The war in Iraq is a mistake, entered into for mistaken reasons involving suspected but nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. (I was not an early critic of the war. I did not support it or oppose it during the ramp up to war. I accepted the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations, but I was not convinced war was necessary. I was very slow to conclude the war was a mistake even after finding no weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, I thought comparisons to Vietnam were hasty and oversimplified, especially since the first person I heard compare Iraq to Vietnam was the Vegas comedian-magician, Penn Jillette. How could a guy who juggles and cracks jokes for a living be smarter than the Secretary of State?) How should we expect wars that are mistakes to end? Our Vietnam experience tells us that they end very badly.

When I first heard President Bush accuse Democrats of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq, I knew that America was going to cut and run from Iraq. When a war turns so bad that an American president feels compelled to start warning against cutting and running, the clock starts ticking on when we actually will cut and run. The Nixon administration spent five years figuring out how to cut and run from Vietnam and managed to get more American soldiers killed during Kissinger's utterly pointless "peace" negotiations and the withdrawal period than were killed during Lyndon Johnson's full-on war period. There has been much speculation about how smart George W. Bush is, but not even his most adamant defenders have ever suggested he is smarter than Nixon. So, we have every right to expect that Bush will not be even as good as Nixon at cutting and running. Bush will leave the end game to his successor who, with the American people's approval, will cut and run by following some variation on the Iraq Study Group's report. All hell will break loose when we leave Iraq no matter when that occurs. But within Bush's life time, other American presidents just might visit Iraq as routinely as they now visit Vietnam if we manage the long term aftermath of our exit as well as we did in Southeast Asia.
(cont'd)

Rush takes emotional exception to the Iraq Study Group's report because "there is nothing in this about winning, there is nothing in this about victory." And, here too, Rush is right. But most Americans now believe victory is impossible in Iraq are unperturbed by the absence of a chapter on victory in the report.

Rush has been wrong about a few things. Rush and Bush were wrong to think that having a "Mission Accomplished" rally on an aircraft carrier wasn't a bit premature. Rush and Bush were wrong to think a slogan--"stay the course"--was a strategy. And Rush and Bush are wrong to think we can push on to "victory" in Iraq--a view held almost exclusively by Republicans (like Rush and Bush) who did everything possible to avoid ever being sent into combat themselves. But Rush is right that the day our last helicopter leaves Baghdad, America will, once again, "surrender without the words."
(end)

American armed forces will not be leaving Iraq for the foreseeable future.

We surrendered when we dropped the first bombs. We got involved in an unwinnable war. Of course we were going to 'lose'.

If the only way to win is to stay in Iraq, then let's just get this loss over with and behind us. Only the most insecure among us will really have a problem with it........3......2.......1...

If the American forces do not leave Iraq fairly soon then it will be obvious that the will of the people means absolutely nothing. Many of us have suspected as much but have watched and waited hoping that we were wrong.

America will, once again, "surrender without the words...only if those dem pukes y'all elected to congress defund our troops,all the while saying how they support our troops.

Remember when the communists were the big threat? Remember when we kept a watchful eye out for the red menace?

I saw the beginning of Fox News' "special report" on "Radical Islam." Complete with cursory images of gun-waving stereotypical Arabs, and of course the "chanting" style of music that has come to define any movie scene taking place in a desert. It's amazing how many people think that we are at war with an entire race and religion, when in fact if 9/11 had been properly responded to, and said response seen to its conclusion, this kind of crap wouldn't have been able to take hold. Yes, of course you can take quotations from the radical fringe of any belief system and transmogrify it to encompass anyone who calls themselves a Muslim, or a Christian; this doesn't make it true.

"I believe those who love our country and its values will prevail."

MrHappyII, define what "prevail" in this case would mean.

Terrorist and democrats?????

I believe those who love our country and its values will prevail?????

What an ego, self rightious at that!!!!

The majority of the country is terrorist now because they don't believe as MrhappyII.

See ya, nice to meet ya, wouldn't want to be ya!!!!

Methinks Mr HappyII-is not so happyII.....

Mr SlapHappy has OD'd on the kool-aide.

Mr. Happy does not understand that it is the current Republicans that are playing the terrorists game.

Republicans - "Support our troops, keep them in a war zone"

Democrats - "Support our troops, bring them home alive"

The war is not winnable. Instead of blabbering on how Democrats are going to cause us to lose this REPUBLICAN contrived war, offer one alternative that you would consider a victory.

I know, you can't. You just like to hear yourslef bitch.

First Rosie mocks the Chinese, now she's criticizing this study group.
....oh, wait a minute, nevermind.

Who the heck went blind here? Anyone elses screen look like a Dick and Jane book?

So according to Mr. Happy 2, "This war was started for the right reason(to stop the spread of dangerous weapons and militant Islam) and hopefully will be won for that same reason." Dude, you have got to get out more, or choose to get your news from some other sources. There were no dangerous weapons, and militant Islam was not an issue in Iraq. Saddam kept militant Islam under wraps because it would threaten his control of the country.

So what you're saying is that we went to war in the wrong country? We were already at war in Afghanistan, which was the correct war to stop the spread of militant Islam. So Mr. Happy 2, that's two strikes, wanna go for three? Then you can strike out like Dear Leader, lost the people, lost the House and lost the Senate.

The truth is, we can not win this war, because we are in the middle of a CIVIL WAR!!!!!!! Our troops are nothing more than targets for both sides. So what do we do, choose sides? How can we choose sides, when we can't even tell who the players are? Who are we training in their new military and corrupt police force? We're training both sides to kill each other. The Iraqis don't want to fight for their democracy, they want to fight for their religious faction. Bush's vision is nothing more than a dream!! And worst of all, democracy may not be the best idea for Iraq anyway. As we have seen in every other free election in the Middle East recently, the most anti-American candidates would win. So our troops and treasure would be wasted as we installed another anti-American regime. We need to get the hell out of there!!!

mrhappy- u got banned. FO.

This war was started for the right reason(to stop the spread of dangerous weapons and militant Islam) and hopefully will be won for that same reason. Although it is difficult to win a war fighting on two fronts(Terrorist and demoncrats) I believe those who love our country and its values will prevail.

Posted by MrHappyII
...

golly!!!

mrhappy!........

......is spreading his version of THE LIE on so many threads at once one might be foolishly tempted to think he is actually thinking!

"terrorists & democrats!!!!"

oh mr happy!

every time you stupid face the world children die!

