to elect their own government. I think by any stretch of the imagination, they have adopted democracy.

Your desperate mudslinging doesn't make your argument any stronger; and telling lies only makes you look like a xenophobic politico. I'm not aware of anyone on the left who's actually hoping for defeat in Iraq. Several people have predicted it, but let's not rush to shoot the messenger just yet. Cough up - let's see your evidence on that claim.

Howard Dean the leader of the Democrat party said in a radio interview quote, "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." source
If that is not defeatism, I do not know what else you can call it. Now, compare that with George Bush who said, "I know we're going to win' in Iraq. source

We realize them. That's why we thought that war should be used only as a last resort and that we should commit nearly three times the number of troops that were used if we had to invade. That's why we thought tax cuts during a time of so called war were a bad idea.

War was a last resort. We gave Saddam TWELVE years to comply with EIGHTEEN UN resolutions. WMDs were not the only issue in the war. There was also, "Saddam was asked to stop threatening Iraq's neighbors and fomenting instability in the region. He did not. Between 1990 and 2003, Iraq took threatening action against Kuwait on 61 separate occasions. Tehran, for its part, reported to the U.N. 218 instances in which Iraq violated the terms of its 1989 cease-fire with Iran. Any survey of Iraqi propaganda under Saddam would show it as a means of fomenting hatred against many Arab governments, thus acting against the region's peace and stability." "Various resolutions also demanded that Saddam stop violating the human rights of the Iraqi people and put an end to three decades of brutal repression. We now know that his henchmen were executing real or imagined opponents until April 8, just hours before the first U.S. troops entered Baghdad. By some estimates, Saddam's death machine murdered more than 100,000 Iraqis between 1991 and 2003. (This includes those killed when he quelled the 1991 uprisings in southern Iraq.)"source
Also, no American general requested more troops to fight the war in Iraq, so your solution to add more troops would have been counter-productive to waging the war. Good job.

Maybe the right should have thought of all that before W decided that he needed to play "nation builder" with his daddy's old Cold War toys. Oooooooh. That evil Left Wing that didn't fight the commies. How dare they pretend to be good Americans. Never mind that Truman, JFK, and LBJ who all served their country during the Cold War.

Pathetic revisionism... really.

You want to cite Cold Warriors like Truman, JFK, and LBJ? Does the Korean War and the firing of Douglas MacArthur sound like Truman wanted to fight the war to win? Truman did not want to win Korea, he wanted to fight to a standstill just like the Western Front in WWI. Thank God Eisenhower cleaned up his mess by ending the war. Speaking of "No Air Cover Kennedy," does anyone remember the Bay of Pigs disaster? Granted, he did handle himself well during the Cuban missile crisis, it could have been avoided if the Cuban invasion was a success. However, his overall record is not impressive. LBJ and Vietnam is another great Cold War victory I imagine. The idea of Of course, I'm sure those events were all successes because those Presidents were Democrats. The real winner of the Cold War is this man. That is not revision, those are facts, which are rather stubborn things.

[psi29a]

The anti-war Democrats would not believe it even if he said it, so he is probably saving us time.

EDIT: Actually, the anti-war crowd will figure out a way to say that the United States sold the shovels and building materials the terrorists used to practice their drills, ergo it is the United States' fault.

Prove that we didn't.

Prove that we did.

The past few posts have been in point of proving that 'we' did. Would you care to refute that? If not, then it stands that it IS the United State's fault.

You can squirt around the subject all you want, but you never really addressed the issue at hand. Stop pussy-footing.

BTW, the edit button does works.

[Skullkracker]

huuuuuuuge pppoooooossts

[psi29a]

huuuuuuuge pppoooooossts

Not really, its the same tripe... just with different endings. Someone forgot to use 'edit'. Remember, double posting is BAD.

[Wandering_Mystic]

urcrzymofo, the number of errors in your facts and thought process in astronomical, and I don't have the energy to point them out, so I'll just say a few things quickly, and if it helps, then great. It seems highly likely at least one other person will address your mis-statements anyway.

I encourage you to read the posts of the other forum users here VERY carefully, especially regarding those with whom you are having "discussions". It looks like you are only reading what you want to read, i.e. you repeatedly assume Killfile and other like-minded fellows "want America to fail" despite him and others repeatedly saying that that is not the case.

One of the biggest problems with your reasoning lies in what you take to be as "fact". For example, in your recent post, you compared a statement by Howard Dean with one by George W. Bush and implied not only that Dean actively yearns for US defeat, but also that the entire Democratic Party ("The Left", as you quaintly call it) yearns for it as well. If a blind man points to a dog and calls it a cat, it won't make the dog any more cat-like. You patronized Killfile for insulting you (despite you basically insulting him as well earlier and just now) so I'll refrain from saying anything negative myself, even though the urge is strong (it is also pointless).

Oh, and you may want to delete the first post of your double-post if you haven't done so already

[Killfile]

Your argument is convoluted and it is an attempt to say that since we armed the terrorists to fight the Soviets, we should not fight them after they attack us.

No, I never said that. Please read and comprehend my post before responding.

