IT'S ELECTION DAY!!!

[TheMojoPin]

Well, within a few hours, elections begin in Iraq.

Iraqis around the world, not just those actually in the country itself, will be able to vote for the first democratically elected leader in Iraq's history, which is pretty damn cool.

Here's hoping things go well, and whatever goes down, let's post it in this thread.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Melrapuo]

I guess it's starting already. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/29/iraq.main/index.html)

[center]<img src="http://www.osirusonline.com/ta-ani.gif">
Thanks Reef
YANKEES FAN SINCE BIRTH!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Got to give the people in Iraq credit for voting. They are risking their own lives to do something alot of Americans take for granted

I dont care, I just don't care, I really dont care. F U Howard Stern!!!!!

[torker]

In leaflets distributed in neighborhoods in north Baghdad, insurgents issued what they called a "final warning" to residents to stay away from the polls, vowing to "wash Baghdad streets with voters' blood." The warning was not signed by any particular group.

http://www.westhoustondemocrats.org/whdc/images/dnc_logo.gif

[center]<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~rmfallon/RFnettorker1313.jpg>[center]
[center]Take my soul to the lost and found [center]

[Bulldogcakes]

Iraqis around the world, not just those actually in the country itself, will be able to vote for the first democratically elected leader in Iraq's history, which is pretty damn cool.

Amen, Mojo. I think people can only be intimidated for so long. They know what's at stake, for them and their children. It is VERY much in OUR interest to see this election and the future prosperity of Iraq succeed. An aligning of interests which is quite a switch from our prior relationship with Iraq. If they can pull this off, it can have a spillover effect in other parts of the region, or so we hope. Jordan's been planning/putting off elections for years. Iran's ripe for change, which is demographically inevitible. Assad is having trouble staying alive in Syria. Finally, for the first time in my lifetime, it is in the US national interest see an Arab nation SUCCEED, not just be useful idiots. Let's hope for the best.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[TheMojoPin]

Amen.

*Sniff*

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[fluffernutter]

Yes, I understand that the Iraqi's finally have that freedom to vote. I am just having a hard time understanding why it is such a big deal to us over here in America. So does this mean that we can get out now? There seems to be such a focus on helping Iraq and getting them over the hump and things just seem to be going to shit here. It's like let's put America on the backburner while we straighten out everyone else.

And yes take into consideration that I am not the most politically intelligent here, just some knee jerk questions that have come to mind.

http://www.pleaseforgetme.com/SIGS/birds.gif

You are a bitch AND a cunt. May you wallow in filth scumbag. Bitter?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Despite the acts of violence, about 70% of eligible voters did go out and vote. In the Shia areas almost 90% voted.



I dont care, I just don't care, I really dont care. F U Howard Stern!!!!!

[FUNKMAN]

pretty soon there will be a McDonald's on every corner. there is currently 70% unemployment. let's watch the foreign corporations move in and take the lion's share of the countries wealth 'specifically' the oil companies and let the level of people in poverty increase as it does in this country

but then again you'll be free to stand on the unemployment line or pay for your own medical bills


man that's being negative!

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[Bulldogcakes]

Yes, I understand that the Iraqi's finally have that freedom to vote. I am just having a hard time understanding why it is such a big deal to us over here in America. So does this mean that we can get out now?

It's a big deal because Terrorists aren't born, they're made. It's the "Drain the Swamp" theory. Goes like this. If you go after terrorists individually, you're just "swatting at flies". If you remove the conditions from which they spring up (Undemocratic countries run by iron fisted dictators who impoverish their citizens and blame it all on us and Israel) you can both reduce the likelihood people will become terrorists, and have a friendly Gov't to deal with the ones that do.
We cant get out now. If we do, the people who've sided with us will be slaughtered, and the entire country could decend into civil war. Believe it or not, it could be worse. ALOT worse. Especially if we pull out.

There seems to be such a focus on helping Iraq and getting them over the hump and things just seem to be going to shit here. It's like let's put America on the backburner while we straighten out everyone else.

