05-12-06, 12:58 AM RoverRoad They would do what they should do, stop throwing money at it without an exit stratigy. They would bring it to an end so that we can get our country back on track.
And once they have brought this pointless war to a grinding halt, it’ll tell you what they won’t do…
They won't stand by and watch an administration trample all over the constitution by allowing good Americans to be spied on.
They won't allow racists, war mongers and anti-choice renegades to be appointed to high positions in our government.
They wouldn't go passing $70 Billion dollar tax cuts for the richies like they just did today when we are only getting deeper into debt. And who do you think is going to pay for those tax cuts? Now the Democrats are going to have to roll back those cuts to repair the damage when they take the congress back. And the rich will be calling it a tax increase, when it's really just restoring it back to where it was.
This political tug of war is only hurting the American people, it makes me ill. Vote Democratic in 2006!!!
I could go on and on about the things they won't do, so maybe it's the things that they won't do that are more important than what they will do.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: RoverRoad, 05-12-06 02:19 AM
05-12-06, 11:53 AM Scotty
quote: I could go on and on about the things they won't do, so maybe it's the things that they won't do that are more important than what they will do.
I challenge any of you, aside from Scotty, to read this speech and tell me that you wouldn't vote for him in 2008. He IS the right person at the right time.
05-12-06, 01:47 PM DorianGreyed I like Obama, and hope that he succeeds as a Senator. This speech certainly sounds good, and has more substance than his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, which was high in style, but lacked substance and content. (But a cheerleading-type speech was what was expected of him, so he really can't be faulted too much for supplying it.) Obama may yet acheive the leadership qualities necessary to win a national election. But, as of today, I haven't seen that quality. Right now, I think Obama needs to show more substance in the Senate. If he develops as it appears that he will, yes, I would then agree that he would be a good president. Whether he can do that by convention time in 2008 remains to be seen.
Right now, I see the Democratic nomination as Hillary's to lose. However, August 2008 is over two years away, a lifetime in politics.
05-12-06, 01:55 PM Koz I read the whole speech. Senator Obama is a very smart man and an obviously gifted politician.
I would certainly consider voting for him if he runs for president in 2008 once I find out more about his administrative capabilities and his administrative effectiveness.
In other words Senator Obama certainly can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk? Wink
As a person, I like him.
05-12-06, 03:13 PM sid1114 No one can predict the outcome of a particular political intervention with certainty. Witness, for example, the predictions about our invasion in the first place. Virtually every prediction made (cost, greeting, oil to pay for, time, effect on neighbors, effect on world terrorism, insurgency..........) was wrong. So one might wonder if the predictions about the effects of pullout are any more accurate. In any case, there are serious people making serious arguments about why withdrawal could be the best strategy. Given that no one can say with certainty, what I'd hope the Democrats might do would be to institute a real dialogue: have hearings involving actual "experts" on all sides of the argument, and grill them with no preconceptions. And, of course, instigate an investigation into how and why so much has gone wrong. It's in the national interest to know. The Constitution can't survive behind a stonewall.
05-12-06, 03:36 PM aminator2002 Hilary is Hilary. I don't think she has any better chance of running today then in two years because people have made up their mind already and either they love her or hate her. We could do a poll and find out if she would have beat GWB and the same will happen in 2008... she would have lost.
The nice thing about Obama is that he gets better and better. Everything I've ever heard of him since I first heard of him a few years ago, has made me think more of him. I think it would be wise for him to run in this election because I think that unlike other candidates, he would improve in popularity over the course of the campaign. And momentum counts a great deal.
No political baggage, articulate, thoughtful, willing to think about the issues and address a plan. He should be able to shake this thing up. Personally, I would just like to vote for one person in my lifetime that I think is a good person and the right person for the job.
By the way... check out Neil Young's new song mentioning Obama. Not a bad song either.
05-12-06, 03:49 PM RoverRoad He says he's not going to run, of course, 2 years is a long way off. I'd vote for him. Realistically though, I wonder if he could win... I think the country still has a long way to go before people know and vote for what's good for them. Apparently people in America don't vote for what's best for them. They vote for who their preacher tells them to vote for...
05-12-06, 06:49 PM frankvan I'd vote for Obama but a lot can happen between now and 2008. At my age I don't even buy green bananas, let alone count on voting in '08. I hope RR is wrong about:
quote: Apparently people in America don't vote for what's best for them. They vote for who their preacher tells them to vote for...
I would hope the last two election would have taught them a valuable lesson! Eek
05-12-06, 07:18 PM coldfuse Obama is a candidate who can interest conservatives and liberals alike. He'll have to establish a lot of momentum going in, however, to offset the polarization that goes on when campaigns heat up.
