Vote Democratic and stop the killing

[chazzheatherly]

Good lord, let's get a Democrat in there and stop the senseless slaughter of our young
men and women in Iraq!
Check out this link:
Dead Americans
To say Bush is an idiot would be an insult to idiots!

 

[EXman]

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: EXman

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Will be pulling the big D lever (or whatever) this coming election for the first time.

 

[Piano Man]

Unfortunately pulling the "D" lever isn't going to immediately stop the killing. We got ourselves into this mess, and now we're stuck. The only hope we have is if our new president goes to the UN, apologizes about past decisions, pleads for help from countries that we've pissed off in the past, and somehow gets it. Then we can start pulling some troops out. But the killing won't stop for a long time. Of course, if more people would have pulled the the "D" lever in 2000, this may have very well never happened.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: chazzheatherly
Good lord, let's get a Democrat in there and stop the senseless slaughter of our young
men and women in Iraq!
Check out this link:
Dead Americans
To say Bush is an idiot would be an insult to idiots!

All of our soldiers aren't young, you know... and I don't think their deaths are senseless.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Unfortunately pulling the "D" lever isn't going to immediately stop the killing. We got ourselves into this mess, and now we're stuck. The only hope we have is if our new president goes to the UN, apologizes about past decisions, pleads for help from countries that we've pissed off in the past, and somehow gets it. Then we can start pulling some troops out. But the killing won't stop for a long time. Of course, if more people would have pulled the the "D" lever in 2000, this may have very well never happened.

What makes you think the UN can change ANYTHING we have done? I don't understand this, "WE NEED THE UN" attitude. We DON'T need the UN.. we are the major financial and military contributor to the UN.. What are they gonna do, pass a resolution saying we owe $80 billion and need to commit 250,000 troops? Oh wait, we have already done that.

The UN can't solve smaller problems in Eastern Block countries.. let alone Iraq.. We don't need their help in Iraq.. they had 10 years to try to fix it.. they didn't.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Unfortunately pulling the "D" lever isn't going to immediately stop the killing. We got ourselves into this mess, and now we're stuck. The only hope we have is if our new president goes to the UN, apologizes about past decisions, pleads for help from countries that we've pissed off in the past, and somehow gets it. Then we can start pulling some troops out. But the killing won't stop for a long time. Of course, if more people would have pulled the the "D" lever in 2000, this may have very well never happened.

Perhaps. There would be many more dead iraqis, that's for sure.

 

[privatebreyer]

You do realize that by withdrawing from Iraq, the ensuing bloodbath there would eventually reach our shores in one way or another.

On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
You do realize that by withdrawing from Iraq, the ensuing bloodbath there would eventually reach our shores in one way or another.

On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

It is a demonstrable fact that terrorism in the region has increased since Saddam was ousted. It could very well be that this encourages people to take a more violent path in opposition to the occupation. If that happens, then we may very well have created the conditions that lead to the bloodshed you imagine. You also assume by "staying the course" we can lead the Iraqis anywhere. No one has ever succeded in forcing these people to change, and I doubt we will be the first. We havent had a good track record in interventions involving cultural revolutions thus far.

I would agree we cannot leave just yet, but eventually we will have to. God help us all when that happens.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
You do realize that by withdrawing from Iraq, the ensuing bloodbath there would eventually reach our shores in one way or another.

On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

It is a demonstrable fact that terrorism in the region has increased since Saddam was ousted.

In the short term. Clintin thought short term and it's got us into a mess. We won the war against Saddam and now have to win the war against terrorism. Easy? No. Worthwhile. Yes.

You also assume by "staying the course" we can lead the Iraqis anywhere. No one has ever succeded in forcing these people to change, and I doubt we will be the first.

Saddam did it fairly easily.

We havent had a good track record in interventions involving cultural revolutions thus far.

True. But this is one we absolutly cannot afford to lose.

 

[privatebreyer]

Of course terrorism was bound to increase. Why would a terrorist attack Saddam?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
You do realize that by withdrawing from Iraq, the ensuing bloodbath there would eventually reach our shores in one way or another.

On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

It is a demonstrable fact that terrorism in the region has increased since Saddam was ousted.

In the short term. Clintin thought short term and it's got us into a mess. We won the war against Saddam and now have to win the war against terrorism. Easy? No. Worthwhile. Yes.

You also assume by "staying the course" we can lead the Iraqis anywhere. No one has ever succeded in forcing these people to change, and I doubt we will be the first.

Saddam did it fairly easily.

We havent had a good track record in interventions involving cultural revolutions thus far.

True. But this is one we absolutly cannot afford to lose.

Obviously, future history will provide the answer as to who is correct, but I view this as an attempt to let water out of a sinking boat by drilling holes in the bottom while it is still afloat.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
Of course terrorism was bound to increase. Why would a terrorist attack Saddam?

You say that with a very one-sided view of what a terrorist is. A terrorist is a general term to describe someone who uses force or violence to coerce or intimidate. Were there no enemies of Saddam's government, is that what you're implying?

On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

And please stop suggesting Iraq was responsible for 9/11 unless you and Cheney have some evidence to show everyone else who states otherwise.

 

[privatebreyer]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
Of course terrorism was bound to increase. Why would a terrorist attack Saddam?

You say that with a very one-sided view of what a terrorist is. A terrorist is a general term to describe someone who uses force or violence to coerce or intimidate. Were there no enemies of Saddam's government, is that what you're implying?

Saddam was just as much an infidel religiously speaking and did far more to threaten the "sacity" of SA than well ever do. So why weren't they considered enemys of Al-quida? Think about it.