(is this what makes you so happy!)

what "war" are you talking about?

".......the war!!!!!!!!!!!!!....."

oh mrhappy!

"the conquest of the oil fields for bush & friends"....is what we have here...this theft should not be called war....as you know, but in that the killing makes you so

happy!

call it what you will!

you have forgotten the simple words that describe all simple truths, if you ever knew them!

WHAT IS THE COUNTRY THAT YOU CLAIM TO LOVE BY BEING A MONSTROUS HATER & A SOCIAL FRAUD?

CERTAINLY NOT ANY i AM IN.

WHAT IS THE COUNTRY THAT YOU CLAIM TO LOVE BY BEING A MONSTROUS HATER & A SOCIAL FRAUD?

CERTAINLY NOT ANY i AM IN.

Posted by silkenblueskies

I didn't realize you are pro-life Silken.

And let us see how many lives we save when the terrorists follow us home like a stray puppy. If my memory is close, they got just about 3,000 of us in one morning in 2001. I'll bet they can do better than that on their next big one.

There always have been and there always will be terrorist and they will always be a threat, it doesn't justify our boys dying for a cause that we cannot win.

Sniper, that's such an overused and untrue Neocon talking point. If anything this war of idiots, by idiots for profit has made us less safe! Who are we fighting in Iraq? Not terrorists, but Iraqis! The military has continually told us that foreign fighters only make up about 10% of the forces that are opposing us!

Opinion polls tell us over and over that we are seen by the Iraqi people as occupiers, not liberators. These people think they're fighting us to take back their country. If an outside force invaded our country wouldn't we be fighting them? The other issue is that the Iraqis seem to be more interested in killing each other these days, and our troops are getting killed by getting caught in the middle.

Besides, don't you think that terrorists can multi-task? Are they supposedly so involved in fighting us in Iraq that they can't plan attacks in the US? Haven't you heard about cells? They're not an army, they're set up more like an intelligence agency. The Iraq war didn't stop attacks in Great Britain and Spain! Don't be so dense! If anything, the Iraq war is serving as a good training and proving ground for those 10% of terrorists to hone their skills in killing Americans. Plus it has become a great recruiting tool for the militants Islamists.

Sniper, please explain to me how the terrorists will be able to "follow us home" any easier whether we are in Iraq or not. Do you think they have the means to storm our shores en masse? No, they attack in small cells, and there are more than enough of them to do this right now, whether we remain in Iraq or not. And precisely what effect you think we're actually having by being in Iraq still? We are targets, and are overwhelmed by this civil war. Your obvious "fight them there" talking point is utterly stupid and as leaky as the Titanic post-iceberg.

Also, Sniper, care to explain why, if our remaining in Iraq has any relevence to combating terrorism, that, statisically, terrorism worldwide has increased since we invaded Iraq?

"I'll bet they can do better than that on their next big one."

And I'd wager that our leaving Iraq would have far less to do with such an attack as do our open borders and lax port security, but go on spinning...

I didn't realize you are pro-life Silken.

Posted by eberly
......

It doesn't seem that you have any "realizations" of any kind EB, at least none that come together to form some kind of a "world view" thru which you form your reality.

Your comments are totally "scattered"

all you know to do is to .....support your govt.

You do not even know why you do so.

Try to realize who YOU ARE,..........why not?

And let us see how many lives we save when the terrorists follow us home like a stray puppy. If my memory is close, they got just about 3,000 of us in one morning in 2001. I'll bet they can do better than that on their next big one.

Posted by Sniper
.......

SNIPER REPEATS HIS SOUND BYTES!

good god SNIPE

AINT YA GOT NO PRIDE?

(you forgot to say "libbie!)

Evashogouki - one way they will "follow us home" is when we are obliged to allow thousands upon thousands of them to move here because they helped us or say so, and among those thousands who will be readily admitted, because it will be like after Vietnam, will be sleeper terrorists. Another thing to thank the Bush-Cheney misadministration for. It will go on and on and on.

It doesn't seem that you have any "realizations" of any kind EB, at least none that come together to form some kind of a "world view" thru which you form your reality.

Your comments are totally "scattered"

all you know to do is to .....support your govt.

You do not even know why you do so.

Try to realize who YOU ARE,..........why not?

Posted by silkenblueskies


I post one comment that isn't hostile or anything and you just bust out with nothing but condecension and rudeness. You think pretty highly of yourself. You do nothing but condemn folks here who are conservative. You never attack liberals for anything and claim to be a "citizen of the earth." No, you are an ultra-lib wackjob who hates this country.

show me where I am wrong.

Either comment on my post or move on.

EB.....

there is nothing to comment on..

where is your "WORLD VIEW?"

WHY THE INSANE PRE-OCCUPATION WITH

SOUND BYTE RESPONSES?

("ultra lib whackjob"
"hate the country")

You stand "for nothing!"

You only blindly support the govt. & only because of its power.

You never say why you do that.

GIVE US A BIT OF YOURSELF THAT WE CAN COMMENT ON.

THEN WE WILL.

And let us see how many lives we save when the terrorists follow us home like a stray puppy.
Posted by Sniper

No doubt armed with the weapons and knowledge they got from us in Iraq.

The main problem I have here is with the word "surrender". We may pull out or retreat or give up or even lose, but "surrender" implies that we will give concessions to somebody (it would help if we even knew who we were fighting) which is not going to happen.

It's just a word the Pubs are wusing to make it seem worse than it will be when we finally get the hell out of there.

And let us see how many lives we save when the terrorists follow us home like a stray puppy. If my memory is close, they got just about 3,000 of us in one morning in 2001. I'll bet they can do better than that on their next big one.

Posted by Sniper at 2006-12-14 05:16 PM

The sad thing is that there are plenty of stupid fuckers like "sniper" ( let me guess, you served with the Chairpoodle? )
who actually believe it.

Surrender? What will be expected of us when we surrender? Will we have to give up our nukes? Disarm our military? What are the terms being sought by those to whom we are "surrendering"?

Oh. You mean it isn't really a "surrender"? It's just a word the Republicans will use when we discontinue our military agressions and occupation of a foreign nation.

The only thing actually being surrendered here is common sense by the Righties.

Europe is mentioned here, but it fits our current situation in Iraq.

"...Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

George Washington's farewell address 1796

Thsi morning I listened to a right-wing think tank recommend that Bush send enough troops to Iraq to at least hold territory after we captured it from insurgents.