Bogus argument. If we are to wait until we solve ALL our problems before we get involved overseas, we will wait forever. I dont remember us suspending our social safety net programs to fight this war. We can, and we are doing both at the same time.

And yes take into consideration that I am not the most politically intelligent here, just some knee jerk questions that have come to mind.

Dont worry about that. As your teachers always told you there are no dumb questions. And its always refreshing in a political discussion to hear someone say "I dont know", since most political discussions involve people giving their opinions about things they know little about.


http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 1-30-05 @ 4:38 PM

[FUNKMAN]

It's a big deal because Terrorists aren't born, they're made


the problem with terrorism is they mostly kill the innocent poor or middle class people that have no hand in the politics and corruption that has formed some of the terrorists mindset, beside some of the misguided hate

if the terrorists were to target the Corporate Executives such as the one's that headed Enron, MCI Worldcom, Merril Lynch, BankAmerica, and the thousand of other executive's that take the lions share of money and lay off 5,000 people and cut their benefits, then people including myself wouldn't have a problem with it.

The corporations that influence the politicians to swing things always in their favor

these people steal billions of dollars and then get hit with million dollar fines. I'm no scholar but the math seems pretty damn clear.


<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[El Mudo]

if the terrorists were to target the Corporate Executives such as the one's that headed Enron, MCI Worldcom, Merril Lynch, BankAmerica, and the thousand of other executive's that take the lions share of money and lay off 5,000 people and cut their benefits, then people including myself wouldn't have a problem with it.



So terrorism is good as long as it kills people you don't like?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/elm_sig.gif
<marquee>...*Compliments Hell! Ask General Law if he expects me to hold the entire world in check with the Fifth Texas Regiment!*-Gen. Jerome Robertson </marquee>
Thanks Monsterone!!

[Bulldogcakes]

if the terrorists were to target the Corporate Executives such as the one's that headed Enron, MCI Worldcom, Merril Lynch, BankAmerica, and the thousand of other executive's that take the lions share of money and lay off 5,000 people and cut their benefits, then people including myself wouldn't have a problem with it.

The corporations that influence the politicians to swing things always in their favor

these people steal billions of dollars and then get hit with million dollar fines. I'm no scholar but the math seems pretty damn clear.

Enron-Bankrupt
MCI/Worldcom-No longer exists, bought out after 99% stock collapse
Arthur Anderson (Enron's Acounting Firm)-Out of Business
Merrill Lynch-For the actions of ONE employee (Out of over 10,000) paid a fine in excess of 100 million dollars. A company described by Attny Gen Spitzer as "An excellent Corporate Citizen" outside of this one incident.

Those evil corporations get away scott free, dont they?
Terrorists should kill the CEO's, and Funk "wouldn't have a problem with it"


http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 1-30-05 @ 6:26 PM

[FUNKMAN]

So terrorism is good as long as it kills people you don't like?

all i can see is that the level of people in poverty is rising... what recourse do they have? hire a lawyer?

with what money

the 'rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer' is continuing and how do you suggest this get turned around?

people are killing themselves working two and three jobs to make ends meet. honest hard working people. employees benefits are being cut down every day, their being asked to forego raises as Executive bonuses and salaries are increasing. These executives do not own the company, they are an employee like everyone else.

I've seen it first hand. It's happening across America.

It's called GREED!



Those evil corporations get away scott free, dont they?
Terrorists should kill the CEO's, and Funk "wouldn't have a problem with it"


i'm not saying kill 'all' the CEO's... i'm saying something needs to be done to change the direction, the business as usual in Corporate America. The increase of wealth at the top of corporations and the decrease in wealth and benefits at the lower levels. As i stated above, the poverty level is rising and there is nothing stopping it.

you say companies are bankrupt and out of business. and tell me who is struggling now? the executives that left with the millions they made in salaries or bonuses prior to the collapse(at their own doing) or the other employees who were living paycheck to paycheck or had their retirement plans turn to shit?