Preachers here for years have been endorsing Democrats. Maybe you don't want them to stop quite yet, RR!
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any monopoly on good judgement, good sense or good character in Congress. What seems to be evident is that any party controlling both the executive and the legislative branches simultaneously is a recipe for disaster. I vote on my own judgement, but really think the country runs best with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the White House. Power is better balanced, and they seem to cancel one another's poor decisions!
05-14-06, 10:20 AM DvdGStwrt What they should compared to what they will do is miles, light years, parsecs removed from each other.
Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin - which is a bad penny that we can not toss away. They are both politicians full of political need and greed and rarely actually in it beyond selfish reasons.
Although I believe that many actually start off with starry eyed idealism about what they could accomplish - in the end they become typical politicians fulfilling their particular function in the food chain.
What we should do is send a few thousand more troops, along with the best armor and equipment and have done with it once and for all. We need to quash that resistance totally and completely and demonstrate that America is still the one and only Super Power that means business and is not going to play games and take unending losses or run away.
What we should have done is never start that war – but we did so now we are compelled to finish it. The Vietnam War was a political war where the same hill was battled over, taken, let go, retaken until we lost. We should have learned that if we are going to make war to be serious about it and do it to win at all costs.
I don’t think Bush is serious about winning a war against the Middle East. If he was he would not have held back, he would have sent every thing we have at the onset and used over kill to accomplish the job. Failing that in the first 6 months of this war when it became obvious that it wasn’t going to end easily, he should have rounded up every troop, gun and tank and send them over there to finish the job.
What congress should do is talk to the generals and hear what they want to do to win this war. And then Congress should follow out the plan of those military minds.
What Will happen is more half-hearted attempts to make everybody happy and play at making war as if it is a game. Doesn’t matter which party is in control of majority seats – what will happen is not even close to what should happen.
War is not fun, war is not honorable, war is not clean and neat and should never be started lightly – but once started is should be seriously pursued with everything you have at your disposal – damn the conventions of war – fight, kill, maim, destroy your enemy completely and utterly. And don’t set up a new government – instead occupy, assimilate and expand your empire – These nations we set up should be states of the Union – once they are states they are far easier to control.
05-14-06, 10:49 AM RoverRoad
quote: Originally posted by DvdGStwrt: What we should do is send a few thousand more troops
Where are we going to get these troops? Are we going to send our entire military over to Iraq at one time? And what about the troops that have already put in their time serving 2 or 3 times? Isn't it time for them to get on with their lives? Should we have a draft? We hit Vietnam with thousands of drafted troops and we still lost that war.
What we need to do is cut our losses and bring them home immediately. No point in getting involved in a civil war. It's too late for an exit strategy at this point.
Can't wait to read Scotties reply... Roll Eyes
05-14-06, 02:38 PM frankvan I find myself agreeing with both David and Rover, if that's possible. David says we should send in everything we have and finish the job, but he also says, what everyone agrees on, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. RR says we don't have the troops, and that also seems obvious, these troops are being used and abused, and asked to perform an impossible task. At the onset, the Generals should be furnished with dependable intelligence, and then listened to. Not second guessed and overruled by has-been civilian politicians. I'm thinking of Schwartzkopf, and Shinseki. Gulf War #1 was started when there was ample force to achieve the objective. That war also had sense enough to end when its goal had been achieved.
Isn't it possible that we can only end this thing with some modicum of success by re-instituting the draft, getting enough ground troops on the ground to establish order long enough to get a viable native government in operation ? We are the world's only remaining super power, but we can't fight fanatical guerrilas and suicide bombers with aircraft carriers and hydrogen bombs. We are equipped to fight yesterday's war against the enemy we no longer confront. IMHO.
05-14-06, 05:56 PM RoverRoad The latest word is that we've misplaced a shipment of 200,000 AK-47s. Likely fallen into the hands of the enemy.
If this is true, it means we have 200,000 more guns pointed at our troops. So, we definitely need to do something new...
05-14-06, 06:52 PM DorianGreyed While the loss of these weapons certainly points to either incredible ineptitude or outright bribery, the addition of 200,000 AK47s to the world is a very small percentage of the total number of AK47s (.02% or less). As I pointed out in several posts about the poor or non-existent body armor provided to our troops, the AK47 is the terrorists' weapon of choice, with over 100 million produced of it or its variants. It is or should be a crime that we sent troops into battle againt an enemy whose usual weapon couldn't be stopped by the 30+ year-old body armor we supplied.
05-15-06, 11:55 AM DvdGStwrt Don’t misunderstand me – I am against war. But I am also practical about the matter. If you are going to make war then make war.
