SUPPORT THE TROOPS!! (bring them home)

[SKILMATIC]

He "EXCLAIMS", its a matter of personal opinion, and he cannot be held responsible for the actions of the enemy based on his OPINIONS.

No but people are held accountable, beleive it or not, for what they say and do. Again you dont have full freedom of speech. If your speech is in a direct or indirect way of hurting someone then you are guilty of that crime. Its not rocket science. If you yell fire in a theatre(and there was no fire) and someone got trampled then you are responsible for that. If you yell bomb in a airport(and there was no bomb) you would be sitting in a state peneitentiary for 7yrs. I know just ask the man who yelled it at Lindberg Field. Becasue it had a direct affect on peoples safety and it really hammered the airline companies he was guilty of those crimes. Moore although he may not have a hand directly in a particular terror plot his words and actions fule the terrorists fire in their hearts to commit these crimes against humanity. Just becasue you have freedom of speech doenst mean you do and that you arent respnisible for that which you say caue you are.

YOU SUPPOSE, thats exactly it, you know nothing of what he really deeply truly thinks of the situation, you see him talking trash about America and blame the actions of the terrorists on his words? Thats a very VERY weak argument, and is not cause for charges of treason.

That was just an example. However, let me ask you the flipside to that. When have you ever heard Moore say that he loves this country and americans are great people and that terrorism is wrong? I havent. Have you? If you cant establish proof or even actions that you love this country and you support its fight against terror then that is also very questionable. Furthermore he has repeatedly repudiated this nation and all of its people which only leads me and everyone else for that matter who has common sense that he cares nithing for this country.

So, you've seen him at a terrorist rally? Do they have terrorist rallies in France?

Im know they do. I was there for quite sometime when I visited europe which was before 9/11. There were rallies against america which I have seen. Were they jiadists? No. But they were talking quite incineratingly against the american people. They were also pedastooling violence against america which is siding with terrorism casue thats what terrorists do. This was going on in the French Riviera and at the town were I stayed at which was Perpinya(I think thats the correct spelling).

Many of your arguments are based upon what you THINK his outlandish opinions do to the minds of the terrorist. This is not cause for charges of treason. Its an extremely weak argument.

Again this is just your opinion as well. The fact of the matter is he hates america and everyone in it. Until he can establish otherwise or act upon it otherwise then he will remain in my book and in many others as a seditionist. The only reason why he isnt sitting in a 5by5 with Cindy is becasue hes rich and because other rich people would just bail him out.

 

[Caine]

No but people are held accountable, beleive it or not, for what they say and do. Again you dont have full freedom of speech. If your speech is in a direct or indirect way of hurting someone then you are guilty of that crime. Moore although he may not have a hand directly in a particular terror plot his words and actions fule the terrorists fire in their hearts to commit these crimes against humanity. Just becasue you have freedom of speech doenst mean you do and that you arent respnisible for that which you say caue you are.



That was just an example. However, let me ask you the flipside to that. When have you ever heard Moore say that he loves this country and americans are great people and that terrorism is wrong? I havent. Have you? If you cant establish proof or even actions that you love this country and you support its fight against terror then that is also very questionable. Furthermore he has repeatedly repudiated this nation and all of its people which only leads me and everyone else for that matter who has common sense that he cares nithing for this country.


Im know they do. I was there for quite sometime when I visited europe which was before 9/11. There were rallies against america which I have seen. Were they jiadists? No. But they were talking quite incineratingly against the american people. They were also pedastooling violence against america which is siding with terrorism casue thats what terrorists do. This was going on in the French Riviera and at the town were I stayed at which was Perpinya(I think thats the correct spelling).



Again this is just your opinion as well. The fact of the matter is he hates america and everyone in it.

1. Can't prove that his opinions or actions have any effect, AT ALL, on terrorists, this is just your speculation, and an extreme right-wing nutjob's way of putting the blame of terrorist actions on liberals. *cough* Savage *cough*

2. Again, you can't prove that his actions or words fuel them whatsoever.

3. Not required for citizenship.

4. You care to provide evidence besides the fact that you've seen every country in this world it seems?

5. One, you don't know if he hates everyone in America, he seems to communicate with many of soldiers who agree with him, he doesn't hate them. Two, it may be my opinion, but my opinion is backed up by the fact that there isnt enough evidence to suggest he is guilty of treason.