You see, when you keep what you've got, you prevent the bad guys from coming back in and murdering all the native population that cooperates with you.

This, of course, is no more than standard counter-insurgency doctrine. Something what passes for intellectuals among the neo-right is waking up to. Three years late.

These people were always too stupid to win a war. If they had brains, they'd take them out and play with them.

Zed- too little too late.

They're only sugesting it for political cover, as it is now impossible to get the troops neccesary without a draft.

This has been crazy, Alex. I'm more of a pacifist than most, and from what I can tell I knew more about Iraq and what war should look like there than George Bush, self-described warrior politician.

What I want to know is what the professional military class has really been telling Bush these last three years.

Or, did they say anything at all, electing not to risk their jobs, letting us amateurs swing slowly in the wind while our family and friends bled and died on the orders of the stupid and afraid?

W was told by Cheney that the Iraq Study Group report WAS the surrender plan that O'Donnell correctly says it was.

Therefore he has to 'resist' it for a while. The New Year policy that might even include a few more troops to appease Cheney and Co is STILL the beginning of the withdrawal, surreptitiosly posing as something else, and of course in W's God-fearing mind it's worth a couple thousand more US troops' lives- they volunteered after all - and what's another hundred thousand Iraqi civilians?

And after that the Civil War in Iraq will continue.

"It's not My Fault"

talk to IRAN?"the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He said, "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."

do you really believe we can show weakness to these people?"Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa urged Muslims to target American civilians as "a religious duty." Michael Scheuer, who created and ran the CIA's bin Laden unit, says that in 2003 bin Laden got a Saudi sheik to issue a fatwa authorizing the use of nuclear weapons against Americans, to retaliate for Muslims killed in the "holy war." Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, for his book "Al-Zarqawi: Al-Qaeda's Second Generation," interviewed several of bin Laden's top lieutenants, including the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hussein outlines al-Qaida's strategy of seven phases the first one beginning as an "awakening" for Muslims worldwide following the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan culminates with the "definitive victory" of "one-and-a-half billion Muslims" and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate by 2020."

talk to IRAN?"the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He said, "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."

Posted by kerrin57 at 2006-12-15 07:53 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



and you see....this is EXACTLY what they want and even what libs on this site want.......now of course I am not saying that libs here are in favor of the destruction of the US...thats silly....but just as in damascus and tehran and the UN.....many posters here would just love for the US to lose its superpower status and be just like all the rest......all you have to do is read comments in reply to this...."inconvienant truth".......
(thanks for the help,AL).......

BLT...it has been said on dr that vietman twisted our country...it did. so many dead soldiers only to surrender like a whipped dog.history shows a war that was not fought by generals to win but a war micro managed by politicians reacting to newsmedia and poll numbers.now we have a generation that has an abhorrence of war ,the belief that dialogue and treaties will keep us at peace....and i find that admirable to a point.but it would be disasterous for the united states to think people with our destruction in mind would abide by an agreement, they do not want to co-exist with use they want us dead!

"now we have a generation that has an abhorrence of war"

And this is a problem because?

The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

- Douglas MacArthur

".....many posters here would just love for the US to lose its superpower status and be just like all the rest......"

Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

- John F. Kennedy

Kerrin57, do yourself a favor: lay off those absinthe-peroxide-ddt cocktails for a couple of days.

Larry O'Donnel is whack job. An out of his mind lib freak.

Why do I get the feeling Larry posts here under the moniker "Hans?"

odonnell is not a journalist....he is a commentator and there should never be any confusion there....when he is on the mclaughlin gang it makes me gag, but I watch it anyway even though I know that I am listening to a man who doesnt give a shit who dies or what happens as long as he can get on tv and bash bush......
I just wish I didnt have to admit that I was a closet west wing watcher....but thats part of my step plan to recovery......so be it.....

" We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4
This much we pledge--and more. "
....JFK..would not cut and run!

"Kerrin57, do yourself a favor: lay off those absinthe-peroxide-ddt cocktails for a couple of days."

LOL!

Hans

nice work kerrin......you can always tell when you have kicked the liberals in the ass when all they can do is accuse you of stupid shit..........
you can now leave knowing that you have another liberal 'kill' and that means that you can paste a photo of michael moore somewhere........(get it....like the fighter pilots...get it....)

"Why do I get the feeling Larry posts here under the moniker "Hans?"
Posted by joncarry"

Only your gynecologist knows for sure.


"odonnell is not a journalist....
Posted by bushlovertwo"

Actually, O'Donnell is a journalist. What he isn't is a "reporter."


"JFK..would not cut and run!
Posted by kerrin57"

Because of those words you quote? You have no idea what JFK would or would not have done. Nobody really does. Although Robert McNamara thinks he was moving to getting out of Vietnam before we got dragged further into the quagmire.

"you can always tell when you have kicked the liberals in the ass when all they can do is accuse you of stupid shit..........
Posted by bushlovertwo"

Oh, you mean by quoting from what you write?

This kind of self-retorting stuff just cannot be made up.

JFK..would not cut and run!

JFK wouldn't have to because he wouldn't have gotten us into this misguided war in the first place.

My recollection is that American culture began to be twisted because of Nam when Westmoreland and LBJ started lying about the place.

Prior to this misbehavior, Americans had an almost entire faith in their government.

Bush has set back the healing process one more generation.

okay DOC...after you stop smokin herb and put down the flower....."In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it...." JFK would not cut and run

I post one comment that isn't hostile or anything and you just bust out with nothing but condecension and rudeness. You think pretty highly of yourself. You do nothing but condemn folks here who are conservative. You never attack liberals for anything and claim to be a "citizen of the earth." No, you are an ultra-lib wackjob who hates this country.

Posted by eberly at 2006-12-14 05:56 PM

Actually EB, just as a matter of fact, I'm pretty liberal and have received similar arrogant responses from SBS...SBS seems to think the arrogance of others is ignorance but her (his?) own is enlightenment.

Just thought I'd straighten up the record.

1964...RFK
Kennedy:
... the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

Martin:
What was the overwhelming reason?

Kennedy:
Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

JFK would not have cut and run

"okay DOC...after you stop smokin herb and put down the flower....."In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it...." JFK would not cut and run
Posted by kerrin57"

You take everything at face value? You believe that when a politician says something, he/she feels they've been grated onto that sentiment at the hip?

Then try this gem on for size:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."