<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[Death Metal Moe]

There just isn't enough leftist nay-saying in this thread for it to be an OFFICIAL Ronfez.net political discussion.

Please tell us how America is somehow to blame that everything in the world sucks.

I love that.

<IMG SRC="http://unhallowed.com/sigs/D.M.Moon.jpg">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>

[HBox]

Please tell us how America is somehow to blame that everything in the world sucks.

http://www.virtualtahoe.com/playground/Entertainers/CarrotTop.jpg



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[A.J.]

Got to give the people in Iraq credit for voting. They are risking their own lives to do something alot of Americans take for granted

In leaflets distributed in neighborhoods in north Baghdad, insurgents issued what they called a "final warning" to residents to stay away from the polls, vowing to "wash Baghdad streets with voters' blood."

It kind of puts P. Diddy's campaign into perspective doesn't it?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2004/07/20/diddy-inside.jpg

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[keithy_19]

I think this is really spectacular. We get to watch how these people want a democracy right before our eyes. Amazing.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

[Tall_James]

http://photo.sohu.com/20041007/Img222358145.jpg

This stupid twat wasn't even registered to vote. Let's send her and P. Diddy over to monitor the elections wearing targets on their back.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=tall_james"><br>

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; Am an attendant lord, one that will do To swell a progress, start a scene or two, advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool, deferential, glad to be of use, Politic, cautious, and meticulous; Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous-- Almost, at times, the Fool.

The Cheese-Eating Bird (http://cheeseeatingbird.blogspot.com)

[Bulldogcakes]

Bravo! Iraqis Bravo!! What a great day, I couldn't believe the turnout! And MOSTLY WOMEN! Wow! Just amazing.
The population, thanks to Saddam's numerous wars, is 60% Women. In a democracy, that should help promote stability.
Long way to go, but what a great day, and kudos to Bush, for having the guts and vision to get us this far.
I didn't vote for Bush, and I reluctantly supported the war because I didn't want to stand in the way of 25 million people gaining freedom.
For those of you that opposed the war, now what do you say? Are you glad you did everything possible to make sure this day never came? Or will you give Bush some credit for this important step in the right direction?


http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[Alice S. Fuzzybutt]

http://www.virtualtahoe.com/playground/Entertainers/CarrotTop.jpg

Can't sleep. Clown will eat me.

<IMG SRC=http://s95227862.onlinehome.us/sigs/alice1ghostsig.jpg>

It's a big enough umbrella
But it's always me that ends up getting wet

[FUNKMAN]

For those of you that opposed the war, now what do you say? Are you glad you did everything possible to make sure this day never came? Or will you give Bush some credit for this important step in the right direction?


i personally think the costs have been too high and democracy could have been achieved down the road without the deaths, financial costs, and casualties...

but i think your questions would be best directed at the families of the 1400 US soldiers killed, the 10,000 or so US Soldiers that have been mamed, blinded, lost their hearing, suffered disfiguring burns, and a host of other injuries. Then throw in the other 10,000 or so innocent Iraqis and civilians from other countries that got killed or had their heads cut off...

i'm not really sure how the responses would be...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[HBox]

Are you glad you did everything possible to make sure this day never came?

That's a bullshit argument. What if I I said, "Are you glad you fought so hard to send soldiers to die?" There was a lot to take into account.

Besides, we were right. There were no WMDs. They weren't working with Al Qaeda. We are no safer, arguably less safe. There are more terrorists and terrorist training camps in Iraq now than before the invasion. It allowed Iran to develop nukes and spread its influence into Iraq.

And while the election was certainly a victory for us, and the first positive sign out of Iraq in a while, the handover was supposed to do everything that they say the election will do. The insurgency isn't dead and civil war is still a possibility.

So let's not all start sucking each other's dicks just yet.