I dislike the notion of “honorable warfare” war is not supposed to be honorable. War is not supposed to be fought within some system of rules – Game rules apply to games – not to a struggle of life and death. War is dirty, war is shameful, war is death, destruction and when we are finished with it, it should have been horrible enough to make us want to do anything but make another war. The “Islamic Terrorists” know that there are no rules – thus they decapitate people, they suicide bomb, they make it ugly, horrific and terrifying. This is what war is – it’s not two nations agreeing to kill each other “nicely”.
This administration committed the USA to a war – this commitment should not be half hearted nor are we to drop it when we can’t win it with in the first round. We should pursue it seriously to the very bitter end. If that means we have to reinstitute the draft then by golly let the lotteries begin. If we need to round up every 18 + year old and send them over there, then we must. That is what happens when we make war – that is what the cry for blood for blood leads to.
Pulling out now will be a huge disaster – the world is watching, those terrorists that we are terrified of (and I assume is why we are in the Middle East) are watching – if we pull out and admit that we ain’t big enough to finish this war they will rise up and hit us with everything they have – and we all know they make war without “rules”.
The Next President is going to inherit a War, a bankrupted Federal Budget and a few other not so nice things. That President will be hated because he or she will be forced to make some tough choices – to raise taxes, to finish this war, etcetra.
I said way back when the President cast his eyes on Iraq that it was a bad idea to go after Saddam. It was, is and always will be a bad idea. But I also said that if we are going to do it we must do it right – we must go in there, kick butt and fight the war as if we mean it. Damn the Innocent, Damn the conventions, Damn the rules – go and kill, destroy and reduce the enemy to nothing – completely eradicate the enemy – then walk out of the arena with head held high daring any other nation on earth to make a fuss.
Has the flow of terrorists stopped? No if anything it is generating more. Has it caused folk like Bin Laden to seriously reconsider messing around with the USA? No if anything the way we are “playing” at war demonstrates to them that we are weak, incompetent and unwilling to stand up for what believe.
Although American Troops are fighting in Iraq, Iraq’s neighbor – Iran - isn’t moved, isn’t motivated to stop making fissile material and even broadcasts that it is a nuclear power. So what is the message we are sending to the world by not committing ourselves completely to this war?
05-15-06, 01:49 PM DorianGreyed David, since we really can't identify the enemy in Iraq visually unless they are in the act of fighting gainst us, how do you propose we pull out all the stops? You said, "Damn the Innocent", so I assume you must mean kill all the people who live in Iraq. You seem to realize that we create terrorists everytime we kill in Iraq (This does put you miles ahead of bush, at least.). Obviously, then, killing all people in Iraq only creates more terrorists, only creates a new battlefield somewhere else. We obviously did not accomplish much of a mission in Afghanistan, with the Taliban still controlling large parts of the country, and, of course, bin Laden still around somewhere there or in Pakistan (the two most likely guesses). Do we then kill all those in Afghanistan? Pakistan, too? Then move on to Saudia Arabia? After we kill everyone in Saudia Arabia, do we go on to the next country and kill everyone there? Again, since we create more than we kill, how much longer will it be before most other countries are against us? At what point do we stop? At what point do we create more terrorists in our own country, people who see the wrong that we are doing and have only one way to stop it? The Vietnam War created terrorist within the US, citizens who were unwilling to allow their country to keep on bombing innocents to kill the enemy. The radical underground in the US only died out when we left Vietnam. That underground was born and grew while most Americans supported the war. How quickly will it grow when most are against a war and want it stopped, a situation which we are rapidly approaching? Whom do we kill then? At what point do we all see that "we" have become "them"?
05-15-06, 06:22 PM hippolips [QUOTE]Originally posted by frankv
Isn't it possible that we can only end this thing with some modicum of success by re-instituting the draft, getting enough ground troops on the ground to establish order long enough to get a viable native government in operation ?
...................................................................... Hi Frank:
Regarding your idea that we might consider"Re-instituting the draft"
I think it's one hell of an idea.
Here's how I think it might play out.
First we get Bush to issue an executive order to draft EVERY male in this country over 18 years of age within 30 days...
then send the very first draft notices to every member of Congress with a male child...
be sure to also sendthe very first notices to every member of the top 1% of the super rich as well.
I'll guarantee you ...we'd be out of Iraq in 30 days.
What do you think of that idea???
hippolips
05-15-06, 06:33 PM frankvan I agree that it would get us out of Iraq in a hurry, but I don,t think it has a snowball's chance in hell of taking place.
As to Rover's report of the 200,000 AK47s, I couldn't see any other reference in any news source other than that one link. Does anyone have any corroborating evidence anywhere else?
05-15-06, 08:46 PM methos I have not really read these myself yet, and I am certainly not vouching for their accuracy, but here's what I found on the AK-47s (I have left out a handful of articles that were just copies of those listed here, and one that required a subscription):