The fact remains, you cannot possibly know what JFK would or would not have done. Unless, of course, you're channeling his shade.

In which case, I implore you: more fiber, less distilled grain in your diet.

America will, once again, "surrender without the words...only if those dem pukes y'all elected to congress defund our troops,all the while saying how they support our troops.

Posted by kerrin57 at 2006-12-14 03:39 PM | Reply

Jesus, the gall. Your boy hero tossed you guys in there without rhyme or reason, while some objected, you were an unflinching supporter of this folly,

Now your finally realize the across-the-board incompetence of the admin. you so faithfully supported, which was apparent to the entire planet and half of your countrymen (branded traitors when they questioned strategy I might add), and now you try to make the dems the lightening rod for this gargantuan failure?

Your intellectual honesty is astonishing.

damn....kerrin....you just got another kill...nice work..........

hey doc....you are so quick to point out the unfailable jfk, but I am sure that you would not agree with his tax cuts since that means you would be agreeing with bush too..........


just saw the daley show version of the barney holiday extravaganza......what a hoot...anyone else see it?

Panchovilla,

It's all they have left. Even the noecons that talked chimpy into starting this thing have turned on him.

Even the "terrorism will win if we leave Iraq" BS has become a joke to everone being honest, even most republicans.

What those with the mentality of Kerrin and BLT refuse to recognize is that men such as Kennedy actually fought in wars and understood personally what it takes to win them.

1- It takes a winning military strategy with firm goals and measurable achievements toward that desired end. There has to be a continuation of positive results showing progress in defeating the enemy.

2- It takes a united nation, sharing in the sacrifices of war because their loved ones are a part of the struggle and wanting it to end as quickly as humanly possible.

3- The war must be viewed by the public as a moral response to real threats to this nation, its people and our geopolitical interests.

4- There has to be honesty coming from those executing the war. The public can be sold a pig-in-a-poke for a while, but when the truth of failure catches up to the rhetoric of victory, even a blind man sees reality for what it is. Once this trust is lost, it cannot be regained.

This is the history that this war's proponents are up against, and it is a battle already lost. I am still waiting for any proponent to articulate a military strategy that will result in the victory so easily talked about but impossible to visualize. Just how will more troops on the streets of Iraq stop violence between Sunnis and Shia bent upon killing each other? What changes in our current strategy need to occur other than to inject more troops doing the same things that aren't effective today?

Invoking the names of real American patriots that had realistic visions of the future and how the use of American military might could be used for a positive global outcome only further shows just how inept and incompetent our current leaders are in not only their failed policies and planning, but even in their inability to articulate real strategy in lieu of cliched rhetoric more befitting a high school debate class. Enough talk about winning, where's the beef, and how is it supposed to get the job done?

and isnt is interesting that it was dems who got us in nam and even deeper.......
and you can talk about ike all you want.....because it was on this site that I have read so many times where he said that it was unwise and we read all sorts of anti war statements from ike on this site.....so thats a no way out argument right there..........so I guess you can make something else up like the left does so often.......WITH THE HELP Of people like the subject of this thread.......

and now must go............

"hey doc....you are so quick to point out the unfailable jfk, but I am sure that you would not agree with his tax cuts since that means you would be agreeing with bush too..........
Posted by bushlovertwo"

You know how to read, yes, BLT? Check the thread. I wasn't "so quick" to bring up JFK. That was another poster, to whom I responded.

On this thread, I don't really care about JFK and tax cuts. (If you want to believe that the conditions in the early 60s' are equivalent to the Bush era, please take it up with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: how long has it been since you cleaned your opium pipe? Or are you a I-love-residue kinda guy?

doc....i am not the one acting like a pompus ass....
Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
No.
...JFK would not have cut and run

""JFK would not have cut and run""

He didn't live long enough to see what happened in Vietnam but his brother did and ran for president on a get out of Vietnam platform. Considering that Robert was John's attorney general it is probable that John's views would have been similar to his brother's. But you can pretend all you want, but that is all it is....pretending.
Attempting to somehow deflect blame for the DISASTER in Iraq by pretending that Kennedy would have kept us in Vietnam is REALLY a stretch but then I guess that is all the righties have these days. Unless of course, you listen to Laura who says it is just the news media, totally disregarding what the ISG said, as if they were somehow misled by the evil librul media instead of their own lying eyes.

JFK used tax cuts as a stimulus as would any president who understood the mechanics of a slumping economy. No one in the mainstream has disagreed with the use of tax cuts again. It is the ubber rich giveaway that is objectionable. But then, you either know this and are being disingenuous or you wont get it anyway.

Iraq was in no way important to the incredibly stupidly named "war on terror" and was from it's inception un-winnable by any reasonable definition of wining. No one knows what JFK would have done but I feel pretty comfortable that he would not have started this nightmare. You guys arguments are predicated on the possibility of a stable western style democracy in Iraq and it ain't gunna happen so your arguments fall apart on the facts. In the end, after some serious ethnic cleansing, civil war, whatever label suits you Iraq will now be a fundamentalist Islamic Republic indistinguishable from Iran in any meaningful way. Congratulation on yalls George Washingtonian/JFK like crusade in the ME. But really, keep buttering each others thighs, it's all you got left.

Kennedy:
Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

As Pancho says, the intellectual dishonesty used by Kerrin is on par with that used by W. Sure, Bobby articulated this point in 1964, but what did he say 4 years later? He saw that Vietnam was doing more harm to this nation than a potential domino effect in Southeast Asia, and ran for the Presidency on the platform of getting the US out of Vietnam!

We are at a similar juncture today. While Iraq was likely winnable or at least governable in 2003/04, that reality is long past. We don't have 500,000 ground troops to retake the country and do it the right way, unlike the Rumsfeld plan that truly was a "Plan for Failure." There comes a time when reality must trump idealism, and for most of us, that time has come.

No one has yet formulated a military strategy that can solve a political crisis. This is what the unlearned or willfully ignorant refuse to understand. While we may try to cap the violence, at an increasing cost of American lives and limbs, it will play out the day we leave. You can't run from history, but history can surely ruin those too dense to learn its lessons.

o wow...oliver stone...now there a dude to tell us what JFK would do.like askin michael moore for a world view....great source

here ya go DRPIKE...."President Kennedy's tax cut was responsible," Ted asserts. "It was targeted toward the middle class. Only 6 percent of President Kennedy's tax cut went to those earning over $300,000 in today's dollars" -- i.e., the top 1 percent of income earners. But that is true only because in 1964, the top 1 percent paid a far smaller share of the total tax burden than they do now. Back then, they accounted for 20 percent of all taxes collected; today they pay a staggering 35 percent.

