Get Out and Vote

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
What I was getting at was that literally the only way to end the war in Iraq is to either:

A. Kill everyone over there, thereby eliminating all the terrorists

B. Sit down and negotiate a cease-fire.

Throughout the history of the world, those are the only 2 ways wars have ever ended.

I vote for solution A.

:icon_thumright:

But seriously, who would you sit down with to negotiate a end of the war in Iraq? And how could you take anything they say seriously?

[weshole]

Ya, good luck negotiating with a terrorist. Especially when they go out of there way to kill us. Remember, most of them hate America and Americans. We are the devil in there eyes and we all need to die.

[Guest]

First, I DO NOT WANT TO NEGOTIATE WITH AL-QAEDA

Well lets see, not everyone who is fighting us there is a terrorist, there is a strong Sunni-backed uprising amongst Iraqi natives. Sunni Muslims see us as an invader of their country, not a liberator. Sunni Muslims have in the past denounced Al-Qaeda and their terrorist actions and not until we invaded their country did they join forces with them. I say we start with them. Figure out what we need to do to get them on our side, what will need to happen?

Think about it this way, if for some reason China (for example) decided to invade America to "free" us from someone they see as a dictator (using Bush, ONLY because he's in charge now) wouldn't you be working to undermine their efforts, regardless of how noble they (the chinese) thought they were? Yeah, me too. I wouldn't trust any invading forces word that said "they came for peace and once peace is established they'll leave" and why should the Iraqi's? If we truly came to liberate their country, we need to show some effort towards proving we don't intend to stay and take over. How can we do this without talking with them? Maybe, just maybe, if we got them involved in helping squash the terrorist organizations in Iraq we could start pulling some of our troops out. Give them a list of things that need to happen (not a date) before a percentage of troops are pulled out, when those things happen, we remove some troops...if things stay stable, we go further down the list of things that need to happen...if they happen, we remove more troops, if they don't happen, we leave them there, if things get worse we re-deploy even more troops than we originally had.

For the record Dave, I have no problem with option "A" either. Nuke them til they glow and shoot them in the dark...

[Guest]

OK, now I've given my endgame for Iraq, what's the republicans?

[dubbsy]

tjamz wrote:
First, I DO NOT WANT TO NEGOTIATE WITH AL-QAEDA

Well lets see, not everyone who is fighting us there is a terrorist, there is a strong Sunni-backed uprising amongst Iraqi natives. Sunni Muslims see us as an invader of their country, not a liberator. Sunni Muslims have in the past denounced Al-Qaeda and their terrorist actions and not until we invaded their country did they join forces with them. I say we start with them. Figure out what we need to do to get them on our side, what will need to happen?

Think about it this way, if for some reason China (for example) decided to invade America to "free" us from someone they see as a dictator (using Bush, ONLY because he's in charge now) wouldn't you be working to undermine their efforts, regardless of how noble they (the chinese) thought they were? Yeah, me too. I wouldn't trust any invading forces word that said "they came for peace and once peace is established they'll leave" and why should the Iraqi's? If we truly came to liberate their country, we need to show some effort towards proving we don't intend to stay and take over. How can we do this without talking with them? Maybe, just maybe, if we got them involved in helping squash the terrorist organizations in Iraq we could start pulling some of our troops out. Give them a list of things that need to happen (not a date) before a percentage of troops are pulled out, when those things happen, we remove some troops...if things stay stable, we go further down the list of things that need to happen...if they happen, we remove more troops, if they don't happen, we leave them there, if things get worse we re-deploy even more troops than we originally had.

For the record Dave, I have no problem with option "A" either. Nuke them til they glow and shoot them in the dark...

:cough: Schwan 2008 :cough:

(even if he is a democrat)

[Guest]

thanks Dubbsy... I just think there is a really bad perception of the Democratric Party by a lot of people. A lot of us are NOT tree huggers, or anti-gun, or even pro-abortion...the ones that make the most noise in our party generally are, but the far right of the republican party is just as fucked up. The "Bush can't do anything wrong" crowd drives me crazy. Bush is human, he fucks up...the drugged up, hypocritical spin-meisters at EIB cough Limbaugh cough seem to think this guy shits golden turds though. When was the last time you heard a right-wing talker say ANYTHING bad about Bush? I can point to numerous occasions where the hosts on Air America and even Ed Schulz (not officialy w/ air america btw, though they do pay to have his show on in some markets) have pointed out things that are wrong with Democrats and THAT is why I prefer the Democratic party over the Republican party.