I said that the United States is suffering from the short-sighted strategy it employed in the Cold War. Perhaps we would be well served by considering the long term implications of foreign policy in the future so as to avoid these sorts of consequences.

The Afghan rebels were essential to defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Even Dr. Phillip Zelikow, chair of the 9-11 commission and a former high level advisor in the first Bush Administration thought the Afghan rebels were unnecessary and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan of little import.

If you would have what you want, the United States would leave Iraq to the terrorists, Iran would be more emboldened to throw its weight around, and our allies would no longer respect us to keep our promises.

No, I never said that. Please read and comprehend my post before responding.

I question why Iraq instead of the many other more pressing security concerns.
I question why Iraq instead of the many other more pressing humanitarian concerns.
I question why we didn't commit enough troops to Iraq to put down the insurgency in its infancy.
I question why we didn't consider the larger implications of an occupied Iraq before we got involved.

But I have never and will never suggest in any way that Iraq would be better off in the hands of "terrorists."

Firstly, Iraq is not a disaster. We are winning the war there.

We don't even know who we're fighting any more. We've botched this bad and now we have to live with the consequences. How are we winning? What is winning? Under what conditions have we won? No bombings in... what... a month? Two months? There is no victory condition and thus there can BE NO VICTORY. It sucks, I wish that Bush would figure out what my countrymen are dieing for so that they can accomplish it and come home.

We have successfully held two elections where the Iraqis have elected their government.

Hitler, Napoleon, and Mussolini also held elections. Lets find a better yard-stick by which to measure success eh?

American and coalition casualties have been minimal compared to past wars.

I assume you mean minimal, with the exception of the following wars/military actions [source]

Operation Secure Tomorow (Haiti)
Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya)
Operation Allied Force (Kosovo)
Korean Expedition (Shinmiyangyo)
Operation Uphold Democracy (Hati)
Operation Eagle Claw (Iran)
All anti-pirate actions in the 19th Century
Bosnia
Operation Urgen Fury (Grenada)
The Quasi-War
The El-Salvador Civil War
The Barbary Wars
The Boxer Rebellion
The Persian Gulf Escords
Operation Just Cause (Panama)
Operation Restore Hope (Somalia)
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghani and Philipine theaters)
The Beirut Deployment
The Polar Bear Expedition (Russia)
The Persian Gulf War

Second, if the world community shows unity and demands Iran abandon their nuclear efforts, then they would be compelled to face military action or be forever excluded from world affairs.

That's a big if - and thanks to our extended deployments in Iraq we're unable to respond militarily -- how long do you imagine it will take Iran to build a bomb? Once they have one, is attacking them really a wise idea?

By respect, I hope you don't mean bend over and grab our ankles in front of the Iranians (which you probably do believe we should do). We have to show that we are determined to make sure they do not have nuclear weapons, otherwise they will feed off of our division and make even more dangerous threats. As I said earlier, there is more danger to them having nuclear weapons that most people realize.

Given my fairly extensive expertise in the field of Cold War history, I think we can safely assume that I am conversant with the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Are you? Seriously – how far do you think Iran is from a nuclear weapon. Assuming Iran is able to produce such a weapon, at what point is it no longer advisable to attack them? What considerations must be taken for dispersal of radioactive materials?

I’ve spent years of my life studying this kind of problem in an academic environment with some of the brightest minds on the planet. Upon what do you base your lofty tone?

In this statement, you make an even better case for why the Iranians should not have nuclear weapons. They can pawn these weapons off to terrorists, with whom we know Iran is fairly chummy with. Islamic radicals with nuclear weapons is not something I think we can afford to wait and see what the effects are.

Islamic radicals with Soviet Era engineered doomsday plagues are the kind of thing we can’t afford. Iran, incidentally, already has those viruses. I should think that securing those bio-weapons would be a high priority for us. How, exactly, does your clearly well thought out strategy of “lots of bombs” address this issue? I’m aware of several ways to deal with this threat – but you’ve certainly approached this as if you have all the answers, so what would you suggest? Keep in mind that if the Iranians stall long enough they get to keep their nasty superflu and get pretty bombs to go with it.

There is a difference between "knocking over another Middle Eastern country" and making precision air strikes to take out specific targets.

Precision air strikes like the one that took out a civilian family earlier this month? With precision like that, who needs carpet bombing?

You can also say that no President who has lost the popular vote in an election ever won reelection, wait, except of course for George W. Bush. Democracy is not being implanted on Iraq. If the Iraqis did not want to vote, they did not have to vote. They turned out in fantastic numbers to elect their own government. I think by any stretch of the imagination, they have adopted democracy.

The historical jurry is still out on both of those “wins.” Voting isn’t enough to guarantee the self perpetuation of a democratic system. If you’re right though, we can pull out tomorrow with no problems, after all – they’ve voted, and that means they’re peace-loving westerners now – right?

Your desperate mudslinging doesn't make your argument any stronger; and telling lies only makes you look like a xenophobic politico. I'm not aware of anyone on the left who's actually hoping for defeat in Iraq. Several people have predicted it, but let's not rush to shoot the messenger just yet. Cough up - let's see your evidence on that claim.