By any rational yardstick, the Kennedy tax cut was enormous, and it was a boon to the rich. It cut the top marginal rate a whopping 21 percentage points, from 91 to 70. Bush's plan lowers rates at the top by only 6.6 percentage points. For those in the lowest bracket, JFK cut the tax rate to 14 percent; Bush drops them all the way to 10 percent." GRRRRRRRR,now doesn't that blow ....

"o wow...oliver stone...now there a dude to tell us what JFK would do.like askin michael moore for a world view....great source
Posted by kerrin57"

You think I cited Oliver Stone as a source for what JFK would or would not have done in Vietnam? Seriously, do you have a learning disability? Check out the site: It's a Stanley Karnow article that blasts Stone for saying---unlike Karnow, but, funnily enough, like you---that he knows what JFK would or would not have done in Vietnam.

"doc....i am not the one acting like a pompus ass....
Posted by kerrin57"

I didn't say you're acting like a pompous ass. But you are acting like someone who thinks he can speak with the dead. What's that make you? A Necromancer?br />

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%....we have more people than ever that do not pay income tax...

"we have more people than ever that do not pay income tax..."

We also have more people than ever.

Hell, even I know that. And I ain't no necromancer, neither!

The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%........but we're gonna fix that....make it more like 40%.
And if the rich don't like it....tough.
Maybe next time they won't be so anxious to send middle class kids off to die in wars for oil. Someone has to pay for this disaster, the rich want it to be our kids and grandkids but the majority wants it to be the ones who supported the war by contributing to Bush's campaign fund.

Why stop at 40%, Danni?

Fuck those rat-bastards! Right?

At some point I would like to see a serious discussion regarding the merits (or lack of) of changing our tax structure to a consumption tax (National sales tax).

At some point I would like to see a serious discussion regarding the merits (or lack of) of changing our tax structure to a consumption tax (National sales tax).

We had it over and over again. Comsumption taxes are the most regressive of all. Poorer people spend all of their income, hence they'd pay the highest percentage to taxes.

Frankly, the entire equation is backwards. Consumption is the engine of the economy, not hoarding money, or leaving it in an investment. Money has to be spent and travel for an economy to be vibrant. Go back to one of our many economic threads. Someone posted all the fallacies of VAT or consumption based taxation policies. They are nothing more than another device to shift the tax burden downward where the wealthier prefer it to be.

At some point I would like to see a serious discussion regarding the merits (or lack of) of changing our tax structure to a consumption tax (National sales tax).

Posted by JeffJ at 2006-12-15 11:00 AM | Reply


Punish the poor while rewarding the rich ehhhh is that it JeffJ?/ ALmost all of Poor spend the most amount on consumtion than the rich.

Larry

Danni ...sounds like y'all are one of the "po folk" who just has not been able to make it in the land of opportunity....not much above entry level eh?i say this as your posts reveal a very strong jealousy and envy of productive people. you can still do it hon....finace everything you own.... max out your credit cards like alot of the "rich" have done...be prepared to work longer hours than your workers. then when your company has turned a profit you can pay your 33-355% taxes... you rich bastard.oh and then when you retire cough up another 18 to 20% capital gains...and heaven forbid you make it too big cause them your children can fork over another huge chunk of taxes....go for it hon...

FAIRTAX.ORG...rock your world TONY

Tony,

The most recent proposition I heard regarding consumption tax was to start the year with a lump-sum tax credit to pay for the necessitites.

Example: Let's say the credit is $2000 per household.

Household A's annual income is $200,000.

Household B's annual incone is $20,000.


Well, household B gets a MUCH bigger tax-credit measured as a percentage of income than household A.

In addition, ZERO withholding of taxes, which is a jump to spending power - paychecks are bigger.

No more IRS, and its associated budgetary cost.

No more rich lobbying for manipulation of the tax code in their favor.

Illegals become less of a drain because the advantage of under-the-table pay goes away.

ALL foreign visitors pay into our federal tax system when they consume.

Tax fraud is minimized - think about how much THAT costs our government each year.

here ya go TON...read on....

Just subcontract taxing out to Halliburton. Or, better yet, the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Kerrin...

In one post, you decry those wanting our involvement in Iraq to cease while at the same time never mentioning just how we're to pay for the war and the tremendous costs of replacing all the equipment thats been used up. Then you expouse letting the only group of Americans that have excess wealth be sheltered from having to make up the shorfalls precipitated by the increased spending of war. Which is it?

Is the war worthy enough for the wealthy to assume a greater share of its costs to society since they are the ones reaping the greater benefits from the security our Defense Department gives?

Do we want to build more prisons to house more citizens unable to legally make it in life at a cost far beyond that given by government to the poor, even if they're lazy? What is your answer to these problems?

How is it "surrender"? Are the Iraqis dictating any terms? We didn't lose militarily. We lost politically. You don't invade another country with the idea that you can force them to act like us. We lost but surrender is not the right word.

Tony, he's waiting until his assistant connects the jumper cables to his ears before offering comments direct from across the River Styx.

JJ...do you really think those WHORES of both parties in dc would give up the gravy train. hell if they didn't have the tax money to redistribute they could not buy their way back into the dc life.there would be no term limits needed.it will take a revolution. it will come 1.... if they keep stifling growth with huge taxes and regulations so even the bottom feeders will realize their fate is tied to those rich bastards creating jobs for them.the thing about the truly rich is that they are mobile...they can flee oppressive taxation.

Saying "this war is unwinnable" is totally false. We can still win this war but that would make us define victory.

If you want an Iraq in which religious killings stop, the nation is not a threat to the US and possibly an ally, a reliable oil exporter, and a strong central government - all of that can be achieved. Of course, it would take a massive force of US troops to prop up a dictator that would suppress the people and imprison the clerics like Sadr, but it could happen still today even after all the missmanagement.

Now, if you want a democratic republic that is the 'US of the middle east', you are retarded if you think that is still attainable.

The only real problem that we have now is 'victory' would be re-creating the Iraq of the mid 1980's when Rummy was giving Saddam golden spurs, etc. In my mind, this is a less disasterous end state than how we will leave the country when we eventually do pull out in the next 12-24 months.