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[FUNKMAN]

that got killed or had their heads cut off...


not that getting your head cut off necessarily means you got killed but it does increase the likelyhood

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[42nd-delay]

Seeing the success of the vote and the happiness with which Iraqis voted makes me wish that Bush and Co. hadn't fucked up so many other aspects of the war. Imagine if we had out in enough troops to keep the peace, had restored essential public works with the speed they needed to be restored with, and hadn't essentially thrown billions of dollars away through no bid contracts and inept oversight.

The overriding theme to me through this whole process has not necessarily been the rightness of what we're doing, but the way we've done it. Having a administration which derided "nation-building" until September 2001 then try to engage in that activity on a huge scale was bad news from the start. Hopefully the Iraqis can still prosper despite the situation that's been created.

------------------------------

<img src="http://www.thewalkons.com/bluestates_sig.jpg">

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[Death Metal Moe]

Now THAT'S the leftist nay-saying and doomsday scenarios I was looking for!

Imagine Ted Kennedy at Vally Forge?

<IMG SRC="http://unhallowed.com/sigs/D.M.Moon.jpg">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>

[FUNKMAN]

don't be so negative!

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[HBox]

Yeah, it's the left that's nay-saying, because the right was oh so cheerful and optimistic in the period of 1992-2000.



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[Bulldogcakes]

That's a bullshit argument. What if I I said, "Are you glad you fought so hard to send soldiers to die?" There was a lot to take into account.

No one wants to see soldiers, or innocent Iraqis die. But this is the REAL WORLD. You, I suppose would be drafting the 85th UN resoultion telling Saddam to play nice . You're clueless, as usual.

Besides, we were right. There were no WMDs. They weren't working with Al Qaeda. We are no safer, arguably less safe. There are more terrorists and terrorist training camps in Iraq now than before the invasion. It allowed Iran to develop nukes and spread its influence into Iraq.

Right, we're MUCH worse off with a friendly government in the heart of the middle east, and would have been SO much better off with Saddam plotting against us on a daily basis.
Lets rate this post UTTERLY clueless.

And while the election was certainly a victory for us, and the first positive sign out of Iraq in a while, the handover was supposed to do everything that they say the election will do. The insurgency isn't dead and civil war is still a possibility.
So let's not all start sucking each other's dicks just yet

Maybe you should actually read a post before commenting on it, but as evidenced by your other reply, you dont let facts, or reality get in the way of your opinion. I referred to it as "An important step in the right direction", and gave Bush the praise he deserves at this point in time. Are there still dangers? Absolutely. Was today a great day for Iraq? Absolutley. Did you do everything you could to prevent it? Absolutley. You go in my file with the "No Nukes" folks. On the wrong side of history AGAIN.

I've yet to hear you folks articulate a CLEAR, EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE. I'm all ears.

Try having a positive agenda instead of just tearing them down, and maybe you'll win another election someday

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 1-31-05 @ 11:59 PM

[Bulldogcakes]

Seeing the success of the vote and the happiness with which Iraqis voted makes me wish that Bush and Co. hadn't fucked up so many other aspects of the war. Imagine if we had out in enough troops to keep the peace, had restored essential public works with the speed they needed to be restored with, and hadn't essentially thrown billions of dollars away through no bid contracts and inept oversight.

There's no such thing as a perfect war. Too many variables, not possible. You achieve your objectives, and put out fires as they arise. Read a little history about other wars, they are without exception filled with mistakes. The fact that we were able to achieve our objectives with a miniscule (by historic standards) loss of life is extroidinary. This war, fought 10, 20, 40 years ago would have been FAR bloodier, on all sides.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[HBox]

Right, we're MUCH worse off with a friendly government in the heart of the middle east, and would have been SO much better off with Saddam plotting against us on a daily basis. Again, clueless

Whose clueless? Are you privy to some secret electiopn results that the rest of us haven't seen. How do you know this new government is friendly, that they won't tell us to take a hike the first second they can? Hell, does the current government even have much control over the country? What good is a friendly government that has little control over its own country?