Originally posted by: lozinaOn the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

And please stop suggesting Iraq was responsible for 9/11 unless you and Cheney have some evidence to show everyone else who states otherwise.[/quote]

I never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, merely that his removal would greatly reduce the chance of it being repeated in the future.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
Of course terrorism was bound to increase. Why would a terrorist attack Saddam?

You say that with a very one-sided view of what a terrorist is. A terrorist is a general term to describe someone who uses force or violence to coerce or intimidate. Were there no enemies of Saddam's government, is that what you're implying?

On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

And please stop suggesting Iraq was responsible for 9/11 unless you and Cheney have some evidence to show everyone else who states otherwise.

if you cut the head off a rattlesnake, it is still able to bite you, but eventually the head dies as well.

and in no way was there a suggestion in any statement ive read thus far that suggests that iraq was responsible, or in anyway connected, to 9/11.

and no, all of the dems ive seen thus far do NOT need to be in the highest office in the land, they would only make matters worse in all aspects of American life.

 

[Morbius]

Friends don't let friends vote Democratic !

'nuff said !

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: privatebreyer
You do realize that by withdrawing from Iraq, the ensuing bloodbath there would eventually reach our shores in one way or another.

On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

It is a demonstrable fact that terrorism in the region has increased since Saddam was ousted.

In the short term. Clintin thought short term and it's got us into a mess. We won the war against Saddam and now have to win the war against terrorism. Easy? No. Worthwhile. Yes.

You also assume by "staying the course" we can lead the Iraqis anywhere. No one has ever succeded in forcing these people to change, and I doubt we will be the first.

Saddam did it fairly easily.

We havent had a good track record in interventions involving cultural revolutions thus far.

True. But this is one we absolutly cannot afford to lose.

The war on terrorisim is like the war on drugs. Terrorism is essentially a cottage industry. And that makes it a hard problem to get a hold of as long as the social problems that encourage it continue.

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: chazzheatherly
Good lord, let's get a Democrat in there and stop the senseless slaughter of our young
men and women in Iraq!
Check out this link:
Dead Americans
To say Bush is an idiot would be an insult to idiots!

I plan on voting democratic.

 

[privatebreyer]

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: chazzheatherly
Good lord, let's get a Democrat in there and stop the senseless slaughter of our young
men and women in Iraq!
Check out this link:
Dead Americans
To say Bush is an idiot would be an insult to idiots!

I plan on voting democratic.

Shame on you. ;-)

 

[XZeroII]

Stop the killing of soldiers in iraq...start the killing of babies in the womb!


You act like Democrats will get us out of there

You are an idiot...wait...To say chazzheatherly is an idiot would be an insult to idiots!

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: privatebreyer

On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings.

And please stop suggesting Iraq was responsible for 9/11 unless you and Cheney have some evidence to show everyone else who states otherwise.

and in no way was there a suggestion in any statement ive read thus far that suggests that iraq was responsible, or in anyway connected, to 9/11.

Maybe I misunderstood then.

"On the other hand, staying the course leading Iraq on the course of democracy will force the region to ask itself whether or not the US is to blame for all its problems, or if they have themselves to blame, reducing there need to fly planes into our buildings. "

The sentence requires some interpretation, because it is rather hastily written- no offense to you, privatebreyer. The question is, who is he referring to when he says "there"- or "their"? Iraq and "the region" were the two subjects he introduced, and I discounted "the region" because Afghanistan is not in the Middle East, so it still looks like he's referring to Iraq when he said "reducing [their] need to fly planes into our buildings".

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Unfortunately pulling the "D" lever isn't going to immediately stop the killing. We got ourselves into this mess, and now we're stuck. The only hope we have is if our new president goes to the UN, apologizes about past decisions, pleads for help from countries that we've pissed off in the past, and somehow gets it. Then we can start pulling some troops out. But the killing won't stop for a long time. Of course, if more people would have pulled the the "D" lever in 2000, this may have very well never happened.

More D's were pulled than R's in 2000.

If that happens again next year it would be another item that may start the new U.S. Revolution.
So many issues could start it, which will do it first is the question.

It's not a matter of will it, it is a matter of when.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Unfortunately pulling the "D" lever isn't going to immediately stop the killing. We got ourselves into this mess, and now we're stuck. The only hope we have is if our new president goes to the UN, apologizes about past decisions, pleads for help from countries that we've pissed off in the past, and somehow gets it. Then we can start pulling some troops out. But the killing won't stop for a long time. Of course, if more people would have pulled the the "D" lever in 2000, this may have very well never happened.

More D's were pulled than R's in 2000.

If that happens again next year it would be another item that may start the new U.S. Revolution.
So many issues could start it, which will do it first is the question.

It's not a matter of will it, it is a matter of when.

First it's the economy, then it's religion and now it's votes. I swear Dave, you should change your handle to Chicken Little

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Unfortunately pulling the "D" lever isn't going to immediately stop the killing. We got ourselves into this mess, and now we're stuck. The only hope we have is if our new president goes to the UN, apologizes about past decisions, pleads for help from countries that we've pissed off in the past, and somehow gets it. Then we can start pulling some troops out. But the killing won't stop for a long time. Of course, if more people would have pulled the the "D" lever in 2000, this may have very well never happened.

More D's were pulled than R's in 2000.

If that happens again next year it would be another item that may start the new U.S. Revolution.
So many issues could start it, which will do it first is the question.

It's not a matter of will it, it is a matter of when.

First it's the economy, then it's religion and now it's votes. I swear Dave, you should change your handle to Chicken Little

Ha. I worry about him myself.

If the Second Revolution starts because we use the electoral college as prescribed in the manual given us, that means that the second Revolution will be started by the urban masses against the non-urban masses.

My money is on us hicks. Second Revolution pwned.