obama taliban thread continued

[Mike Furley]

Dial the clock back to 1960 and put the name Kennedy in place of Obama. Except for the DVD's of course. Don Unverferth


respectfully, JFK served one full term in the US Senate and then was reelected before running for president. He also served two terms in the US House of Representatives. He also served in the military and came from a family involved in politics at both the local and national level.

the comparison between Kennedy and Obama as it relates to experience stops at their age.

[rickyleach]

the john f family was the most criminal ever, never liked those people and as far as im concerned ,they all can rot in hell, because we all know teddy is headed there.

[amazinblue]

I don't know if this, or the previous thread is the better place to post - so, I hope this works.

There's some great conversation, and I feel that we would all be better off if this type of dialogue occurred more often in public forums - but, we're quickly becoming (if we haven't already become) a "soundbyte society" where substantial conversation and topics are rarely given the time and attention they deserve. And, the overall focus on political correctness tends to change the dynamics of debate - so, if a point is raised about someone's inexperience - the nature of the debate changes to "another topic". It's just like the political talk shows when an interviewee doesn't answer the question posed by the moderator / interviewer, but instead changes every question to focus on the agenda they are driving. Now, I don't have a problem with someone wanting to make their point, but - please answer the question being asked.

With everything that's been said, I wanted to weigh in on my observations.

First, the financial discipline (or lack thereof) of the George W. Bush administration was abyssmal. A very good book was written on this topic - the title, which I've mentioned before is - "Imposter" by Bruce Bartlett. The premise that Barlett explores - quite effectively in my opinion, is that the Bush "43" administration did not follow or adhere to the traditionally conservative doctrine that Ronald Reagan espoused, which I define as one that promotes individual accountability and smaller government. I believe that Bush's reluctance to use his veto to control spending allowed federal spending to grow essentially unchecked - with both Republican and Democratic congresses.

Bush introduced or advanced the idea of "Compassionate Conservatism" during his 2000 campaign. Part of that agenda was to provide federal funding to religious organizations in order for them to offer social services to those in need. Now, I believe that religious organizations have their place in society and provide significant benefits to the communities they serve. Unfortunately, there is this thing in the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights, but I think its the Constitution) that talks about "separation of church and state." IMO, federal funding of religious organizations for any public service effort crosses that line.

The events of 9/11 were tragic. Trying to assign or blame responsibility for the incidents that occurred during that day would result in tremendous speculation. Did the Clinton adminstration not do enough to establish an infrastructure to monitor and survey terrorist cells on US soil? Perhaps. Did the Bush 43 administration ignore communications that could have prevented the attacks from occuring? Perhaps. My view is not to assign "blame" for the activities of that fateful day - since, as they say - "it's water over the damn" - but, to view what actions have been taken since then. I fault the Bush 43 administration with the following - 9/11 presented a watershed moment to gain world attention and action to root out terrorism on a worldwide basis. Efforts in Afganistan were designed to find Usama Bin Laden and either bring him to justice or eliminate him. Unfortunately, the Bush adminstration decided to change its focus to Iraq. This brought a myriad of issues to the table. First, worldwide focus shifted from eliminating terrorism to "should the US actually depose a government" - the opportunity to develop a worldwide coalition to focus on and eliminate terrorism was, IMO, a once in lifetime opportunity that was squandered.

Regarding Iraq, I believe the greatest fault and responsibility lies with the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense. Civilian leaders (Rumsfeld, Bremer, etc.) did not give the military leadership the respect they deserved and really listen to the challenges of establishing and maintaining a peace in Iraq. The decision that I fault the civilian leadership most for - was deciding to "de-arm" every Iraqi solider who was a member of the Bath party. IMO, this created the foundation for the insurgency and mayhem which followed. Being a member of the Bath party was similar to being a member of the Communist party in 1970's Russia. If you wanted to advance in your career, regardless of your chosen field, you were a member of the party - especially, if you were in the military. I believe that a significant portion of the Iraqi military were Bath party members for this reason - and, an interviewee or accountabilty process should have been undertaken to determine which soldiers needed to be disarmed, as well as which soliders could have served as civilian (or military) officers to help establish / maintain peace. After all, these "former soldiers" were familiar with the language / customs / geography / etc and in fact could have accelerate stabilization - rather than a few "bad apples" joining the insurgency and creating more havoc.