Did you do everything you could to prevent it? Absolutley. You go in my file with the "No Nukes" folks. On the wrong side of history AGAIN.

I don't care. We are not the fucking liberators of the world, at least not now with our war on terror. I could tick off a number of countries, hell, most of the fucking continent of Africa, where people were and are much worse off than Iraqis. People are much worse off in North Korea and, oh yeah, they actually do have a nuclear weapons program.

Want to hear my alternative? We never invade Iraq at all. It's not a threat and I said so at the time. And, bitch and moan all you want, I was and am right. Instead, we have a military threat that we currently do not with our commitment to Iraq and use it to deal with North Korea and Iran, and if neccessary use it. We also actually put enough soldiers in Afghanistan to make a real effort to get bin Laden in the mean time.

Instead, we have to hope that North Korea doesn't start selling nuclear material and that they don't already have the bomb. Instead, we must rely on Europe alone to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear ambition since we have no military threat nor a economic threat. Instead, bin Laden is still at large and we just must hope that he is either dead or close to it.

But hey, Iraqis voted and someday in the future their just might not be a breeding ground for terrorists. Hopefully.

Even thought I said all that, yes, the election was a very good step in the right direction. At the very least, even if Iraqis voted for a government not friendly to us, just by voting they sent a message to insurgents.

Still, it was the first good thing after a constant stream of mistakes and miscalculations. If Bush hasn't held anyone accountable for that, I'm not going to be giving him a pat on the back anytime soon.



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[42nd-delay]

There's no such thing as a perfect war. Too many variables, not possible. You achieve your objectives, and put out fires as they arise. Read a little history about other wars, they are without exception filled with mistakes. The fact that we were able to achieve our objectives with a miniscule (by historic standards) loss of life is extroidinary. This war, fought 10, 20, 40 years ago would have been FAR bloodier, on all sides.


Obviously. The taking of Iraq went very well. It's what happened afterwards that's the problem. For the amount of time some people in the government had been pushing for this war, you'd think they'd have a plan for the aftermath.

Like I said, having the people who openly dismissed the idea of nation-building then engage in nation-building can't go well.

------------------------------

<img src="http://www.thewalkons.com/bluestates_sig.jpg">

"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[only4hassan]

LOOK @ MY FINGERTIP!

;)



As Daivari once said "It's either Diana Haddad, or 7-11 24/7. I chose 7mar."

[A.J.]

It allowed Iran to develop nukes

Actually, Iran had been pursuing a nuclear program long before the invasion of Iraq.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[A.J.]

Imagine Ted Kennedy at Vally Forge?

He would have been drunk and driven a wagon into the Schuykill River, then not reported the incident to George Washington until several hours later.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[TheMojoPin]

Imagine Ted Kennedy at Vally Forge?

He would have been drunk and driven a wagon into the Schuykill River, then not reported the incident to George Washington until several hours later.

Somebody buy this man a Pink lady!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bulldogcakes]

Instead, we have a military threat that we currently do not with our commitment to Iraq and use it to deal with North Korea and Iran, and if neccessary use it. We also actually put enough soldiers in Afghanistan to make a real effort to get bin Laden in the mean time.

First of all, please edit that first sentence, it's unintelligible.
So General H-Box proposes we fight not one, not two, but THREE wars simultaneously!

So, Mr American contestant would you like the disaster behind War#1, War#2 or War#3? Yes Johnny!!

If you followed the UN debate leading up to the war, both British Foriegn Minister Jack Straw and PM Tony Blair made the argument that by dealing with Saddam forcefully, you send a message to the Irans, North Koreas and other Dictators of the world. And by proving your threats aren't empty ones, you AVIOD needing to use military force all over the place (As you propose, which is both impractical and undoable). Peace Through Strength.