 

[SKILMATIC]

1. Can't prove that his opinions or actions have any effect, AT ALL, on terroists, this is just your speculation, and an extreme right-wing nutjob's way of putting the blame of terroist actions on liberals. *cough* Savage *cough*

2. Again, you can't prove that his actions or words fuel them whatsoever.

3. Not required for citizenship.

4. You care to provide evidence besides the fact that you've seen every country in this world it seems?

5. One, you don't know if he hates everyone in America, he seems to communicate with many of soldiers who agree with him, he doesn't hate them. Two, it may be my opinion, but my opinion is backed up by the fact that there isnt enough evidence to suggest he is guilty of treason.

1) It may be speculation nonetheless, he is still speculated against millions of other americans have the same "speculations" as you call them. It doesnt remain a speculative notion when millions upon millions make it reality Mr. Caine. Like I said the only reason why he isnt prosecuted against is becasue he has milllions of dollars and millions on top of that from other supporters. It is very true to the fact that he fuels the terroists. That is just common sense. If no one agrees with what you are doing then the morale will be very low and likely to whither away, but when you have people from within the institution that you are targeting that makes it all the better and wholesome to rectify in your own mind and determination to carry on these attacks against humanity.

2) Its common sense that they do buddy. Seriously its common sense. Think about it if you had people within your enemies borders rallying against the very thing you are at war against that does none other than to increase morale for these terroists.

3) Citizenship has nothing to do with it. He is uplifting their morale by his words and actions. Its a proven fact throughout the worlds history of war.

4) Why do I need to provide evidence when I have seen it? I have been to these places and I have the peeps to back me up. PLus 4 yrs in the navy helps too.

5) Please he just quoted that all of america is a bunch of ignorant liars who dont deserve freedom. If thats not hate fro america I dont know what is Mr. Caine. Mabe you listen to too much of cough Naom Chomsky cough. That argument goes both ways Mr Caine. And again your opinion is nonetheless backed up by opinions. While your opinion suggests that there isnt enough evidence to back up treason the fact is if he wasnt rich(much like cindy sheehan) he would be sitting in the cell next to her. The only reason why she's in jail is casue she's not rich. Furthermore, the soldiers on his prgrams do not know about their benefits therefor they are sore towards the government. In actuality any soldier who gets injured in war or even just in iraq gets ful medical benefits and is a purple heart recipient which also includes so many benefits it will make you sick. Now theres not one soldier that I know that has been over there and who has the sentiment that these supposed soldiers do on Moores programs. There have been friends of soldiers on here that told me that a man that lost his leg in iraq wasnt qualified for any medical benefits and I laughed. I told him you bring him into any Veterans or active duty hospital he will not only receive a purple heart but full medical beneifits and job training. This is a fact for it is in the GI BILL.

 

[Caine]

1) It may be speculation nonetheless, he is still speculated against millions of other americans have the same "speculations" as you call them. It doesnt remain a speculative notion when millions upon millions make it reality Mr. Caine. Like I said the only reason why he isnt prosecuted against is becasue he has milllions of dollars and millions on top of that from other supporters. It is very true to the fact that he fuels the terroists. That is just common sense.
4) Why do I need to provide evidence when I have seen it?
5) Naom Chomsky That argument goes both ways Mr Caine. And again your opinion is nonetheless backed up by opinions. While your opinion suggests that there isnt enough evidence to back up treason the fact is if he wasnt rich(much like cindy sheehan) he would be sitting in the cell next to her. The only reason why she's in jail is casue she's not rich.

Okay, here goes.
1. A. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. B. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. C. Money didn't stop the prosecution of Mr. Lay (Enron) or the thousands of other rich people who have been prosecuted for crimes. D. There is no evidence that supports his hate for America words are resulting in more attacks on our troops, and because of this, Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

2. Why should you provide evidence? Am I supposed to take your word for it? Okay, fine. I also saw Anti-Terrorism protests and people pledging allegiance to the US flag in France. I served 4 years in the Army. Ive been there, you have to take my word for it.

