Iran

[napfirst]

You're an isolated, ignorant non-American.

 

The U.S. began sending military "advisors" to South Vietnam in 1959.

 

During the next 16 years, as various U.S. politicians escalated the attack on Vietnam, at least 58,000 young Americans died, as well as about 2 million Indochinese. The number wounded is unknown.

 

After the U.S. left in 1975, the two Vietnams united---and it has been a Communist country ever since.

 

And all those people died for the profits of the U.S. military/industrial complex (owned by the wealthy/religious).

ame ol left wing dribble!

[Pumpmaster]

ame ol left wing dribble!

 

You got nothing, chickenhawk.

[Imawhosure]

You're an isolated, ignorant non-American.

 

The U.S. began sending military "advisors" to South Vietnam in 1959.

 

During the next 16 years, as various U.S. politicians escalated the attack on Vietnam, at least 58,000 young Americans died, as well as about 2 million Indochinese. The number wounded is unknown.

 

After the U.S. left in 1975, the two Vietnams united---and it has been a Communist country ever since.

 

 

Ummm, not to change sides or anything, but Pump is 100% correct on his timeline and the facts he has presented in this post. Nothing is made up here that I can see.

 

You may not like his opinions, but these facts are accurate.

[napfirst]

You got nothing, chickenhawk.

I can spot a coward when I see one

[Trimdingman]

You're an isolated, ignorant non-American.

 

The U.S. began sending military "advisors" to South Vietnam in 1959.

 

During the next 16 years, as various U.S. politicians escalated the attack on Vietnam, at least 58,000 young Americans died, as well as about 2 million Indochinese. The number wounded is unknown.

 

After the U.S. left in 1975, the two Vietnams united---and it has been a Communist country ever since.

 

And all those people died for the profits of the U.S. military/industrial complex (owned by the wealthy/religious).

 

The actual war didn't start until 1965. That is not the point. I say that the Viet Nam War accomplished something. I know that you like Communism. You wish that America was Communist. Then you would be more equal. You are waaaa...yy out there. You don't think people should be allowed to become wealthy. You believe that the state should control everybody just so that you would be safe. Communists are not safe. Once you cross them, you disappear. Your family never knows where you went. Capitalism is much more challenging and enjoyable. I don't care if someone else has billions, just as long as I get a kick at the can once in a while. They didn't steal that money, they created it by providing goods and services, and many people also prospered off them. Dictators are nasty and avaritious. They build palaces for themselves, and keep you in poverty so that you will not be able to revolt. They create nothing, only destroy peoples' spirit.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Trimdingman

[Pumpmaster]

Ummm, not to change sides or anything, but Pump is 100% correct on his timeline and the facts he has presented in this post. Nothing is made up here that I can see.

 

You may not like his opinions, but these facts are accurate.

 

Ima, I'm glad we can at least agree on facts!

[Racin' Rick]

The actual war didn't start until 1965. That is not the point. I say that the Viet Nam War accomplished something. I know that you like Communism. You wish that America was Communist. Then you would be more equal. You are waaaa...yy out there. You don't think people should be allowed to become wealthy. You believe that the state should control everybody just so that you would be safe. Communists are not safe. Once you cross them, you disappear. Your family never knows where you went. Capitalism is much more challenging and enjoyable. I don't care if someone else has billions, just as long as I get a kick at the can once in a while. They didn't steal that money, they created it by providing goods and services, and many people also prospered off them. Dictators are nasty and avaritious. They build palaces for themselves, and keep you in poverty so that you will not be able to revolt. They create nothing, only destroy peoples' spirit.

Well said...and quite factual. I knew there was something I liked about you 'ding.

[ebritt]

OK.

 

17 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians (as is bin Laden). I think the other two were Egyptians.

 

None of the hijackers were Afghani or Iraqi.

 

So why didn't you murdering neocons invade Saudi Arabia?

 

According to cap there were NO HIjackers and NO PLANES...............

 

So why didnt we just say it was Saddam all the time.

[ebritt]

Ummm, not to change sides or anything, but Pump is 100% correct on his timeline and the facts he has presented in this post. Nothing is made up here that I can see.

 

You may not like his opinions, but these facts are accurate.

 

Ima you completely missed it this time.

 

Why did the need advisors in 59 if everything was so hunkey dorey to begin with??

 

They did not want to be part of the comunist horde that was to the north of them. Pump fooled you on this one.

 

Its the favorite trick of the left. Want promote a BIG lie? Sprinkle itt with some selective "truths" and "facts" and fools will beleive it. This is how they intend to re write history.

[Trimdingman]

Sort of like when isreal said to palastine. I like your house so Me and my family are moving in and you guys have to go live in the wood shed now

 

 

The Jews turned barren desert land into a beautiful place. They are good people. They are showing the oppressed people what can be done. The oppressors don't like that. You don't either. Neither did Hitler.

[young buck 1520]

The Jews turned barren desert land into a beautiful place. They are good people. They are showing the oppressed people what can be done. The oppressors don't like that. You don't either. Neither did Hitler.

 

 

Yeh someone else's barren desert land who just so happened to be using it and calling it home.

 

You cant see how the Palastinians would harbour a resentment ?

Edited November 10, 2007 by young buck 1520

[unionj]

Yeh someone else's barren desert land who just so happened to be using it and calling it home.

 

You cant see how the Palastinians would harbour a resentment ?

 

YOUNGbuck do not base your young minds viewpoints on the last few years, do some homework.

 

This argument is thousands of years old but who was there first? Who was there before 1948? Muslim Arabs only?