Howard Dean the leader of the Democrat party said in a radio interview quote, "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." source
If that is not defeatism, I do not know what else you can call it. Now, compare that with George Bush who said, "I know we're going to win' in Iraq. source

Way to prove my point. Care to try again? Read, comprehend, respond – that’s the way it’s done. You seem to be skipping that middle step.

WMDs were not the only issue in the war.

They were the only issue that Bush was able to sell to the US population – too bad it was a lie.

There was also, "Saddam was asked to stop threatening Iraq's neighbors and fomenting instability in the region.

Yes, because it was Saddam who’s created instability in the region. The number of terrorist attacks has more than tripled since we invaded Iraq according to the Bush administrations own numbers.

Any survey of Iraqi propaganda under Saddam would show it as a means of fomenting hatred against many Arab governments, thus acting against the region's peace and stability."

So it’s just like Fox News?

Also, no American general requested more troops to fight the war in Iraq, so your solution to add more troops would have been counter-productive to waging the war. Good job.

What about General Nash – who was asked to retire after he expressed concerns that the troops estimates were far too low?

MacArthur was let go for a number of reasons – not the least of which was his desire to use nuclear weapons to win the war. JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs fiasco from Eisenhower and ordered US air cover back when he received word that there might be Soviet troops on the ground in Cuba (which would have ended badly for everyone). LBJ’s continuance of Vietnam, while easy to criticize now, years later, was a decision to which there is still no easy answer.

Any claims that Reagan won the Cold War are inherently flawed in that they fail to grasp the significance of Gorby’s reforms – which his biographers will tell you were wholly independent of Reagan and his policies.

[panasonic]

strategic precision bombing..... like bombing canadian coalition forces by accident. very precise huh?

[vtwahoo]

Now, Killfile, that's not true.

Any historian worth his salt will tell you that Reagan did accelerate the collapse of the Soviet Union.

By about two weeks.

[ucrzymofo87]

strategic precision bombing..... like bombing canadian coalition forces by accident. very precise huh?

The technology we have now is a lot more precise than in World War II and Vietnam when we had to use carpet bombings.

[vtwahoo]

And yet we continue to unnecessarily kill innocent civilians.

Or are you suggesting that we're doing that on purpose?

[panasonic]

im talking about afganistan(sp?)......

[ucrzymofo87]

And yet we continue to unnecessarily kill innocent civilians.

Or are you suggesting that we're doing that on purpose?

Denis Kucinich the former Presidential candidate from Ohio thinks we are.

[psi29a]

strategic precision bombing..... like bombing canadian coalition forces by accident. very precise huh?

The technology we have now is a lot more precise than in World War II and Vietnam when we had to use carpet bombings.

You still haven't responded to my post above. I can only assume that your silence is your admittance that the US did train and arm the very terrorists that seek to do us harm.

[ucrzymofo87]

strategic precision bombing..... like bombing canadian coalition forces by accident. very precise huh?

The technology we have now is a lot more precise than in World War II and Vietnam when we had to use carpet bombings.

You still haven't responded to my post above. I can only assume that your silence is your admittance that the US did train and arm the very terrorists that seek to do us harm.

I just got back from chemistry, and I have to read everyone's posts and then reply. I have other obligations besides this.

But I'll start with this that was debated earlier a long time ago

Here will see that the United States constituted about 1% of arms to Iraq ergo we did not supply the weapons. Russia and China did.

Here it seems to suggest that the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and China supplied the Afghan rebels. Mainly, it was Pakistan

[psi29a]

The technology we have now is a lot more precise than in World War II and Vietnam when we had to use carpet bombings.

You still haven't responded to my post above. I can only assume that your silence is your admittance that the US did train and arm the very terrorists that seek to do us harm.

I just got back from chemistry, and I have to read everyone's posts and then reply. I have other obligations besides this.

That is great and all, but you have responded many times to this thread, after my post. Your comment is what started this whole ball of yarn, back it up bucko.

[Sortep]

damn checkmate

[psi29a]

The technology we have now is a lot more precise than in World War II and Vietnam when we had to use carpet bombings.

You still haven't responded to my post above. I can only assume that your silence is your admittance that the US did train and arm the very terrorists that seek to do us harm.

I just got back from chemistry, and I have to read everyone's posts and then reply. I have other obligations besides this.

But I'll start with this that was debated earlier a long time ago

Here will see that the United States constituted about 1% of arms to Iraq ergo we did not supply the weapons. Russia and China did.

Here it seems to suggest that the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and China supplied the Afghan rebels. Mainly, it was Pakistan

Bolded for emphasis, your logic is flawed. 1% means 1 out of a total 100. Ergo, United States armed and trained the very people that are now fighting us. Take an intro level logic class, us computer science had to.

In the same article of which you site in wikipedia even cites Reagan as calling these same people we armed 'freedom fighters'.

After the Soviet invasion these mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (under the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China.[2][/qoute]

Where [2] == source

So, the sources that you give me even say that the United States funded 'Radical Islam'.

It isn't a debate anymore. Take a dose of responsilibty, you will find that owning up to a mistake makes it easier to solve the problem.