And we dont have the laundry list of violated UN resolutions against Iran and North Korea like we did against Saddam. We may at some point, but we're not there yet. If nothing else, he was in violation of the cease fire pact after Gulf War 1. THAT ALONE gives us every right to attack him, which Pres Clinton did on a regular basis.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[Death Metal Moe]

As more and more good comes out of Iraq, the people who opposed this war have to peddle back further and further. Keep going gang. It doesn't even seem like it's about the war anymore. It's just ANYTHING Bush is BAD. I guess ties and black suits will be evil next. Maybe accents and grey hair.

But one thing is still puzzling me.......

How DID our oil get under their land?

<IMG SRC="http://unhallowed.com/sigs/D.M.Moon.jpg">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>

[HBox]

As more and more good comes out of Iraq,

There was one good day!

It's just ANYTHING Bush is BAD.

No. I loved the proposal today for increasing soldiers death benefits, something that came straight from the White House. But thanks for stereotyping me. Maybe I'll afford you the same luxury in the future.

So General H-Box proposes we fight not one, not two, but THREE wars simultaneously!

I wouldn't invade Iran and North Korea at the same time. I could have phrased that better.

you send a message to the Irans, North Koreas and other Dictators of the world. And by proving your threats aren't empty ones, you AVIOD needing to use military force all over the place (As you propose, which is both impractical and undoable). Peace Through Strength.

And seeing how the Iraq War, if anything, accelerated the nuclear programs in both countries, I fail to see how this is working out.

Strength? How are we strong right now? Short of the draft, we cannot do anything but airstrikes against Iran.

We were told this war was for our immediate safety. First it was WMDs. When it seemed liked we would find none, it was links to Al Qaeda. When there were none, finally its about some grand stratagies of sending messages and spreading Democracy.

Well, message sent. Our invasion of Iraq is being used as a terrorist recruiting tool. Their numbers are growing and they are getting stronger. We can only hope now that this election will stem that, but its too soon to tell.

I am not completely against any war without U.N. approval or a grand alliance. If Bush had tried to stop Iran's nuclear program and failed, I would have supported the invasion of Iran because it would have rid of a country that hated us, was developing WMDs, has helped Al Qaeda in the past, has funded a terror group that successfully launched a terror attack against us (Khobar Towers), and we could also do everything we are trying to do in Iraq now.

So just answer some question to me. How did Iraq threaten us before the war? How did these threats, if any, exceed others? How are we better off right now because of this war?



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[Death Metal Moe]

But thanks for stereotyping me.


I can't address EVERY liberal on the site. Generalizations are common.

But look at the company you keep in your party and with other libs on the board.

<IMG SRC="http://unhallowed.com/sigs/D.M.Moon.jpg">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>

[FUNKMAN]

as you can see HBOX, your questions get skipped right over!

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[HBox]

But look at the company you keep in your party and with other libs on the board.

And your shit don't stink?



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[Death Metal Moe]

I take these pills someone gave me, and it makes my bowel movements smell like fresh cinnamon rolls.

<IMG SRC="http://unhallowed.com/sigs/D.M.Moon.jpg">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<A HREF="http://thebigsexxxy.blogspot.com/">One Big SeXXXy Blog</A>

[torker]

my bowel movements smell like fresh cinnamon rolls

Ahhh..Moe's two~flush no~wipe dump
http://www.discoverdaytona.com/mainland/restaurants/auntcatfish/images/cinnamonrolls.jpg

[center]<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~rmfallon/RFnettorker1313.jpg>[center]
[center]Take my soul to the lost and found [center]

[Bulldogcakes]

And seeing how the Iraq War, if anything, accelerated the nuclear programs in both countries, I fail to see how this is working out.

Both of those programs started before we invaded Iraq. And both are trying as hard as they can to get them, with or without Iraq. You have ZERO evidence EITHER program was accelerated. Pure speculation on your part.

We were told this war was for our immediate safety. First it was WMDs. When it seemed liked we would find none, it was links to Al Qaeda. When there were none, finally its about some grand stratagies of sending messages and spreading Democracy.