[DaveH]

Put down the crack pipe Chuck. :icon_silent: Rush has said many negative things about Bush. Bush is waaaay too liberal for Rush's taste and he has pointed out numerous things that he disagrees with him on (crazy spending being the biggest). That said, Rush is a conservative/Republical cheerleader and realizes that a liberal republican is still better than a liberal democrat. lol I listen to Rush a little, but he is a little too much of a cheerleader for my taste. I haven't heard air america, other than I hear that it's going bankrupt. Without a doubt the finest talk radio is Bill O'Reilly. He says it as it is and has a good mixture of guests from the right and left. Check his radio show out if you haven't yet.

[Guest]

O'Reilly isn't too bad, I'd consider him the Republican version of my views...close to the middle, but a little to the right (whereas I am a little to the left). You are correct about Rush being critical of Bush's spending, he hasn't talked about it lately and it kinda slipped my mind...however listening to him defend Foley (saying the whole ordeal was a joke, it was all in fun, etc....) was rather disturbing, as is the fact that the Republican party was informed about this behaviour of Foleys for several years and said/did nothing (according to the head of the Page committee amongst other people). Rush basically wants to turn this into something politically motivated and try and discredit anyone who has proof that this behaviour was on-going. I'll be the first to suggest that the timing of this coming out was very favorable to the democratic party, but no more favorable than the coverup was for the republican party for the last 5 years....and certainly no more politically timed than the verdict date in Saddams trial (the day before the elections in the US). Both parties certainly have egg on their face over the way they've handled the country over the past 10-16 years. Basically the bickering needs to end, they need to both get over their petty differences and do the freakin' job they were elected to do....SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, if they can't do that w/o following party lines on EVERY SINGLE VOTE, they need to get the hell out of Washington.

[98sh]

It would be wonderful to think that our elected officials would vote for our best interests, but in reality they most often vote for their own benefit. What will keep me in office, what will give me more power, and what will get me more money are the thoughts that cloud the judgement of reps and senators in Washington. Nothing will change if the system remains the same. I wish I had a reasonable proposal on how to remedy this beyond more term limits.

[StangerBanger96]

The sad truth is, there is no real way to fix it completely. People will always crumble to money and power, and they will do what they can in order to get and retain it as well. Doesn't really matter what sort of checks they put in place to try "cure" it, there will just be under the table deals that won't change anything. Thats human nature for you, and the only real way to change it is to somehow elect people who are least likely to give in to bribery and most likely to vote in favor of the people of America rather than their own self interests...Good Luck with that.

[Guest]

I'm still waiting for the republican endgame for iraq....

[STiSchucky]

chuck.....honestly in 2003 did u think it was smart to get rid of saddam? answer it as if i asked u this before the war started...

[Dangler]

the decision to go to war doesn't change, however, once new information is learned, isn't it Washington's responsibility to adapt and come up with a new plan that represents the best interests of the country?

I supported the war and the troops. I still support the troops, but not the reasons behind the war

[STiSchucky]

^^werd.

[Guest]

STiSchucky wrote:
chuck.....honestly in 2003 did u think it was smart to get rid of saddam? answer it as if i asked u this before the war started...