And, if Bush 43 focused on UBL - the amount of money spent on this war wouldn't be a concern to me. Instead of focusing on UBL, the focus became Iraq - and, as despicable of a leader as Saddam Hussein was - I think that the US had a much greater "reason" to track down UBL and bring him to justice than it did for tracking down Saddam Hussein.

These aren't easy points to communicate - if the conversation continues, I'll share more of my views on the economic situation and current administration's direction. And, if you think that I'm a die-hard Democrat, you'd be wrong - I consider myself "centrist" - which I'd define as either a fiscally conservative Democrat, or socially aware Republican.

The US economy - and our history over the last twenty years - that could be an entirely new thread...

[The Michigan Man]

Glad to see Barry Hussein is embracing the Taliban - what's it matter if a few heads roll (literally) for such things as men refusing to wear beards or women showing their faces?

[Mike Furley]

amazin'

A couple of reflections on your post:

re: bush not vetoing spending - I agree in principle. I disagreed with all the money he poured into education via "NCLB" and medicare with the prescription drug plan. a fiscal conservative should never start up a program that costs money, b/c once you're out of power, the liberals will fund it in spades and then some. However, once he needed political backing for iraq, he didn't have the political capital to then shit all over the pet projects of senators and representatives whose support he needed for the war.

re: religious charities getting access to federal funding - while a part of me feels that religious charities that are effective in combatting social problems shouldn't be discriminated against in the funding process simply b/c they have a regious affiliation (after all hospitals & colleges w/ religious affiliations receive federal money) I think the government should be entirely out of the charity business. Charity should be voluntary - not compulsory; to make it compulsory cheats individuals out of the virtue of compassion. There is no compassion in spending other people's money.

re: iraq/afgahnistan/terrorism focus - I've always felt the real reason we went into Iraq was not per se the WMD, but rather the total impact of victory when set against the long view. When 9/11 happened, we were faced w/ the realization that there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 100,000 graduates from the Al-Qaeda training camps spread out all across the globe. Instead of trying to stamp terrorism out all across the globe, we went to Iraq and invited them all to join us - going up against our military. It was putting all the fish in the sea into a big barrel and then dropping a toaster in there with them. Secondly, it was a giant F/U to the terrorists and a flexing of our muscles. "you want to hit us on our homeland b/c you don't like our western culture in your face? Fine, we will take Iraq and make it the next Japan or Germany". Not only will we Americanize it, but we'll also introduce democracy - putting pressure on neighboring non-democratic muslim countries to reform. Lastly, building up an ally would make for a nice buffer against Iran.

I support all of those reasons, and think they were best choices we could make in the aftermath of 9/11. History will be the ultimate judge, but I think we could spend twenty years searching caves in Afghanistan and never find UBL.

[amazinblue]

Mike,

I don't have time to reply thoroughly to your post, and I believe my original post didn't refect on any of the positives that have resulted from our military action in Iraq.

There's no doubt that we could spend a long time in Afganistan and Iraq and never find UBL. I can only hope that one of the bombs that we've dropped found him.

The military action in Iraq has done one thing - and that is "take the battle to their backyard" rather than waiting for them to bring some type of action to our soil. I'd rather another land be the battleground for this - rather than our homeland. And, so far, it seems to have worked.

One of the challenges in changing aspects and culture in certain Fundamentalist regimes is their stated purpose - which, essentially, is to destroy us. A book by Sam Harris - "The End of Faith" - does an interesting job of describing the role that religion and religious zealots have had historically and the applicability of that zeal to our current time. I'm Catholic, and there's no doubt that periods known as the Crusades and the Inquisition were not Catholicism's best moments.

