Political Crossfire Forums

[smo69]

You people who seem to favor the absent Iraq policy of the Democrats really seem to go hand-in-hand with the great quote Venom added to his post: "Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike." - Man on the TEN.

The Iraq war is misunderstood, period. Much like the Vietnam war, this present day war will continue with an opposing party. My theory is that the Democrats haven't voiced an agenda for Iraq because they know they're going to have to finish it. Instead, they made themselves the public image of "the political alternative" in order to gain voters support. This is the game of politics....

Going back to that quote... Now the Democrats can take the credit for winning the war. Don't we all just love the vicious game of politics, kids? It makes me wanna wave a tiny American flag over my head like Borat.

Edit: Interesting article... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09recon.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=d89638916fc70312&ex=1320728400&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163086037-ccKD5ifCJ/3Kw0qM6+78OQ

[Venom]

Quote: You people who seem to favor the absent Iraq policy of the Democrats really seem to go hand-in-hand with the great quote Venom added to his post: "Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike." - Man on the TEN.

The Iraq war is misunderstood, period. Much like the Vietnam war, this present day war will continue with an opposing party. My theory is that the Democrats haven't voiced an agenda for Iraq because they know they're going to have to finish it. Instead, they made themselves the public image of "the political alternative" in order to gain voters support. This is the game of politics....

Going back to that quote... Now the Democrats can take the credit for winning the war. Don't we all just love the vicious game of politics, kids? It makes me wanna wave a tiny American flag over my head like Borat.

Edit: Interesting article... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09recon.html?pagewanted= 1&ei=5088&en=d89638916fc70312&ex=1320728400&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&em c=rss&adxnnlx=1163086037-ccKD5ifCJ/3Kw0qM6+78OQ
You know I wouldn't have had such a problem with the Democrats anti-war antics if they had actually voted against giving the President authorization to go to war. It's like me taking a hit out on someone and then crying to everyone about the person being murdered.... when I voted to make it happen.

[Venom]

Quote: all the prophets of God in islam are treated with respect and honoured, no one needs to go convince any muslims over the greatness of jesus christ (pbuh) if they had issues with the prophets then they are not following the correct islamic teachings, part of the 6 pillars of faith (iman) is the belief in all of gods prophets, which include Jesus (pbuh) and the respect and acknowldgement of the torah and the bible, thats nothing new to muslims, thats basic faith.
Basic muslim faith that is not followed by apparently most Muslims in the ME.Source
It would appear that in the ME Muslims have a tendancy to destroy anything outside of Islam.

Quote: But what they are doing is wrong, it's laws man made to suit just men and no one else, thats not islam
It's quite apparent these Muslims disagree with your take on Islam.

Quote: If a woman is raped she is the victim, it is her rapist who should be punished, it's backward culture, with poor understanding and men who assume a corrupt upperhand who are controlling the law, not islamic shariah.

Thats your take on Islam and as they have shown this is their take. Apparently Islam to them is about women being treated worse than men.

Quote: who said we dont have an issue with that?
Who said? The Palestinians that have yet to put a dent in these actions.

Quote: you cannot force someone to convert to islam, that is initself islamically wrong, because when someone converts it's not just the words that are important it's the belief and faith inside, which these people dont have, because they are only doing it because they are threatened
Yet they do it anyways.

Quote: do you want me to write an apology for everything a muslim does?
No but it would be nice if you would accept that a lot of people use Islam for terror and to oppress women.

Quote: and condemn everything they do?
I condemn things done by people that do it in the name of Jesus. I condemn horrible actions committed by Christians.
Seems only fair to condemn the acts of Muslims that are using Islam as a tool and committing horrible crimes.

Quote: we could have a statement of codnemnation as a sticky
Or instead of coming into threads like this one, where a Muslim leader calls women meat isn't some great debate versus Islam. It just goes to show how Muslim leaders, throughout the world, think of women.
You can say that is not what Islam teaches, which is fine. It might not to you, but it does to these people. Christianity teaches me far different from Christians that go commit crimes. When they do it, I don't go denying what the religion was used for in that circumstance.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

smo69 wrote: You people who seem to favor the absent Iraq policy of the Democrats really seem to go hand-in-hand with the great quote Venom added to his post: "Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike." - Man on the TEN.

The Iraq war is misunderstood, period. Much like the Vietnam war, this present day war will continue with an opposing party. My theory is that the Democrats haven't voiced an agenda for Iraq because they know they're going to have to finish it. Instead, they made themselves the public image of "the political alternative" in order to gain voters support. This is the game of politics....

The Iraq war is not misunderstood. If anything, it is a war fought on deception and incompetence. From the very beginning, fighting this war has not made much sense and incompetence in its implementation has made it worse.

However, this is done and dusted now. The question right now is how to get out of a mess created by the neoconservatives.

[ALi*]

Quote: how to get out of a mess created by the neoconservatives.
i dont know if there is still a way to get out of irak and still appear like they did something important (the usa) but i know it has to be done soon better then later...

[smo69]

Quote: The Iraq war is not misunderstood.
Let me elaborate on that comment I made... I won't give my theory as to why this war is the first big step in the war on terror, but.... It's misunderstood, and will remain so, until history interprets the cost of this sacrafice when it dissects the classified files and its long-term impact. We can then re-open this discussion in about 20-30 years from now.