3. A. Naom Chomsky? Who is that? I don't listen to radio talk shows (except John Boy and Billy who are actually conservative, but don't talk politics much, just NASCAR and hillbilly stuff). B. I may be backed up by opinions, and the fact that.. ahem... Innocent until PROVEN guilty. C. Again, read 1C. D. She is actually out of jail, and she was never arrested for treason.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Okay, here goes.
1. A. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. B. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. C. Money didn't stop the prosecution of Mr. Lay (Enron) or the thousands of other rich people who have been prosecuted for crimes. D. There is no evidence that supports his hate for America words are resulting in more attacks on our troops, and because of this, Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

2. Why should you provide evidence? Am I supposed to take your word for it? Okay, fine. I also saw Anti-Terrorism protests and people pledging allegiance to the US flag in France. I served 4 years in the Army. Ive been there, you have to take my word for it.

3. A. Naom Chomsky? Who is that? I don't listen to radio talk shows (except John Boy and Billy who are actually conservative, but don't talk politics much, just NASCAR and hillbilly stuff). B. I may be backed up by opinions, and the fact that.. ahem... Innocent until PROVEN guilty. C. Again, read 1C. D. She is actually out of jail, and she was never arrested for treason.

Ok here I go

1) Innocent until rpven guilty huh? So what happened to the OJ trial then? Michael jackson? Like I said if you are rich you can get out of things. Enron got a slap on the wrist. They laughed when they came out. Moore could be with the terrorists and bomb a building we would arrest him then he would be out on his million dollar bail. Yeah that was menaingful.

2) BWAHAHAHAA very funny. All I would say is why dont you go there for yourself and you will see. I just walked throught the town of Perpinya and I saw pictured that ridiculed americans. They were pics of fat ugly people labeled as americans and theere were snide remarks under the pic. I was looked at funny and I couldnt even ask for directions around there. Just as anyone who has been there they will tell you that there is anti semitism to americans except for Paris. Paris because its so internationalized there very little people there who share the sentiment. Also french people would never pledge our flag becasue they are too prideful and they dont like us at all. After I left I pledged that I would never go there again unless I have to. It was the worst country of my trip. Things were too expensive, the smell was horrible, the people sucked, and I didnt even have fun there except when I met this gorgeous looking frech girl. God she was pretty

3) Yes Cindy was arrested for conspiring to commit treason and harm to the president and the soldiers. Why else would she be arrested? Also I like Nascar too. Im a jr fan.

 

[Caine]

3) Yes Cindy was arrested for conspiring to commit treason and harm to the president and the soldiers. Why else would she be arrested? Also I like Nascar too. Im a jr fan.

Where did you get that crazy information?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050926/ap_on_re_us/war_demonstrations

 

[kal-el]

I found this petition by Senator Boxer online, it is to President Bush to have an exit strategy in place:

http://ga4.org/campaign/sucessstrategy

 

[MSgt]

I found this petition by Senator Boxer online, it is to President Bush to have an exit strategy in place:

http://ga4.org/campaign/sucessstrategy

...and? If we leave before the job is done, will Al-Queda go back to playing poker on Friday nights and disband? Will this failing civilization lift itself out of it's downward spiral? Will the Clerics of the Middle East teach their young the true Islam of the rest of the world instead of the hatred barbarics that they have been doing for decades? Will "Allah" no longer demand blood from infidels? We didn't start this war. They did. Iraq is a battle sight of their choosing. Be patient.


What the ****! Now he doesn't have any powers? This is why I didn't get into the series. I knew they would just drag this crap out. I bet he goes through half the season without powers and now I'm stuck watching it, because I don't want to miss things.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

...and? If we leave before the job is done, will Al-Queda go back to playing poker on Friday nights and disband? Will this failing civilization lift itself out of it's downward spiral? Will the Clerics of the Middle East teach their young the true Islam of the rest of the world instead of the hatred barbarics that they have been doing for decades? Will "Allah" no longer demand blood from infidels? We didn't start this war. They did. Iraq is a battle sight of their choosing. Be patient.


What the ****! Now he doesn't have any powers? This is why I didn't get into the series. I knew they would just drag this crap out. I bet he goes through half the season without powers and now I'm stuck watching it, because I don't want to miss things.

I know it doesn't matter to you, but I think we all share your concerns. I think the principle is that it's their own problem and the reasons we are there have all been proven false. The war is extremely expensive and I think the money could be spent on more important issues closer to home.

 

[kal-el]

...and? If we leave before the job is done, will Al-Queda go back to playing poker on Friday nights and disband? Will this failing civilization lift itself out of it's downward spiral? Will the Clerics of the Middle East teach their young the true Islam of the rest of the world instead of the hatred barbarics that they have been doing for decades? Will "Allah" no longer demand blood from infidels? We didn't start this war. They did. Iraq is a battle sight of their choosing. Be patient.