I think that the current administration is doing a better job of listening to different internal (civilian and military) sources in order to develop and implement a policy. And, there's a belief in me that there may also be a degree of naivete in approaching cetain matters - both foreign and domestic.

I believe that you described some of Obama's experience, or lack thereof, in reaching office. I certainly agree. The press was enamoured with Obama throughout the election and the biggest concern I have is his ability to work across the aisle with Congress. Throughout the election, Obama talked about bi-partisanship in his planned activities. I related it to being a fighter pilot - I'd LIKE to be a fighter pilot, but if you put me in a cockpit today, I wouldn't know where to begin. One of many credentials that McCain brought to the table was actually having accomplished was sponsoring bi-partisan legislation that was signed and enacted. I see nothing in Obama's background that indicates he has the ability to do this. The one thing Obama does have is a pit bull for a Chief of Staff - but, I don't know how long Rahm Emmanuel will be effective or how long the capital Obama's "charm and charisma" have generated will last.

As was said during the primary process, if Obama wasn't of the heritage he is - he wouldn't have been on the stage or considered a serious candidate. And, any criticism of him during the campaign process was quickly labeled or defined as being racial in nature. The other thing Obama had going for him was his record - actually, his lack of a record or much documentation to prove what his convictions are. Obama's "middle of the road" - perhaps a conciliator - he may be what we need, and he may be successful. I'm certainly not rooting against him - I just don't have confidence that he'll be tremendously successful either.

Obama's an eloquent speaker - when he's got a teleprompter. IMO, he's on the same level as Reagan, Kennedy, and Roosevelt - three of the more effective communicators to be President in the last century.

Back to Bush for a moment. I believe there are two words that describe how he was elected in 2000 - Karl Rove. I was, and continue to be, a supporter of McCain, and I honestly felt that the way the Bush / Rove machine denegrated McCain's service in the South Carolina primary in 2000 was despicable. I also think the other thing that the 2000 campaign brought to greater light was the need for campaign finance refort. Bush raised a tremendous amount of money - in excess of $50M before the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary was held. And, I'm a believer that if you put enough "messages" out there - messages that have a hint of truth to them that can't be sued for libel, than it's impossible to battle them if you are not funded at a "near equal" level with your opponent.

That's it for now - gotta get some work done. I'll look forward to your perspective - I welcome it, and hope we can keep the dialogue going. It certainly helps move the time while we're waiting for September to get here.

[osusteve]

Amazinblue and Mark:

You both make good points.

I do have a problem with Bush sending Colin Powell to the UN to tell the world that Sadaam Hussein had chemical weapons, biological weapons, sarin nerve gas, VH nerve gas, anthrax, mobile labs, etc only to find out that none of it existed. Republican pundits often talked about the "moral clarity" of their side and how they would restor ethics to Washington after 8 years of Clinton.

I believe the United States, Middle East, and the rest of the world would have been better off we would have let Sadaam remain in power. At some point, his regime would have fallen anyway...and we would not have had to spend trillions of dollars and been distracted by 5+ years of war. I do hope I am wrong, however.

[amazinblue]

[QUOTE=osusteve;9138]I do have a problem with Bush sending Colin Powell to the UN to tell the world that Sadaam Hussein had chemical weapons, etc. [QUOTE]

Steve,

I agree with what you've said. And, the bigger problem I have - or had (which I mentioned in an earlier post) - was what, IMO, utter disregard the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense (Rumsfeld, Bremmer, etc.) had for the perspectives of senior military officials - and thought Colin Powell was Secretary of State, I include him in that group.

[osusteve]

At the end of the day, I believe President Bush and Dick Cheney thought taking out Sadaam and installing a democratic government in Iraq would not be too difficult or too costly. They were either overconfident or simply did not understand the enormity of the task. They also did not fully understand the history of Iraq or the makeup of its people.

Colin Powell understood. He warned the president -- "if you break it you will have to fix it." Cheney told the president -- "the Iraqis will throw down their weapons and welcome us as liberators." President Bush made the decision to follow the advice of Vice President Cheney.