On the other hand, the thought of having the Saudi nut jobs and the Iranian nut jobs killing themselves in Iraq and oil prices plummeting as Saudi ramps up production to hurt Iran isn't that bad in the short term.

There's one more reason the US will find it hard to leave Iraq quickly. Some people make millions each day we stay there.

It's interesting to think how many resources useful in war could have been purchased with the money mysteriously vanished in Iraq or harvested "honestly" by war profiteers.

How many American mercenaries do we pay for in Iraq? I heard the figure 40,000 a years ago. How many regular troops does that buy for service?

It makes you weep that Bush is (gasp) considering offensive operations in Iraq if he gets more troops there.

Ah, the troops he never needed before now because it was a personal political liability to reinforce.

Jeff...

I have never argued that our current tax system is an efficient model. Of course it isn't. But ANY consumption based tax program places the entire taxation burden upon those who have to spend money, and eliminates it for those who use money to make more without consuming anything. The making of money is a tax-worthy event just like the consumption of goods. Money cannot be made unless goods and serives are consumed.

As a taxed society, we've never viewed money changing hands from one source to another as anything befitting an exemption except under tight, specific circumstances.

Of course, it would take a massive force of US troops to prop up a dictator that would suppress the people and imprison the clerics like Sadr, but it could happen still today even after all the missmanagement.

We do not have the troops nor the materiel to do this today, hence, it IS impossible to create this type of outcome. It wasn't, however, in 2003, and thats when it should have been done, before the US military machine was "broken" due to the mis-use of its current owner/operator.

Iraq was lost the moment it began. People need to realize this.

Larry

That's a fair counter, Tony.

Sums it up fairly well.


Yes it does.


I like that source, Tony.

Everything you've cited from it (thus far) makes a hell of a lot of sense.

If you haven't read this, please bookmark it or favorite it and do so. Then lets have a discussion


Sounds good to me, Tony.

I'll alert you when my research is complete.

"We do not have the troops nor the materiel to do this today, hence, it IS impossible to create this type of outcome."

Tony - I totally disagree with you. This country has not truly sacraficed anything for this war - how many of the 300M citizens of this country have served a tour in Iraq? As to materials - we have the materials and the know how and the capacity to make whatever it takes - in WWII, car plants made tanks, etc. This would take a real dedication on the part of the government and the people of the US but it could be done. Further, if the objective is to cow a populace, the tactics on the battlefield would change - no more warning shots for getting too close to a convoy - no more knocking on doors (a good kick followed by a granade instead) - no more detain and release (detain + disappear) - if a convoy gets shot at, put up a perimeter and burn or bomb everything inside of it. These tatics are brutal and inhumane, but to think war is not is a wrong. The US will choose not to do these things (which is right in my opinion) but they are the tactics that although brutal, may end up saving more lives in total than letting the civil war continue. I firmly believe dropping a nuke on Japan was the correct thing - inhuman and cruel - YES - but it ultimately saved more lives than it lost. You do know that when the Mongols captured Baghdad, they burned the entire city to the ground, right? That is how you win a war.

Jacque...

Do you understand the reason we invaded was to let the very people targeting us today to live as they wanted to? How is this achieved by unleashing even more violence and death upon them?

Your point is valid on its basis, but that basis is OUR objective, not what is best for the Iraqis themselves. It will take time, years actually, for our forces to be ramped up in numbers and for the equipment to be built and put in place to create your scenario for a ground victory. In the interim, do you find it acceptable to have today's troops continue to be maimed and killed for a holding action until we can do more?

Your larger point is the same one that I've been making. This leadership never understood that to "win" a war, the entire nation has to have a stake in the outcome, not just the few fighting in it. They did not ask for sacrifice, we did not ask for private enterprise to put aside high profit margins on war supplies for the good of the nation, nor did we ask those with the most to lose to help a little more than the rest. None of these things happened, and its not the fault of today's realists that understand we cannot go back and repair the faults undermining our efforts contemporaniously. Its too late, and Iraq's fate is already cast. We should move to the fringes and let it play out, but by all means we need to get our people out of the middle.

"These tactics are brutal and inhumane...."

More than that, ineffective. It's a tribal society in Iraq with elaborated norms relating to respect for person and family.

I'm not sure I blame Americans for not understanding tribes.

I do blame them for not understanding that, as persons like them, Iraqis don't tend to be "cowed" when someone busts in their door. They get angry.

Tony - I do not want our troops in Iraq. I have family members deployed currently and there is absolutely no reason why we should be there. I never supported going in the first place but those days are behind us and we have to choose a path. One path is victory which would require inhumane acts and a 100% commitment from this country - the end state of this victory will be a dictatorship like Iraq in the 1980's. The other path is to pull our troops out and the only question is how quickly. As I see that short of a 100% commitment we will not win, I would propose we pull out our troops now and have our last troops leaving within 24 hours.

There is no longer a path to to a stable democracy and stay the course truly is back to path 2 as 'stay the course' can not continue indefinitely and will not result in victory. We either go with course 1 or course 2 and if the choice is course 2 (which I support) than there is no reason for our troops to be their today much less 12 months from now.

"If a convoy gets shot up, set up a perimeter and bomb/burn everything inside it...."

Make sure you get the kids. That will teach them. Ever heard of Lidice?

the only people reaping the benefits of the security TONY are the people sluffing along bitching paying little if any income taxes. seems those rich successful bastard pay for their fair share...The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes

I do blame them for not understanding that, as persons like them, Iraqis don't tend to be "cowed" when someone busts in their door. They get angry.

Zed - you are 100% wrong. This is exactly how Saddam controlled his people for 30 years. If not for US intervention, he would have ruled the country until his death and likely one of his sons would take over after him and continue down the same path. Saddam made people fear him more than the desire to get the rewards from martyerdom. Saddam would not just kill the person, he would kill their mother, father, sister, brother, the cousin from out of town, etc, etc. You knew that if you were a suicide bomber, you were not the only one that would be a martyer so people did not become suicide bombers. It is one thing to take your own life - it is entirely different to force your family and distant relatives to do the same. This type of dictator is the only one that can restore order to Iraq now and fortunately, we have him in custody still.