There is nothing new about this being about spreading Democracy. The Neo-Cons have been pushing this strategy since Richard Pearle and Bebe Netanyahu did a forum on it in 1995. It was well known in Washington circles that was the reason we went in, as part of the whole "Drain the swamp" strategy. If you didn't know, you should diversify your reading and news sources.
I for one NEVER thought it was about WMD's.
Was it sold to the public differently? Sort of. There are alot of comlicated policies that need to be oversimplified to get them into a soundbite that gets on the Evening News. It's called campaigning, and both sides do it.


Well, message sent. Our invasion of Iraq is being used as a terrorist recruiting tool. Their numbers are growing and they are getting stronger. We can only hope now that this election will stem that, but its too soon to tell.

This is what you just don't get. OUR EXISTENCE is a terrorist recruiting tool. Read Bin Laden's speeches. What do you suggest we do to fix that? Stop existing? I say we deal with this the same way you deal with criminals in this country. You get rid of them. Your arguement, applied to crime in this country, would be "Lets not go after the Criminals, they'll get mad and we'll just have more of them" Wrong. You attack them before they attack you.

I am not completely against any war without U.N. approval or a grand alliance. If Bush had tried to stop Iran's nuclear program and failed, I would have supported the invasion of Iran because it would have rid of a country that hated us, was developing WMDs, has helped Al Qaeda in the past, has funded a terror group that successfully launched a terror attack against us (Khobar Towers), and we could also do everything we are trying to do in Iraq now.

Boy, are you worried about Iran. I'm not. Because I know that Israel will take out that nuclear facility in a nanosecond. The only thing stopping them is us. We dont want them to yet. But if it gets past a certain point, we'll step aside.

So just answer some question to me. How did Iraq threaten us before the war? How did these threats, if any, exceed others? How are we better off right now because of this war?

1) They threw out the weapons inspectors, in violation of the cease fire pact after Gulf 1. If you violate a cease fire pact, We have every right to resume hostilities. He also attacked Iran, Kuwait, and the Kurds in the North. You dont think this guy was a threat? How many wars does he need to start before he gets on your radar?
2) He exceeded others for the above listed reasons. Iran has not attacked it's neighbors (militarily). Iran has not violated a cease fire pact. Iran does not have the rap sheet with the UN that Saddam did. Iran has had UN weapons inspectors monitor the Nuke facility. Iraq kicked them out. Iraq was out of options. Iran isn't, not yet.
3) Were better off because Saddam, a sworn avowed enemy of the US, is not operating anymore. And we are helping set up a friendly, democratic government there. You cant see the difference between Saddam and a friendly Democracy? That's better off.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!

[HBox]

If you followed the UN debate leading up to the war, both British Foriegn Minister Jack Straw and PM Tony Blair made the argument that by dealing with Saddam forcefully, you send a message to the Irans, North Koreas and other Dictators of the world.

And both are trying as hard as they can to get them, with or without Iraq.

Kinda just blew up your own point there.

It was well known in Washington circles that was the reason we went in, as part of the whole "Drain the swamp" strategy. If you didn't know, you should diversify your reading and news sources.
I for one NEVER thought it was about WMD's.
Was it sold to the public differently? Sort of. There are alot of comlicated policies that need to be oversimplified to get them into a soundbite that gets on the Evening News. It's called campaigning, and both sides do it.

http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/cwm/3dlil/eek2.gif

Bullshit. That's just bullshit. I deserve an honest explanation why we go to war. I shouldn't have to research every foreign policy advisor to figure out what they're doing.

And if you honestly didn't think think this war was about WMDs in the begining of the war, you are in a minority. And I have no idea how you could have come to that opinion after the months preceding the war.

OUR EXISTENCE is a terrorist recruiting tool.

Very true. No matter what we do there will be those who want to kill us. But what we've done Iraq is push Arab public opinion against us, and push more people to actually become terrorists. Which would be inevitable with almost any military action in the Middle East. Which is why I insist we eliminate real threats when we need to do so.