I questioned it then as well. In 2001 however I was ready to nuke the entire middle east, then I started following what was going on over there and realized we need to pick our battles better. I've always thought that Saddam was an evil person, I'm just not 100% convinced that stability in the Middle East was best served by removing him from power AT THIS TIME. However, I do not want him back in power either and would oppose anyone who thinks he should be in power...decapitation is my solution to him...public decapitation in accordance with Islamic law. Why we took our eye off the person DIRECTLY responsible with 9/11 is absurd to me. He are the quotes of our fearless leader:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

[Guest]

turns out despite our best efforts, we couldn't find oil in Afghanistan

[DaveH]

Damn Chuck, you are touching on so many topics I don't know where to begin. 1. Rush did not defend Foley. I have his show every day on MP3 (I can't get radio reception in our office) so if you wish to listen through all the audio since then and try to find where he defended him you are welcome to it. I'd have to believe that you don't listen to Rush, but just quote what is posted on some blogs or forums somewhere? 2. O'Reilly calls himself a traditionalist, I'd say in general that would align him more to the right than the left, but he does have liberal views on several topics (I disagree with him on those) :p. But what I really like about O'reilly is that he is honest, and he back up his positions with facts. He actually makes me think and consider the liberal views he has. And, if he does make a mistake, he owns up to it right away. 3. I'd have to disagree that the two parties have petty differences. I think in general there are major disagreements about the direction the country should be going. The only thing petty is the way that they act toward each other, rather than having reasoned debate, they attack each other to try to make themselves look good. Both parties are guilty of this, altho the left is far worse in my opinion. 4. Shit... is anyone still reading this? 5. Endgame for Iraq - I'm not sure if I follow what your endgame is Chuck, it seems to me it's "have talks with terrorists". Any uprising there is not sponsored or supported by their government, they are just a band of hoodlums out there shooting our guys because they don't like the US and don't want us there trying to stabilize the area. IMO they are no different than any other terrorist there. 6. What would my endgame be for the area? I don't claim to be a politician or a military strategist, so bear with me. :icon_geek: First, start a curfew to get people off the streets (after work if they can prove that they have a job). Second, anyone found with a gun or explosives is instantly killed, no screwing around. Then, If I were president I would sit down with all the military commanders in the area and get their input on how we can crush the insurgents, then have the watermelon sized cajones to let the military do what they do best and crush them, and worry about the political ramifications later. Enough of the pussyfooting around that we have been doing due to political reasons. Lets win and be done with it. After that you pull out a large portion of the troops, leaving a smaller group to help the Iraqi police/army get control of things. But leave no doubt that if things deteriorate again, the US will come back to mop them around the floor again. 6. Flat tax - I agree on the flat tax being the way to go, but I see it slightly differently than you. Instead of the tax being a percentage, it should be a flat dollar amount. That way we all pay the same tax. You pay the same as I do, the same as Matt does, the same as Kirk, etc. Say it's $3k a year.. we all pay the same. Nothing is more fair than that. 7. Is anyone still reading this? 8. Now for the most important issue of our time, immigration. I hope that we agree on this one, that we need a fence on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration (and a large amount of drug smuggling) instantly, and we need to have the laws that are on the books now obeyed, which will not allow the illegals that are already here to work or collect benefits from our country. This will force them to basically head back over ther border (which they should freely be allowed to pass) where they can apply for citizenship the legal way. We have more immigrants (legal and illegal) in our country right now that we have taken into the country over the last 300+ years. The legal immigrants that are here need time to assimilate into our country, I would think that we would be wise to stop immigration completely for a period of time to allow that to happen.

Wow, see what you get when I just have time to reply once a day.

[2slo50h]

Jello>all

Someday returning to the limelight.....

[fallguy]

Chuck,
I believe Bush's end game is to support the "NEW" Iraqi government (which the Sunni's have had and do participate in currently) and to assist the build up of the Iraqi troops so they can control and contain the security of their country. It's as simple as that! I believe we need to take more drastic measures to see that to fruition.(see Daveh's solution).

PS: All this would be a mute point if they really did or could find the WMD's that the WHOLE WORLD thought they had...even the dems...then Bush would be a hero for having the balls to take him out. (something that every president in the last 10 years,including Sr., wanted to do but they had no balls to do it. Maybe then the world would be more supportive of our sacrifice.

[Guest]

I'm really not arguing if he had WMD's, we know he had them at one time. I just saw Iraq as something personal rather than an imminent threat to the country.

Dave, I listen to Rush every day...and when Drudge had it on his website that this was a "joke or prank" gone too far, Rush talked about it for about 45 minutes straight.

I'll reply to the rest later, we actually share a lot of the same views.