I do not believe Ronald Reagan, President Bush Sr., or John McCain would have made the decision to invade Iraq if they had been in office at the time W made the decision.

[Mike Furley]

i guess the problem i have with obama and the current leadership of the democrats in congress is that they exploited the frustration, errors, and longevity of the war in iraq for electoral gains.

we defeated Iraq militarily in a few weeks. It took us a few years to win politically there with democracy and the iraqi constitution getting formulated. It took us a bit longer to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq militarily.

The only thing left to do is to defeat Al Qaeda ideologically in Iraq and the transformation from a Saddam Hussein, terrorist funding, region destablizing regime to a democratic ally and model for the Arab/Muslim region would be complete.

That last stage is the hardest, and it will only be accomplished with a long presence. It took us five years after WW2 to pacify Germany and Japan and we're still there militarily. Yet he lambasted McCain for saying the right thing, that we'll be there for a 100 years if that's how long it takes.

It's not just that, but then obama exposed his lack of perspective with other peace engendering proposals during the campaign. It makes me wonder if the guy has ever had to negotiate anything before. Here's an example:

He said he opposed the deployment of missile defense in Eastern Europe. Then he sends a private letter to Putin/Medvedev saying he's willing to not deploy the missile defense if they will lean on Iran to not go nuclear. Why, if youre the ruskies, would you agree to do anything in exchange for something your negotiating adversary has already proclaimed he will do voluntarily independent of your own actions? Thus they reject his proposal and do so by shitting all over him publicly.

For me, its that Obama does have a long view, but it's only as America being transformed from a Capitalist society where inequalities in outcome exist to a Socialist/Marxist society where everyone is equally miserable. He doesn't have a long view or a realist view on foreign affairs, and its been shown with his careless remarks during the campaign to now with the Taliban. Is it any wonder the Chinese are screwing with our Navy? He makes us look weak to our enemies, and invites them to see how much they can get away with.

As for the mistakes in Iraq, I have some opinions on that too.

First the whole "debate" in the UN was a complete sham. Saddam had bought votes with his oil for food kickbacks, other countries stood to lose billions in business and/or debts the new govt would not have to keep.

Saddam also was breaking the rules of the cease fire from 91. Lastly, he thumbed his nose and broke double digit UN resolutions.

Then too, some European Socialists - Chirac and Shroeder wanted to stick their finger in the eye of the conservative American. So Powell had to go through the whole dog & pony show.

It seemed that Bush wasn't alone in his rhetoric about Saddam and WMD's. Everyone admitted to some level of acceptance of that. Obama and Kucinich were the only ones who openly opposed, and neither was gutsy for doing so.

That the other Democrats recanted or complained about the intelligence, etc....that shit is on them. I don't think to this day that anyone intentionally tried to deceive on the evidence. Rather I think it was a case of people in the intelligence community (in the absence of real clarifying evidence) not wanting to say something contrary to what had previously been stated. Should everyone have been more discerning? Of course.

Did Bremer and Rumsfeld make mistakes? Sure. again, hindsight is easy. Yes some military and civillians forecast the problems...there were others who felt differently.

I think the big miscalculation was that our decision makers thought Syria and Iran wouldn't have the balls to fund, supply, and facilitate an insurrection right after we clipped Big Bad Hussein right next door.

We should have taken out Assad in Syria right then and there, That would have set Hammas back significantly in Israel and may have been given Iran more pause to continue funding Hezballah. Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, UAE, and Turkey are already west leaning or at least not anti west.

If we had flipped Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq too, that would have really penned in Iran if we could have also hung onto Afhanistan. That may have been the plan, but who knows. The opportunity is gone now. I'd have loved for UBL to have seen that outcome in his cave and ponder that for twenty years then look for him and likely not ever find him.


Here's a fun contest: Obama talked tough during the campaign about going after UBL, since "George Bush took his eye off the ball"? When will Oabama get UBL?

Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Never

[amazinblue]

I do not believe Ronald Reagan, President Bush Sr., or John McCain would have made the decision to invade Iraq if they had been in office at the time W made the decision.

osusteve,

I agree. And, I think that Bush "41" faced the decision regarding whether he should pursue the Iraqi army and advance all the way to Baghdad in '91. The decision that was reached was - if we go to Baghdad, we'll be forced to occupy it for a while - and the commitment to do that was clearly understood, communicated, and the decision was to stop the war and the advances of the Coalition forces.

As I said in an earlier post - The decision that I fault the (US DOD) civilian leadership most for - was deciding to "de-arm" every Iraqi solider who was a member of the Bath party.

My question going forward is whether Obama will have the foresight to make effective decisions in matters of this kind with the limited foreign policy and diplomatic experience he has. And, though Hillary can be "a b1tch with balls" - and tough as nails - I don't know how knowledgeable the under-secretary's are and the Middle East liaisons really are.

Though I've left Cheney out of my earlier comments. IMO he had "51%" of the President / Vice-President decisions.

[amazinblue]

Since this thread seems to contain most current political thought and expression, there's something else I'd like to add.

I believe the partisan nature of the two-party system, or really the partisan actions of both parties has grown noticeably over the last 15 years. I believe that our government was formed with defined "checks and balances". One of the strengths of our government and past congressional delegations was the ability to work across party lines to craft, draft, and pass legislation.

From the forming of our government and the first hundred Congress, representatives would live - or spend prolonged periods of time in the DC are - while Congress was in session. The advances in travel, particularly air travel, made returning to your district for a weekend - or longer - something that was done with greater frequency - which also meant less time in DC.

One of the side benefits of slower transportation meant that representatives in earlier Congresses wouldn't be "able to get back to their district easily" - so, the representatives from different parties, who served on the same committee, would meet - socialize - discuss - and actually negotiate issues / challenges with their ideas to draft mutually agreeable terms for legislation.

I believe this has become a lost art.

In 1994, the Republican Revolution reportedly took place. Allegedly, this occured because of the "Contract with America (CwA)". I agree that the balance of power shifted in Congress during that election; however, I don't think it had anything to do with the CwA, but instead it occured because voters were fed up with legislators who accomplished very little.

That 1994 Congress, IMO - the Republican delegation, began focusing on what it could do to sidetrack the agenda that Bill Clinton proposed. This is when current day partisanship really began. And, over the last 15 years it has progressed to a degree that's unacceptable to me. Nancy Pelosi's policy of "disciplining" members of the Democratic delegation when they decide to cross the aisle and vote against the Democratic stance is as despicable - perhaps even moreso - than the actions of fervent Republicans in other administrations. Congress is becoming a quagmire - and the respective party leaders, IMO, do more to encourage partisanship than they do to advocate, promote, and advance legislation.

Since I mentioned Clinton in the previous thought, I'll share my primary perspective about him and his administation. The Monica Lewinsky scandal was ridiculous - and devastating. What it really did was prevent Clinton from doing anything in his second term. Granted, Bill shouldn't have dropped his pants whenever an intern walked by the office - but, the Republicans also shouldn't have pursued the case as fervently as if was a sworn Communist serving as a Senator during the McCarthy hearings either. I really wish Clinton would have just said - "yes, she gave me a bj, it was great! And, if you were President, you'd have a swarm of interns walking the halls that would be happy to do the same for you. But, you aren't the President, I am, and that's what I enjoy doing in my spare time."

So, instead of advancing an agenda he supported, he spent his time defending, or trying to defend his actions to get head from a teenager. The Presidency provides a bully pulpit to establish a direction, set an agenda, and guide the country. And, if you don't care for the direction the President is taking for the country, my suggestion is - run for President, win the election, and set the direction you feel is right. So, though I didn't necessarily agree with Clinton's direction - it was his right - no, actually it was his obligation - his duty - to set a direction for the country and advocate it from the bully pulpit that second term Presidents have.

[RealSchool]

the john f family was the most criminal ever, never liked those people and as far as im concerned ,they all can rot in hell, because we all know teddy is headed there.


