Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
'The issue of should we there is no longer relevant'? I would beg to differ. There are about 4,000 American reasons and over a million Iraqi reasons why it is still a relevant issue. There is also upwards of 3 trillion dollars spent on a war that I was out on the streets protesting before it started. You use the standard Limbaugh-esque jargon to lable Kucinich 'kooky', when the 'crazyiest' antics of Kucinich have been to argue against the war from the beginning, call for the restoration of Habeaus Corpus, and to call for the impeachment of Bush - yeah, real 'kooky'.
I can't believe you still find some value in continuing to harp away about the decision to go to war. Other than it provides a convenient distraction from the fact that the PE is reneging on his campaign promises at warp speed, Isn't it old news? The original decision was supported by all but a few Democrats because it was the logical thing to do under the circumstances. Obama knows that too. He is keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense because the kooky promises he made during the campaign had nothing to do with the real world we live in. This is evidenced by the events in India over the weekend.
It's a screwed-up world full of screwed-up people. We can't afford to be wrong again. Think the economy sucks now? Take a look at the drop in consumer confidence following 9/11. If we had been on the receiving end of the Muslim terrorist attacks instead of India,...I don't even want to think about it. So where are we now? Our new PE has obviously run on a set of misrepresentations to get elected by telling folks, like you, what you wanted to hear. OK, fine. I was really concerned that he might actually believe those kooky speeches he was making. Obviously he doesn't.
As for the millions of Iraqis who died in all three Iraqi wars since 1980, I agree they didn't need to die. Had Carter simply installed a pro-American government when the Shaw fell, there would have been no Iran-Iraq war, no Persian Gulf war and no current war. Furthermore, the USSR would have thought twice before entering Afghanistan had Carter been anything but an appeaser running around looking for someone to negotiate with. We can do the lawful thing, but sometimes the consequences of doing that are millions killed in unnecessary and preventable wars.
I can't believe you still find some value in continuing to harp away about the decision to go to war. Other than it provides a convenient distraction from the fact that the PE is reneging on his campaign promises at warp speed, Isn't it old news? The original decision was supported by all but a few Democrats because it was the logical thing to do under the circumstances. Obama knows that too. He is keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense because the kooky promises he made during the campaign had nothing to do with the real world we live in. This is evidenced by the events in India over the weekend.
It's a screwed-up world full of screwed-up people. We can't afford to be wrong again. Think the economy sucks now? Take a look at the drop in consumer confidence following 9/11. If we had been on the receiving end of the Muslim terrorist attacks instead of India,...I don't even want to think about it. So where are we now? Our new PE has obviously run on a set of misrepresentations to get elected by telling folks, like you, what you wanted to hear. OK, fine. I was really concerned that he might actually believe those kooky speeches he was making. Obviously he doesn't.
As for the millions of Iraqis who died in all three Iraqi wars since 1980, I agree they didn't need to die. Had Carter simply installed a pro-American government when the Shaw fell, there would have been no Iran-Iraq war, no Persian Gulf war and no current war. Furthermore, the USSR would have thought twice before entering Afghanistan had Carter been anything but an appeaser running around looking for someone to negotiate with. We can do the lawful thing, but sometimes the consequences of doing that are millions killed in unnecessary and preventable wars.
that last bit about carter is some neo-con dribble coming out of your mouth. it's NOT our business to police the world. [MOD CUT/personal attack]
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-01-2008 at 08:18 PM..
Reason: personal attack
I can't believe you still find some value in continuing to harp away about the decision to go to war. Other than it provides a convenient distraction from the fact that the PE is reneging on his campaign promises at warp speed, Isn't it old news? The original decision was supported by all but a few Democrats because it was the logical thing to do under the circumstances. Obama knows that too. He is keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense because the kooky promises he made during the campaign had nothing to do with the real world we live in. This is evidenced by the events in India over the weekend.
It's a screwed-up world full of screwed-up people. We can't afford to be wrong again. Think the economy sucks now? Take a look at the drop in consumer confidence following 9/11. If we had been on the receiving end of the Muslim terrorist attacks instead of India,...I don't even want to think about it. So where are we now? Our new PE has obviously run on a set of misrepresentations to get elected by telling folks, like you, what you wanted to hear. OK, fine. I was really concerned that he might actually believe those kooky speeches he was making. Obviously he doesn't.
As for the millions of Iraqis who died in all three Iraqi wars since 1980, I agree they didn't need to die. Had Carter simply installed a pro-American government when the Shaw fell, there would have been no Iran-Iraq war, no Persian Gulf war and no current war. Furthermore, the USSR would have thought twice before entering Afghanistan had Carter been anything but an appeaser running around looking for someone to negotiate with. We can do the lawful thing, but sometimes the consequences of doing that are millions killed in unnecessary and preventable wars.
"Had Carter simply installed a pro-American government when the Shaw fell, there would have been no Iran-Iraq war, no Persian Gulf war and no current war." This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. How can Carter just willy-nilly 'install' a leader in another country? Tell me, I'm dying to hear.