TONY.."Sums it up fairly well"....gosh where do i begin. i will read more but alot of what i have read so far shows this to be a very simplistic propagandizing paper. i will agree that our government has created a morass of tax law and regulation...what they put in one pocket they take out of the other...all to remain in office and enrich themselves.now they are going into the pension business allowing companies to side step obligations and cheating pensioners.

the Iraq Study Group (ISG), which has now produced a document that consists of 50 pages of recommendations, preceded by a 40-page thumbnail sketch of the current situation in Iraq and 50 pages of maps, lists of people, and full-length biographies of the commissioners. This is a group composed, for the most part, of retired eminent public officials, most with limited or no expertise in the waging or study of war. It consists of individuals carefully selected with an eye to diverse partisan and other irrelevant personal characteristics. These worthies, with not one chairman but two (for balance, of course), turned to several score experts known to disagree vehemently with one another about the best course of action to be pursued in Iraq.
Some of the commission members and their advisers cordially detest the president and his administration and opposed him and his war from the outset; others were equally passionate in their defense of both the man and the conflict. And yet this diverse group had an overwhelming mandate, from the beginning, to produce a consensus document. The commission members spent four days in Iraq, and with the exception of a one-day foray by former Marine Chuck Robb, they stayed in the Green Zone, that bubble of palaces and residences that has little to do with the real Iraq of Basra, Kirkuk, Ramadi, Baquba and Mosul. At the end, they had breakfast with the president and a few hours later posted their conclusions on the Internet for all the world to ponder. There is something of farce in all this, an invocation of wisdom from a cohesive Washington elite that does not exist, a desperate wish to believe in the gravitas and the statecraft of grave men (and women) who can sort out the mess in which the country finds itself."

......bunch of antediluvian relics

Mustafa Bakri, an outspoken critic of the U.S. and editor of the Egyptian tabloid Al-Osboa, told a state-run television show that the report indicated "the end of America."

Bakri, who supports Syrian President Bashar Assad and the former regime of Saddam Hussein, urged Arab countries to "capture the moment as America now is in its weakest period."

...........cut and run

Mustafa Bakri, an outspoken critic of the U.S. and editor of the Egyptian tabloid Al-Osboa, told a state-run television show that the report indicated "the end of America."

Bakri, who supports Syrian President Bashar Assad and the former regime of Saddam Hussein, urged Arab countries to "capture the moment as America now is in its weakest period."

...........cut and run

the only people reaping the benefits of the security TONY are the people sluffing along bitching paying little if any income taxes. seems those rich successful bastard pay for their fair share...The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes

Income taxes are never the only ones paid. It is a false implication to always indicate anything approaching 'fairness' by quoting them. Everytime a dollar is spent, its taxed, and those whom you say pay no income tax pay tax on every
penny they receive as they spend it. The same it not true for those who don't spend their money. Its free to grow and increase, and until its pulled from an investment, this money remains untaxed.

Unemployment benefits are taxed at higher rates than certain investment incomes. Is this fair, that we tax the labor of humans at higher rates than we do the labor of capital?

The book you say is "simplistic propagandizing" is anything but. It is a factual treatise on just how government moves income upward through the use of our laws and regulations, many of which most don't even realize are at play. It is foolish to think that money doesn't control governmental policy, and poor people don't have money, the wealthy do. K Street isn't funded by populism, its funded by the rich and powerful seeking to keep their wealth and power intact.

The book is about what you dismiss: the fact that the government is used by business to create artificial markets overwhelmingly beneficial to the capitalists, while moving some costs of doing business over to the taxpayers. In other words, business as usual.

And you still haven't mentioned one word on what military strategy you champion to achieve the objective in Iraq. We know you're against "cut and run" but what are yoyu for specifically? I want numbers, methods, & how we measure success, not empty cliches and slogans. How are the troops going to win?

i have no military experience...not an armchair general....don't have privy to the information that our president and generals have.

Surrender? What will be expected of us when we surrender? Will we have to give up our nukes? Disarm our military? What are the terms being sought by those to whom we are "surrendering"?

Oh. You mean it isn't really a "surrender"? It's just a word the Republicans will use when we discontinue our military agressions and occupation of a foreign nation.

The only thing actually being surrendered here is common sense by the Righties.

Posted by jeaubleau at 2006-12-14 08:47 PM | Reply |

I was thinking the same thing, but now I'm at a lost as to what exactly this is.... I think your right its not a surrender... but then what?

Withdrawal of Foreign troops from Iraq is not surrender.

i have no military experience...not an armchair general....don't have privy to the information that our president and generals have.

How have those who are privvy to the information used it to "win" in Iraq over the last four years, and why should any American blindly believe that given the current track record, these same people have an actionable plan to do what they've failed to accomplish?

Should we take anyone's "word" at this point, or wouldn't prudent people demand verifiable actions and strategies for the use of more troops to reach our desired conclusion?

It is morally bankrupt to decry protecting our troops by removing them from a civil war as "cut and run" while being unable to even theorize possible tactics that will gain the victory that so many see as the only acceptable outcome for our invasion of Iraq. If you want to make that argument, then bring facts or at least strategies for achieving your goals, don't just endlessly pant "cut and run" unless you can prove it worse than what is currently happening while we're still there. Can we at least agree that continuing to do what we're doing isn't going to result in a victory either?

Everytime a dollar is spent, its taxed, and those whom you say pay no income tax pay tax on every
penny they receive as they spend it. The same it not true for those who don't spend their money. Its free to grow and increase, and until its pulled from an investment, this money remains untaxed.

....so if you don't pay any income tax but pay sales tax and all those cute taxes and little surcharges on tel and elect bill...or you pay those plus ..33% fed.8% nc state ......go figure...it still comes up to more ...alot more cause rich bastards consume more.by the way..fairtax relieves that burden from the poor.

amazing

a jerk uses the word "surrender"

& a-worders ("americans"...oops, sorry for such filthy language)

....SURRENDER!


surrender all their liberties...(which they know nothing about anyway & never even think of using!.......these little babes!)

YEP....wallowing in their "little prison cells"......look & see!

they ....never say "we surrender!"

THEY JUST DO IT SILENTLY!

Kerrin...

There are limits to consumption. Yes, the wealthy can buy more things, but they can't eat more than anyone else. You still hang your hat on income tax when its only a snippet of the story. Property, energy, sales, use, excise, local, state and county all have taxes which must be paid.

Faritax removes wealth from taxation unless its spent. It would make far more sense not to tax consumption (which is good for the economy, not bad) than it does not to tax money at work. Money doesn't consume, people do.