"We didn't start this war" I don't beleive Saddam flew planes into the twin towers, do you?

What the ****! Now he doesn't have any powers? This is why I didn't get into the series. I knew they would just drag this crap out. I bet he goes through half the season without powers and now I'm stuck watching it, because I don't want to miss things.

Don't read this if you don't want to be spoiled.... He gets them back in the end of next week's episode. P.S. I have already started a thread on Smallville in the off-topic discussion forum, you should get involved Gunny.

 

[gdalton]

I know it doesn't matter to you, but I think we all share your concerns. I think the principle is that it's their own problem and the reasons we are there have all been proven false. The war is extremely expensive and I think the money could be spent on more important issues closer to home.

If you think the money could be spent better then protecting people from terrorist, then please explain. If we don't get this done and things become worse how expensive do you think it will be to clean up future messes? They do have a responsibility to step up to the plate and protect their own, I agree (damn I agreed with the ban man. Unclean! Unclean!) and I to hope this is over very soon, but we mustn't leave before we are certain they can handle it, other wise we will only be leaving the door open for more trouble. IMO.
Have you checked the results of this pole lately? Good stuff.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

If you think the money could be spent better then protecting people from terrorist, then please explain. If we don't get this done and things become worse how expensive do you think it will be to clean up future messes? They do have a responsibility to step up to the plate and protect their own, I agree (damn I agreed with the ban man. Unclean! Unclean!) and I to hope this is over very soon, but we mustn't leave before we are certain they can handle it, other wise we will only be leaving the door open for more trouble. IMO.
Have you checked the results of this pole lately? Good stuff.

Well, look at our communication structure in times of disaster. And then, look at the response time to such an event. It's interesting because all of the tragedies we experienced were all predicted and known. But, there was no sense of urgency to address the issues.

For this reason, I think we should also be investing more resources into intelligence analysis. For example, there were reports of Al-Queada hijacking planes to fly into symbolic locations. Yet, the information was ignored. Part of the problem is too much intelligence and not enough analysis. It's one thing to know something and a completely different thing to act on what you know.

The same rule applies for the levee's in New Orleans. And for the major earthquake that could strike California at any minute. What if that were to happen today? How long would people be stranded without food, water, electricity, etc. Is there a viable strategy for this scenario?

How about improving customs personnel? The Al-Queda operatives slipped through customs even though their documents were poorly forged.

If we spent a fraction of what we are currently spending on this ill-advised war on these improvements our nation would be much safer.

As for stabilizing Iraq, Like I said before, many experts and Iraqi's say that our presence is fueling the insurgency. I would like to see the people of Iraq and their representatives vote on the issue. And I think we should act based on what the people there want, rather than what we think should be done. If it turns out to be clear that the Iraqi's insist on having our military presence until they feel safe to hold their own, then I think we have the responsibility to meet their needs since their current situation is a direct result of our actions.

 

[MSgt]

I know it doesn't matter to you, but I think we all share your concerns. I think the principle is that it's their own problem and the reasons we are there have all been proven false. The war is extremely expensive and I think the money could be spent on more important issues closer to home.

Yeah, but what good is that money spent at home if Islam continues to be at war within itself and continues to turn out terrorists in the Middle East? Believe me, in my perfect world there are no terrorists. To get to that perfect world, we have to deal with the problems at hand instead of leaving them for a future generation to deal with, when the problem is bigger and more dangerous.

As far as the money being spent...I've always said that their is a lot of waste going on.

 

[MSgt]

"We didn't start this war" I don't beleive Saddam flew planes into the twin towers, do you?




Don't read this if you don't want to be spoiled.... He gets them back in the end of next week's episode. P.S. I have already started a thread on Smallville in the off-topic discussion forum, you should get involved Gunny.