2nd only to the Bush family. Did you know Laura murdered her best friend? Says it was an accident, yeah right.

[RealSchool]

Glad to see Barry Hussein is embracing the Taliban - what's it matter if a few heads roll (literally) for such things as men refusing to wear beards or women showing their faces?

Well Bush gave up on them years ago so what is your point? As always you don't have one.

[RealSchool]

amazin'

A couple of reflections on your post:

re: bush not vetoing spending - I agree in principle. I disagreed with all the money he poured into education via "NCLB" and medicare with the prescription drug plan. a fiscal conservative should never start up a program that costs money, b/c once you're out of power, the liberals will fund it in spades and then some. However, once he needed political backing for iraq, he didn't have the political capital to then shit all over the pet projects of senators and representatives whose support he needed for the war.

re: religious charities getting access to federal funding - while a part of me feels that religious charities that are effective in combatting social problems shouldn't be discriminated against in the funding process simply b/c they have a regious affiliation (after all hospitals & colleges w/ religious affiliations receive federal money) I think the government should be entirely out of the charity business. Charity should be voluntary - not compulsory; to make it compulsory cheats individuals out of the virtue of compassion. There is no compassion in spending other people's money.

re: iraq/afgahnistan/terrorism focus - I've always felt the real reason we went into Iraq was not per se the WMD, but rather the total impact of victory when set against the long view. When 9/11 happened, we were faced w/ the realization that there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 100,000 graduates from the Al-Qaeda training camps spread out all across the globe. Instead of trying to stamp terrorism out all across the globe, we went to Iraq and invited them all to join us - going up against our military. It was putting all the fish in the sea into a big barrel and then dropping a toaster in there with them. Secondly, it was a giant F/U to the terrorists and a flexing of our muscles. "you want to hit us on our homeland b/c you don't like our western culture in your face? Fine, we will take Iraq and make it the next Japan or Germany". Not only will we Americanize it, but we'll also introduce democracy - putting pressure on neighboring non-democratic muslim countries to reform. Lastly, building up an ally would make for a nice buffer against Iran.

I support all of those reasons, and think they were best choices we could make in the aftermath of 9/11. History will be the ultimate judge, but I think we could spend twenty years searching caves in Afghanistan and never find UBL.

It really amazes me how long your posts are yet you have zero clue what you are talking about. A nice buffer against Iran? Are you serious? I won't spoon feed you on how this is soooo off base. Go educate yourself and get back with me. Unfucking real.

[The Michigan Man]

It really amazes me how long your posts are yet you have zero clue what you are talking about. A nice buffer against Iran? Are you serious? I won't spoon feed you on how this is soooo off base. Go educate yourself and get back with me. Unfucking real.

So you don't think that having a democratic ally on the border of Islamic-Fascist Iran, who is currently building a nuclear bomb, is strategic? Seriously?

[RealSchool]

So you don't think that having a democratic ally on the border of Islamic-Fascist Iran, who is currently building a nuclear bomb, is strategic? Seriously?

The war in Iraq has made Iran stonger and Iraq will never be our ally in the region. Iraq was one of the main balances of power in the region against Iran, that is now gone. Do you really think a Shiite ruled Iraq will not be closer to Iran than what was there before? Think.

[amazinblue]

The war in Iraq has made Iran stonger and Iraq will never be our ally in the region. Iraq was one of the main balances of power in the region against Iran, that is now gone. Do you really think a Shiite ruled Iraq will not be closer to Iran than what was there before? Think.

RealSchool,

Are you implying that the US should have and continue to develop a strategic relationship with Iran? And, that Iran would have been the best country in the region to engage in diplomatic negotiations with and establish a democracy?

There used to be a leader in that part of the world called the Shah of Iran. He was a US ally. What happened to him? Oh yes, the Ayatollah Khomeni and Islamic Fundamentalists overturned his government and kept Americans hostage for 400+ days.

Iran, is that the country you would suggest we "partner with" in the region? If not, who do you think we should target as an ally (besides Israel)?