I hope the public will be more open to completing this task now that it involves bipartisan politics instead of being immature about it by wearing "fu*k bush" t-shirts.

Nancy Pelosi and George Bush have established part one of common ground: They both love America. It's time to get over the hatred and grudges that people have for this administration. Let's be a little more mature about the situation and be "Americans" again.

[unclesamual]

Quote: You know I wouldn't have had such a problem with the Democrats anti-war antics if they had actually voted against giving the President authorization to go to war. It's like me taking a hit out on someone and then crying to everyone about the person being murdered.... when I voted to make it happen.

About half of the Democrats in the senate voted against the war authorization act.

Quote:
Members of the Senate who voted against:

# Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
# Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
# Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
# Robert Byrd (D-WV)
# Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
# Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
# Kent Conrad (D-ND)
# Mark Dayton (D-MN)
# Dick Durbin (D-IL)
# Russ Feingold (D-WI)
# Bob Graham (D-FL)
# Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
# Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
# Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
# Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
# Carl Levin (D-MI)
# Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
# Patty Murray (D-WA)
# Jack Reed (D-RI)
# Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
# Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
# Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
# Ron Wyden (D-OR)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

That list included 21 democrats of the 45 that were in the senate. Nancy Pelosi voted against authorization along with a bunch of others in the house I would assume.

We all know that this war was a Republican initiative. They made it an issue. Some democrats did go along, but any redirection of where 90% of the thrust for war came from is flawed in my view.

It turned out to be a mistake...agreed? No current nuclear program, or other WMD programs. Old WMDs like degraded Sarin in small numbers found. A cost of 300 billlion or 100 billion per year. Frankly, 100 billion a year for Iraq security and 40 billion a year for HOMELAND SECURITY is a bad equation and out of balance. Frankly, security here has more effect on terrorism here than security there. We also have more control over security here because it is our country....our elected officials run the place. About 3000 soldiers have died. Roughly equal with 9/11...making this as big of a tragedy of 9/11 in the respect.

So, the Republicans screwed up. Afgahnistan should have had the thrust that Iraq had. We should have sealed the borders and locked Al Qaeda with Osama in. We could have done that with 300,000 troops in Afgahnistan rather than Iraq being the main terrorism war (which it is not...those who attacked us were not there but it came to be the main war by faulty judgement).

Overseas the Republican effort in the War on Terror has been a disaster.

At home, they have done many things to help out. The border fence act, increased security at airports, missile defense program. They are doing well here, but their foriegn policy is a bad.

So, who do terrorists want to win? For one, they are not a homogenous group as they include different sects of Islam and different leadership. It could be argued what Al Qaeda's motives are for their terrorist attacks and whether those motives got big results for them (do people really think that the motive for terrorism is no response at all? they either want to provoke us to action or provoke us to retreat...either one could be argued for). It could be argued that Osama Bin Laden released his tape pre-2004 election to get Bush elected. All this could be argued, but ultimately, such interpretations are not based on fact but subjectivitiy.

What we should base our conclusions on in this respect is our own analysis of who protects America better. This war is costly. The military had to cut back on procurement. The f-22 program number of planes acquired has dropped significantly. The comanche stealth helicopter program was cancelled under this administration and I think the stealth bomber-fighter-helicopter trio would have been very effective in the traditional warfare realm. On the terrorism side of things, the war has cost resources that could go to border security, airport security, port security, nuclear power plant security, U.S. chemical weapon (yes, we have munition stockpiles...ironic?) security, bio weapon vaccines (research and acquisition) etc. etc. etc. We could triple the homeland security budget by getting rid of this war.

[smo69]

Well said, unclesam

Let me add a few excerpts from an article I read in the NY Metro newspaper this morning:

Quote: ...On the heels of a 2006 midterm election where Democrats won a majority of the House, possible control of the Senate and nationwide gains in state races, party leaders are declaring that the American people have voted for "change." While this is certainly true, if Democrats want to govern effectively and ensure the two-party system of government in this country remains viable, it is important to consider the nature of the change that Americans have called for. This Election was not a vote for Democrats. It was a vote against Republicans....

....For this reason, it is worth remembering why Republicans were elected in the first place. Americans who elected Republicans in 2002 and 2004 understand the value of small and efficient government, free markets and the recognition of the connection between foreign policy, open markets and national security. This year, the perception was wide-spread that Republican leadership was simply not advancing these values. It is important for Republicans to note that support for xenophobic immigration policy and homophobic domestic policy mistakenly thought to carry the day in 2004 were not enough to ensure victory last Tuesday....

...No reasonable person could suggest that the American electorate as a whole believed that a vote for Democrat was a vote for "cut and run;" particularly when Americans know that President Bush will use his considerable executive power to aggressively pursue his foreign policy objectives. The election is better understood to reflect dissatisfaction with the management of US resources in the Middle East; consistent with the general discontent with Republican leadership, not the platform on which they were elected....

But...
Quote: Quote: You know I wouldn't have had such a problem with the Democrats anti-war antics if they had actually voted against giving the President authorization to go to war. It's like me taking a hit out on someone and then crying to everyone about the person being murdered.... when I voted to make it happen.


About half of the Democrats in the senate voted against the war authorization act.
I think Venom is refering to the "political alternative" agenda that the majority of Democratic candidates used to swing voters against the Republicans...