No Saddam didn't. The twisted mental cases that subscribe to the Arab's version of Islam did. Your mistake is that you continue to focus on one country, when the problem is an entire region. Saudi didn't attack us. Syria didn't attack us. Iran didn't attack us. Afghanistan didn't attack us. Iraq didn't attack us. How many terrorist attacks has America suffered over the last thirty years and how many Islamic countries have been involved with them? All of them. This war is a religious war for them and they have been waging it for decades while we have ignored it. Our foreign policies have nothing to do with Sudan, Indonesia, and India. These are also places where terror tactics and murder are the tools of choice for men that would speak for their God. If we had attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, we would still be fighting these zealots, but it would be worse because Saudi Arabia is considered to be the birth place of Islam. Syria and Iran would have also welcomed a healthy insurgency. In the mean time Saddam would still be there and willing to fund anything and everything that would do harm to Americans. The whole fact that the largely Sunni populated Al-Queda declared war on all Shi'ites in Iraq should have been a wake up call to people. These people want death and destruction to all people that are not like them. And what is the Shi'ite's answer to Al-Queda in Iran? - They are cause their own brand of trouble in southern Iraq. They are at war with Christians, Hindus, and Muslims that do not subscribe to their blasphemous version of Islam. This is a problem for which the true believers of Islam are doing nothing while we suffer the terrorist attacks.

 

[MSgt]

Well, look at our communication structure in times of disaster. And then, look at the response time to such an event. It's interesting because all of the tragedies we experienced were all predicted and known. But, there was no sense of urgency to address the issues.

For this reason, I think we should also be investing more resources into intelligence analysis. For example, there were reports of Al-Queada hijacking planes to fly into symbolic locations. Yet, the information was ignored. Part of the problem is too much intelligence and not enough analysis. It's one thing to know something and a completely different thing to act on what you know.

The same rule applies for the levee's in New Orleans. And for the major earthquake that could strike California at any minute. What if that were to happen today? How long would people be stranded without food, water, electricity, etc. Is there a viable strategy for this scenario?

How about improving customs personnel? The Al-Queda operatives slipped through customs even though their documents were poorly forged.

If we spent a fraction of what we are currently spending on this ill-advised war on these improvements our nation would be much safer.

As for stabilizing Iraq, Like I said before, many experts and Iraqi's say that our presence is fueling the insurgency. I would like to see the people of Iraq and their representatives vote on the issue. And I think we should act based on what the people there want, rather than what we think should be done. If it turns out to be clear that the Iraqi's insist on having our military presence until they feel safe to hold their own, then I think we have the responsibility to meet their needs since their current situation is a direct result of our actions.

This won't happen again. New Orleans was a wake up call to our infrastructure problems. There has been a lot of movement and establishment of a proper 'Chain of Command and Control' within FEMA and the military, which wasn't there for natural disasters of this magnitude before. Also, giving the military immediate emergency response powers without the consent of all the red tape and procedures was shot down by the state Governors. I guess people see this as another "Patriot Act" scenario. Either way, Katrina taught us all the right lessons.

Our existence in Iraq is fueling the Al-Queda insurgency. If we leave Iraq before we should, Al-Queda will remain. We took Afghanistan away from them and now they need a home to rebuild. But the fact is that it doesn't matter where we went in the Middle East, the Al-Queda insurgency would have followed and they don't need fueling. These "martyrs" and zealots exist throughout the region. Their existence relies upon their throw back beliefs and the absence of democracy. An Iraq that is governed by a democracy of different sects rather than one religious sect (Sunni) over all is dangerous to them.

The popular opinion in Iraq is that they do not want us to leave them to Al-Queda. I've said this before. You keep acting as if we have these people enslaved. In the absence of media sponsered polls, ask yourself what you would want if you were of the majority and not of the fraction of Sunni that want their control back or the insurgency that wants to set up camp. What would you want?

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Yeah, but what good is that money spent at home if Islam continues to be at war within itself and continues to turn out terrorists in the Middle East? Believe me, in my perfect world there are no terrorists. To get to that perfect world, we have to deal with the problems at hand instead of leaving them for a future generation to deal with, when the problem is bigger and more dangerous.

As far as the money being spent...I've always said that their is a lot of waste going on.

They way I see it, is that change needs to come from within. I'll use chemical dependancy as a less complex problem, but suitable analogy. A Heroin addict can not hope to quit with out making an honest and concious commitment to change. But, Even at that point, there is a long and dark struggle ahead. The same goes for the Middle East. We can only lead a horse to water. And, If the horse don't drink...

You know, I strongly believe that all the medeling in the world can not stop a problem as old as religion. The root of the problem is thousands of years old and I don't think we could hope to solve or even aid in solving the problem. It's not just a difference in ideology, but economics, race and religion also play a role. It's just too big for us to change, as hopeful as one might be. IMO, We can waste all of our money fighting an endless war overseas or we can spend all of that money improving our nations intelligence, borders and customs infrastructure.