[RealSchool]

RealSchool,

Are you implying that the US should have and continue to develop a strategic relationship with Iran? And, that Iran would have been the best country in the region to engage in diplomatic negotiations with and establish a democracy?

There used to be a leader in that part of the world called the Shah of Iran. He was a US ally. What happened to him? Oh yes, the Ayatollah Khomeni and Islamic Fundamentalists overturned his government and kept Americans hostage for 400+ days.

Iran, is that the country you would suggest we "partner with" in the region? If not, who do you think we should target as an ally (besides Israel)?


Are you not capable of reading English? What I said is that the war in Iraq was a mistake on every level but mostly it created a stronger Iran.

Where did I say we should engage with Iran? Should I write my posts in Latin so you understand?

[chriswebber]

Are you not capable of reading English? What I said is that the war in Iraq was a mistake on every level but mostly it created a stronger Iran.

Where did I say we should engage with Iran? Should I write my posts in Latin so you understand?

Goodness, I love correcting your ignorance.

First, if you were trying to intimidate your neighbor you could attack them or burn their neighbor's house down. Normally, that get's your point across. It's even more effective when your neighbor is a punk.

Also, the US invaded Afganastan and Iraq. You know where Iran is? Obviously you were home schooled at UM:D since you dont understand basic bullying or geography.

How is Iran stronger? They have a US COMBAT ready strike force as their neighbors. Throw in Isreal's power, and they seem weaker. Their president is a loon, they kill their own citizens, we do not need to invaded, we just have to wait for a revolution.

Also you think Iraq will never be our ally and friend. Let's see here... We nuked Japan, and they gladly are our friend. We dismantled Germany, they are still friendly? WWI was against Russia. WWII Russia was our ally! Look outside the decade, look to your children's future. Isn't it better we fight so our children do not?

[RealSchool]

Goodness, I love correcting your ignorance.

First, if you were trying to intimidate your neighbor you could attack them or burn their neighbor's house down. Normally, that get's your point across. It's even more effective when your neighbor is a punk.

Also, the US invaded Afganastan and Iraq. You know where Iran is? Obviously you were home schooled at UM:D since you dont understand basic bullying or geography.

How is Iran stronger? They have a US COMBAT ready strike force as their neighbors. Throw in Isreal's power, and they seem weaker. Their president is a loon, they kill their own citizens, we do not need to invaded, we just have to wait for a revolution.

Also you think Iraq will never be our ally and friend. Let's see here... We nuked Japan, and they gladly are our friend. We dismantled Germany, they are still friendly? WWI was against Russia. WWII Russia was our ally! Look outside the decade, look to your children's future. Isn't it better we fight so our children do not?

First off you are nothing but Fox News talking points

Second what war have you fought in? You seem to be gung ho war but yet you sit on the sidelines.

Third- I hope you are right, but you aren't.

[Mike Furley]

First off you are nothing but Fox News talking points

Second what war have you fought in? You seem to be gung ho war but yet you sit on the sidelines.

Third- I hope you are right, but you aren't.

First off you are nothing but a Daily Kos talking points.

Second, when did you serve in Aghanistan (since you think that was a justified war) or serve as a human shield in Iraq (since youo think that was unjustified)

Third, I think you are a terribly unhappy person, immature, and possess an inability to think rationally. That's a dangerous combination. I'll pray for you next Sunday when I'm at Church.

[RealSchool]

First off you are nothing but a Daily Kos talking points.

Second, when did you serve in Aghanistan (since you think that was a justified war) or serve as a human shield in Iraq (since youo think that was unjustified)

Third, I think you are a terribly unhappy person, immature, and possess an inability to think rationally. That's a dangerous combination. I'll pray for you next Sunday when I'm at Church.

Just because you were born with a coat hanger in your head doesn't automatically mean your mother wanted to abort you.

[Mike Furley]

Just because you were born with a coat hanger in your head doesn't automatically mean your mother wanted to abort you.

which parent ran out on you when you were growing up?