Yeah but I would like to point out for those people who are dropping stories from the likes of FOX and BLOGS that Kucinich supported Obama. Us on the left are not unhappy, at least not yet... unlike these people would have you believe. WE ARE HAPPY McCain didnt win, we are still jumping around saying THANK GOD!! I never for minute thought though that Obama was far left.
I can't believe you still find some value in continuing to harp away about the decision to go to war. Other than it provides a convenient distraction from the fact that the PE is reneging on his campaign promises at warp speed, Isn't it old news? The original decision was supported by all but a few Democrats because it was the logical thing to do under the circumstances. Obama knows that too. He is keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense because the kooky promises he made during the campaign had nothing to do with the real world we live in. This is evidenced by the events in India over the weekend.
It's a screwed-up world full of screwed-up people. We can't afford to be wrong again. Think the economy sucks now? Take a look at the drop in consumer confidence following 9/11. If we had been on the receiving end of the Muslim terrorist attacks instead of India,...I don't even want to think about it. So where are we now? Our new PE has obviously run on a set of misrepresentations to get elected by telling folks, like you, what you wanted to hear. OK, fine. I was really concerned that he might actually believe those kooky speeches he was making. Obviously he doesn't.
As for the millions of Iraqis who died in all three Iraqi wars since 1980, I agree they didn't need to die. Had Carter simply installed a pro-American government when the Shaw fell, there would have been no Iran-Iraq war, no Persian Gulf war and no current war. Furthermore, the USSR would have thought twice before entering Afghanistan had Carter been anything but an appeaser running around looking for someone to negotiate with. We can do the lawful thing, but sometimes the consequences of doing that are millions killed in unnecessary and preventable wars.
This is coming from someone who supported the guy that invaded Iraq on baseless claims....You're really credible, ya know..
As for the millions of Iraqis who died in all three Iraqi wars since 1980, I agree they didn't need to die. Had Carter simply installed a pro-American government when the Shaw fell, there would have been no Iran-Iraq war, no Persian Gulf war and no current war. Furthermore, the USSR would have thought twice before entering Afghanistan had Carter been anything but an appeaser running around looking for someone to negotiate with. We can do the lawful thing, but sometimes the consequences of doing that are millions killed in unnecessary and preventable wars.
Isn't that why the Shah fell because he was a pro American puppet?
'The issue of should we there is no longer relevant'? I would beg to differ. There are about 4,000 American reasons and over a million Iraqi reasons why it is still a relevant issue. There is also upwards of 3 trillion dollars spent on a war that I was out on the streets protesting before it started. You use the standard Limbaugh-esque jargon to lable Kucinich 'kooky', when the 'crazyiest' antics of Kucinich have been to argue against the war from the beginning, call for the restoration of Habeaus Corpus, and to call for the impeachment of Bush - yeah, real 'kooky'.
The concept of why the war started was useful for the election and weighing the candidates. But after all this time the dimensions of it have expanded far beyond the genesis of and for. Obama can no longer say he was against from the beginning with the election being over and having won. It will on January 21 be his war and he will be the one waging it.
wouldnt that be the fault of REAGAN and BUSH Sr?? Didnt they fund the rebels and arm those-- we are now fighting. Im so tired of hearing its Carter's fault for everything when it isnt. Indeed the Sha fell because the people didnt want him and his american buddys in. SO Reagan and Bush Sr. fund 'freedom fighters' to try to install a pro-american gov, and that back fired and we now fight those same people because they didnt like getting double crossed.
So far you have only appeased the Right. Why, I don't know, because they have no more power, and the neo-cons have retreated to their academic holes.
So far you are coming off either as a Clinton-clone or neo-con light.
Those who elected you did not want the status quo continued, they want a major change.
Kucinich and Gravel are widely respected in the Progressive camp. Thier ideas can truly transform America for the better. War-mongers like Gates should be out the door.
Get ideas and input from Kucinich and Gravel - they will give you the guidence you seek.
I heard that once Obama is in the White House, the official website will be interactive and will welcome feedback from the public. Hopefully this is true and we will be able to bombard it with these types of things. I so much was hoping that Kucinich would have a key role in Obama's administration.
As for the millions of Iraqis who died in all three Iraqi wars since 1980, I agree they didn't need to die. Had Carter simply installed a pro-American government when the Shaw fell, there would have been no Iran-Iraq war, no Persian Gulf war and no current war. Furthermore, the USSR would have thought twice before entering Afghanistan had Carter been anything but an appeaser running around looking for someone to negotiate with. We can do the lawful thing, but sometimes the consequences of doing that are millions killed in unnecessary and preventable wars.
Isn't that why the Shah fell because he was a pro American puppet?
[mod cut] Do you think that Carter was given a choice as to what government he should 'install' in Iran?
Last edited by katzenfreund; 12-01-2008 at 08:56 PM..
Reason: rude
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