Fairtax is another euphemism for shifting the tax burden further onto the poorer sectors of society and away from the wealth hoarders. Money not in motion only benefits the one holding it. Money in motion benefits everyone. Its called capitalism, or have you forgotten?

"STUPID AMERICA"

(& its K57 BRAND OF STUPID AMERICANS)

are the weakest nation on earth

why?

because its cowardly citizens (like K57)

have

"cut & run"

from their human responsibility.

AMERICA......is a dog pound

where K57 et al....bark all day & pray that georgie gives them their purina.

I don't mean to "make a joke" out of K57......

but

he makes a joke out of ...himself!

Never ever...will he say

just what experiences have caused him to say what he does say!

Why is that!?

BECAUSE HE ONLY REPEATS what he is told to say!

IT IS EASIER THAN FEELING & THEN THINKING......that's for sure.

& so K57.........wallows in his "sound bytes" & awaits

the final out come of our fate.

"just what experiences have caused him to say what he does say!"

Why don't you share with us your experiences that have caused you to say what you do?

do you really believe we can show weakness to these people?"Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa urged Muslims to target American civilians as "a religious duty." Michael Scheuer, who created and ran the CIA's bin Laden unit, says that in 2003 bin Laden got a Saudi sheik to issue a fatwa authorizing the use of nuclear weapons against Americans, to retaliate for Muslims killed in the "holy war." Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, for his book "Al-Zarqawi: Al-Qaeda's Second Generation," interviewed several of bin i read everyday...both sides of the war issues....have to go outside msm to find anything positive.this is a fight for the security of the united states.THIS IS WHY WE CAN NOT CUT AND RUN...."Laden's top lieutenants, including the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hussein outlines al-Qaida's strategy of seven phases the first one beginning as an "awakening" for Muslims worldwide following the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan culminates with the "definitive victory" of "one-and-a-half billion Muslims" and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate by 2020."....

good for you SILKIE...out foxed the attendants again...like to stay and bullshit with ya fella BUT...and your gonna love this...i have to got cut up bambi's mother and get her in nice little freezer packages.but you just keep posting before they catch y'all and make you go back to your room.

okay TONY ...i am a koolaide drinkers,can't be smart must be dumb cause i don't agree with you, ...there is a conspiracy going on about the beginning of the war and ongoing.general abizaide and all are stupid dolts not smart enough to be in charge,bush brought down the world trade center,our government and generals created al queda,rich bastards take the bread out of childrens mouth while kicking them...you da man...you da man...you da man!smarter than most leading economists and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Kerrin...

I wish you'd understand that I am not implying that I'm smarter than anyone else. The facts of the matter is our military already knew how to win a 4GW conflict and that was with 500,000 troops to begin with! We could have won a resounding victory and minimized the damage to both our troops and the Iraqi infrastructure. These things weren't done, and now we're left with the results.

Just because I don't speak in soundbites and spout political rhetoric doesn't mean this information isn't widely diseminated. I've said from the beginning, Bush is an incurious person, and this incuriousness has led him not to ask "what if" questions before leaping into a situation without having accounted for all contingencies. The same thing goes today.

Let's be clear: I do not want the US to "lose" in Iraq! I understand the consequences and their dire nature. However, I can get no one to articulate just what we are going to do that will result in "victory" based upon our current capabilities as a military. This is why I see no reason to continue losing lives and limbs if the end result is going to be the same whether its today or 4 years from now or 40 years from now.

Please, paint me a hopeful picture of how this thing can be won, for all of us want to see this happen. But if its true that it is already irretriveably lost, why should we still put more into it to get nothing back out?

The war in Iraq should never have happened. Our form of government does not allow for prolonged foreign involvement of this type. The leadership of our government can change every 2 years, allowing our course to change dramatically. I hope, for our childrens sake, that we all remember what has happened in Iraq and never again become politically and militarily entangled in the affairs of foreign nations.

We hear the Iraqis weren't angry with Saddam, they were "cowed" because he was such a mean old man.

Which explains why not one but two of his national minorities revolted against him.

This sort of discussion makes me tired. Keep on wondering why what you are doing doesn't work.

Let me run with this a moment. The Romans punished nations by killing the men and selling women and children into slavery. They even salted conquered earth.

But if the various peoples of the Roman Empire didin't see the benefits of belonging to Empire, none of this would have mattered.

There is no "war" in iraq.

The war IS ...RIGHT HERE!..........a war against the minds & hearts of the once-proud american citizens.

(now....instead of "citizens"...read blind & soul-dead "sheeple")

The oinkers have won...& easily....as the likes of K57 & BLT..........lead the blind exhuberant charge!....

into the brain washing chambers!
(their tee vee minds & hearts!)

How a person could "parade" around in such nakedly ridiculous fashion!

(as did the emperor with his no clothes)

is hard to tell

BUT SEE.....! these once-men (K & B)

but do not weep.

BUT DO NOT LET THEIR DESEASE AFFECT YOUR CHILDREN!

(OR YOUR GOD CREATED WORLD)

SURE......to be the tyrant's MINION (OR THE DEVIL'S)

is a "safe place" to be...

to hide......!

to.......play with oneself!

THEY SING THEIR TUNE......"hey there georgie boy!

here i am for you as loyal slave!

hope i am acceptably

........depraved

(& stupid too
& just for you)

my georgie boy!"
.....

But , another "battle" is also being fought

THAT OF THE TRUE SPIRITUAL WARRIORS!

THAT OF THE TRUE MEN WITH THEIR MINDS, HEARTS & SOULS STILL INTACK, STILL REAL, STILL "OF THE GRAND ONENESS OF REALITY"

It is not a "war" but is a simple expression of ones full being, & constantly.

That it seems a battle "against madness"

is an illusion..

It is only a "calling forth to join again THE SACRED RACE OF MANKIND as full pareticipant & lover."

(yes......there is no shame in saying "lover"...no matter what our macho killers imply)

kiler machos!....who only kill themselves as they wallow in their subserviently proscribed morbidity

talking "toughie-talk" about what to them is no more than "words" of some distant porno-fantacy.

SO, AS WE STAND TALL & IN FULL GRACE

OUR WILL ......be done.

NOW, HERE

as ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE

& JOYOUSLY

Here's a great plan for those that insist we stay in Iraq. They could form their own Lincoln brigade as those poor souls who chose to fight the nationlists in Spain. They could either name it the Bush or Rummy brigade and volunteer all that they want. To raise money they could have a bake sale and that way pay for transport and arms for their crusade.