They threw out the weapons inspectors, in violation of the cease fire pact after Gulf 1. If you violate a cease fire pact, We have every right to resume hostilities. He also attacked Iran, Kuwait, and the Kurds in the North. You dont think this guy was a threat? How many wars does he need to start before he gets on your radar?

The guy hadn't started a war since the Gulf War. He was impotent, and you presented nothing that proved otherwise. Other than that, you show that we have the right to attack him, but nothing proving him a threat.

He exceeded others for the above listed reasons. Iran has not attacked it's neighbors (militarily). Iran has not violated a cease fire pact. Iran does not have the rap sheet with the UN that Saddam did. Iran has had UN weapons inspectors monitor the Nuke facility. Iraq kicked them out. Iraq was out of options. Iran isn't, not yet.

You didn't prove that he was a threat. Iran hasn't attacked it's neighbors, just us. We aren't out of options with Iran yet, but if we come to that point, how do we deal with them with our Iraq commitments? Just because Iran doesn't have a U.N. rapsheet as long as Iraq doesn't mean anything. It certainly funds more terrorists than Iraq. And their government's hatred of us exceeds that of any in the world. Do you suggest we wait until they do something?

Were better off because Saddam, a sworn avowed enemy of the US, is not operating anymore. And we are helping set up a friendly, democratic government there. You cant see the difference between Saddam and a friendly Democracy? That's better off.

I do see the difference, but we do not have a friendly government there, just a very unstable situation. Saddam hating us doens't mean a thing without him posing some threat to our safety, and until you can prove that.........



Who lives in a body bag under the sea?

[A.J.]

Boy, are you worried about Iran. I'm not. Because I know that Israel will take out that nuclear facility in a nanosecond. The only thing stopping them is us. We dont want them to yet. But if it gets past a certain point, we'll step aside.

Not necessarily.

The Iranians have multiple facilities which are spread out throughout the country and some are "hardened" or underground. Also, Israeli jets barely have the range to reach Iran. For them to attack all these sites successfully would be difficult.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Bulldogcakes]

Kinda just blew up your own point there.

Again, you're obsessed w/WMD's. Believe it or not, that's not the only thing we may want from them. It may be info, it may be cooperation of some sort.

Bullshit. That's just bullshit. I deserve an honest explanation why we go to war. I shouldn't have to research every foreign policy advisor to figure out what they're doing

Try listening to people ON THE OTHER SIDE of you politically, or a good NPR show where you get BOTH SIDES. And, now this is the hard part, LISTEN, not react, LISTEN. It was all over the place.

Which is why I insist we eliminate real threats when we need to do so.

Me too. There's the problem of actually being able to do so. We dont exactly have jurisdiction. The more friendly/cooperative Governments we have over there, the more effective we'll be.

The guy hadn't started a war since the Gulf War. He was impotent, and you presented nothing that proved otherwise.

Repeat-He violated the cease fire pact. Thats all we needed.

We aren't out of options with Iran yet, but if we come to that point, how do we deal with them with our Iraq commitments?

Holy shit. General H-Box strikes again. First, as Iraq gets settled in, they'll need less and less of our troops, they'll have their own. Second, WERE ON THEIR BORDER. If you had to attack a country, would you like to be ON THEIR BORDER or 1,000 miles away? Geez, you're lost on military stuff.


H-Box, again I'm not saying this is some foolproof plan. It could all go very wrong at some point. But I'm still waiting for the Left to come up with a better alternative. I'd (honestly) love to hear it.
After 9/11 doing nothing is not an option.

Also, I heard my friends on the Left say for years that we propped up foriegn Dictators for our own purposes, at the expense of their people. This is a complete 180 from that policy. I'd think you'd support that element of this.
In Bush's speech last night, he said "When the people of Iran stand for freedom, America stands with you" That may be the most important line since Reagan's "Evil Empire" which gave Poland the green light to overthrow the Commies



http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/857148/1548180/76422236.jpg


Ow! Hey! Get that net offa me! Ouch! Help!! Somebody HELP!!!!