What would you rather do? Fight an endless conflict abroad or repair an dysfunctional intelligence, border, customs and emergency response system at home?

 

[MSgt]

They way I see it, is that change needs to come from within. I'll use chemical dependancy as a less complex problem, but suitable analogy. A Heroin addict can not hope to quit with out making an honest and concious commitment to change. But, Even at that point, there is a long and dark struggle ahead. The same goes for the Middle East. We can only lead a horse to water. And, If the horse don't drink...

You know, I strongly believe that all the medeling in the world can not stop a problem as old as religion. The root of the problem is thousands of years old and I don't think we could hope to solve or even aid in solving the problem. It's not just a difference in ideology, but economics, race and religion also play a role. It's just too big for us to change, as hopeful as one might be. IMO, We can waste all of our money fighting an endless war overseas or we can spend all of that money improving our nations intelligence, borders and customs infrastructure.

What would you rather do? Fight an endless conflict abroad or repair an dysfunctional intelligence, border, customs and emergency response system at home?[/COLOR]

People have said that the failure of the new Iraq would be a disaster for Washington. Though it would be a painful setback, the truth is that we remain colossally powerful. A failed Iraq would say less about the limits of U.S. might than about the lack of practical and moral potential in the Middle East. We could withstand the collapse of our current effort. But it's doubtful whether the Arab world could recover from Iraq's failure. The future of Iraq matters profoundly. But it matters far more to the Iraqis and other Arabs than to us. We can go home. They can't. What the Iraqis do for — or to — themselves will tell us a great deal about whether Americans are right to hope against hope for the Middle East to progress, or if the prophets of Arab doom are correct. It's a self-help world, in the end.

BOLD
Well, there you go - I don't think it is an endless fight. The successes of our war on these extremists will not be immediate. Success will never be final, but always a matter of degree - which is the difference between a bloody contest of civilizations and the routine ebb and flow of lesser conflicts.

I would definately do something about our intel. Their is and always has been a disconnect between the military intel and our government "receivers". Also, I would build a huge wall right across our borders and place guard posts. Being a Marine, I also believe that the best defense is an offense. It's my nature to want to hit back.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

This won't happen again. New Orleans was a wake up call to our infrastructure problems. There has been a lot of movement and establishment of a proper 'Chain of Command and Control' within FEMA and the military, which wasn't there for natural disasters of this magnitude before. Also, giving the military immediate emergency response powers without the consent of all the red tape and procedures was shot down by the state Governors. I guess people see this as another "Patriot Act" scenario. Either way, Katrina taught us all the right lessons.

9/11 was supposed to be a wake up call to our systemized disaster response and relief programs. So what happened? Bush created the Dept. of Homeland Security which swallowed FEMA in a single gulp. Next, he shifted FEMA's focus to terrorism. He also made sure there was an incompetent crony at the helm. Since that day, FEMA has been suffering "brain drain", a phenomenon characterized as the loss of intelligent and competent personnel. The ultimate revelation came in the form of Katrina. Now, we realize fully the incompetence of George W. Bush and his policies.

Our existence in Iraq is fueling the Al-Queda insurgency. If we leave Iraq before we should, Al-Queda will remain. We took Afghanistan away from them and now they need a home to rebuild. But the fact is that it doesn't matter where we went in the Middle East, the Al-Queda insurgency would have followed and they don't need fueling. These "martyrs" and zealots exist throughout the region. Their existence relies upon their throw back beliefs and the absence of democracy. An Iraq that is governed by a democracy of different sects rather than one religious sect (Sunni) over all is dangerous to them.

I don't believe democracy to be a cure all for terrorism. For proof, look no further than Latin America. In fact, the despot Saddam kept the order very well when he reigned. Yes, he used tactics which were distasteful by our standards. But, look at the can of worms we opened. There is currently no graceful way to disengage, unless it is deemed so by the people of Iraq.

The popular opinion in Iraq is that they do not want us to leave them to Al-Queda. I've said this before. You keep acting as if we have these people enslaved. In the absence of media sponsored polls, ask yourself what you would want if you were of the majority and not of the fraction of Sunni that want their control back or the insurgency that wants to set up camp. What would you want?

I would argue against your current perception of Iraqi popular opinion. On Oct. 4th, a well funded and in-depth opinion poll was reported. I'll post the results in a moment. As for my attitude concerning our affect on the people of Iraq, I do not believe nor purport the idea of enslavement. If the "folks" in Iraq really want our presence there, which IMO they do not, I would support their decision with a few choice reservations. Namely, a clear and dry strategy for our military withdrawal.

 

[robin]

A failed Iraq would say less about the limits of U.S. might than about the lack of practical and moral potential in the Middle East.

Being a Marine, I also believe that the best defense is an offense. It's my nature to want to hit back.

:? :lol: ............

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

POLL:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-cover_x.htm

 

[MSgt]

:? :lol: ............

This diversity and the intelligence to identify the need for it would be the difference between a man and a coward..oh excuse me...an appeaser. :lol:

 

[MSgt]

POLL:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-cover_x.htm

Bad link. And would this be an Iraqi poll or a Sunni Iraqi Poll?

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

People have said that the failure of the new Iraq would be a disaster for Washington. Though it would be a painful setback, the truth is that we remain colossally powerful. A failed Iraq would say less about the limits of U.S. might than about the lack of practical and moral potential in the Middle East. We could withstand the collapse of our current effort. But it's doubtful whether the Arab world could recover from Iraq's failure. The future of Iraq matters profoundly. But it matters far more to the Iraqis and other Arabs than to us. We can go home. They can't. What the Iraqis do for — or to — themselves will tell us a great deal about whether Americans are right to hope against hope for the Middle East to progress, or if the prophets of Arab doom are correct. It's a self-help world, in the end.

Well, Iraq is already a disaster for Washington. I believe most Americans now realize they have been duped. Those who do not are just plain ignorant.

As much as I would like to see a successful Iraq, it pains me to think that we are responsible for it's fate. Our objectives were met. Congress did not agree to the restructuring of a nation. We were told that Iraq was an imminent threat. Well, we were wrong. The moral dilemma is what do we do now? I say, put Saddam back into power since he is not guilty of any of the accusations G.W. made against his regime. And, It's obvious Saddam had the ability to maintain control.

Well, there you go - I don't think it is an endless fight. The successes of our war on these extremists will not be immediate. Success will never be final, but always a matter of degree - which is the difference between a bloody contest of civilizations and the routine ebb and flow of lesser conflicts.

I was referring to the War on Terrorism, which is now extended to Iraq and the fact that the root of the conflict is as old as religion. The War on Terrorism has no reasonable end in sight, hence no basis in the reality of being a winnable war. It's a ridiculous idea.

I would definitely do something about our intel. Their is and always has been a disconnect between the military intel and our government "receivers". Also, I would build a huge wall right across our borders and place guard posts. Being a Marine, I also believe that the best defense is an offense. It's my nature to want to hit back.

I concur.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Bad link. And would this be an Iraqi poll or a Sunni Iraqi Poll?

Try this (I just tested this link and it worked for me):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

BTW, It's a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll.

 

[MSgt]

Well, Iraq is already a disaster for Washington. I believe most Americans now realize they have been duped. Those who do not are just plain ignorant.

As much as I would like to see a successful Iraq, it pains me to think that we are responsible for it's fate. Our objectives were met. Congress did not agree to the restructuring of a nation. We were told that Iraq was an imminent threat. Well, we were wrong. The moral dilemma is what do we do now? I say, put Saddam back into power since he is not guilty of any of the accusations G.W. made against his regime. And, It's obvious Saddam had the ability to maintain control.

We would be responsible for any fate in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran...all three would have resulted in an insurgency.

And why did he have such order over his people? Putting Hussein back is out of the question.....

"Torture and ill-treatment is systematic and widespread in Iraq, despite its
prohibition under the Iraqi Constitution and under the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Anti-government political suspects are
especially at risk, and are routinely tortured or ill-treated in custody.
Torture is used as a punishment or to extract information, and victims have no access to lawyers and relatives. The methods of torture that have been reported include beating detainees while they are suspended by the limbs, applying electric shocks to various parts of the body, falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing cigarettes on the body, extracting finger and toenails, gouging out the ears, and rape. Psychological torture include mock executions, forcing the detainee to watch others being tortured and solitary confinement."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140022001

We need to stay the course until Iraq can sustain its own defense which needs to be soon and I think it is. You poll is very surprising and curious. I would like to know the areas that were polled.