I will say this, after spending time in Israel, lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Oman, Morocco, Red sea, Persian Gulf, Indian ocean and Mediteranean I would have to say that in a period of 60 years Those who now govern the land that is Israel have done more than the surrounding peoples have in thousands of years.

[young buck 1520]

Beleive me I a not taking the side of the Arabs

 

I am only trying to point out that they see Isreal as an occupier

[fmccap]

YOUNGbuck do not base your young minds viewpoints on the last few years, do some homework.

A Short History Lesson on how the U.S. has manipulated Iran in the Past.

[fmccap]

The Jews turned barren desert land into a beautiful place. They are good people. They are showing the oppressed people what can be done. The oppressors don't like that. You don't either. Neither did Hitler.

The same way that someone could kick you out of your house and turn it into a castle???

[macattack]

The actual war didn't start until 1965. That is not the point. I say that the Viet Nam War accomplished something. I know that you like Communism. You wish that America was Communist. Then you would be more equal. You are waaaa...yy out there. You don't think people should be allowed to become wealthy. You believe that the state should control everybody just so that you would be safe. Communists are not safe. Once you cross them, you disappear. Your family never knows where you went. Capitalism is much more challenging and enjoyable. I don't care if someone else has billions, just as long as I get a kick at the can once in a while. They didn't steal that money, they created it by providing goods and services, and many people also prospered off them. Dictators are nasty and avaritious. They build palaces for themselves, and keep you in poverty so that you will not be able to revolt. They create nothing, only destroy peoples' spirit.

just to add some more to this...the actual war started during the kennedy yrs.(dumped into jfk's lap from from the previous admin.) and jfk in early 1963 had issued and signed for the total withdrawal of u.s.troops from vietnam BY XMAS 1965 knowing full well a win was unattainable...however upon the assasination of jfk pres. johnson's 1ST act as the president of the u.s.a. was to withdraw this order and remain and increase our presence in vietnam...WHY?...nothing changed except for the assasination of jfk...it's not hard to figure out. big business & the military had their war and many died because of it. isn't it funny that vietnam today is emerging as a thriving country while we plod on finding evil. communism STILL SUCKS as a way of life and in the long term is self defeating as witnessed during the downfall of the soviet bloc but is it communism or big business and it's strangle hold on america and our way of life that we should fear. i think most of us know the answer to that................ask any vet of that time they KNOW.

Edited November 10, 2007 by macattack

[Imawhosure]

Ima you completely missed it this time.

 

Why did the need advisors in 59 if everything was so hunkey dorey to begin with??

 

They did not want to be part of the comunist horde that was to the north of them. Pump fooled you on this one.

 

Its the favorite trick of the left. Want promote a BIG lie? Sprinkle itt with some selective "truths" and "facts" and fools will beleive it. This is how they intend to re write history.

 

Ebritt,

 

I am not suggesting things were hunky dorey. But pump was right!!!!! Originally, secy secy American mercenaries were sent in to advise in 59. I have read where they actually took part in combat missions, but I can neither verifiy, nor deny this.

 

It was the old domino theory that was the prevalent from the late 40s until the Berlin wall fell under Reagan. I won't go into what the theory was, since I know you are well aware of it.

 

Anyway, the point is this---------------->Pump was not putting forth a red herring at all. But what Vietnam taught ALL of our enemys was-------------->Americans will not sustain a war for long unless they fear attack on the homeland.

 

Nobody cared about the domino theory in Vietnam.

 

Everyone on here who is against the current wars first arguements always are-------------->1. It was not Iraq or Iran, 2. There hasn't been an attack since 2001, 3.then they try........we took down the towers ourselves to justify this action, 4. Bush didn't have faulty info, he lied to start it, etc, etc.

 

These types of words undermine support for this war, just by raising questions no matter how ridiculous they are.

 

EBRITT, I ask you------------->knowing what YOU know to be factual now, don't you believe that the next President that takes us into any kind of war MUST take the gloves off and totally destroy anything that would cause resistance down the road, or face losing the war by trying to fight it humanely while these peaceniks complain, obfuscate, re write history to fit the bill, etc?

 

You see, this is what I believe, and these peaceniks have caused this all out war to happen next time around. The one thing they deplore will be caused by them if there is a next time.

 

A next war forced upon a President will demand he tells civilians to get out of the way, or die. He/she must win while there is support at home, or actually lose the war because our enemies know us to well............just hold out and cost the Americans lives, and the homefront will demand a political solution.......even if unfavorable to them.

 

They also know we don't keep score to feel better about it--------------->we killed 200,000, they killed 2000 so we are winning.

 

The only thing I don't understand is this (and maybe it is because I am not politically astute enough)-------------->Once you are a lame duck president, why even use any pretense of gloves? You aren't coming back anyway, and Eisenhower didn't use gloves, and as we see, his legacy is fine. Patton didn't use gloves, and he is still considered a hero. (in fact, he was a son of a bitch by his own addmission)

 

This action shoulda been over looooooong ago. I never heard of when at war, you put on gloves!!!!! And look at what happened when we did!!!!! Instead of being admired like Eisenhower and Patton were, we are now like Patton descriptively and thought of as "American son of a bitches" collectively.

 

So much for playing nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Racin' Rick]

The Jews turned barren desert land into a beautiful place. They are good people. They are showing the oppressed people what can be done. The oppressors don't like that. You don't either. Neither did Hitler.

That sounds like a compliment...are you saying it is favorable to believe in Judaism? ^_^

[methos]

Ebritt,

 

I am not suggesting things were hunky dorey. But pump was right!!!!! Originally, secy secy American mercenaries were sent in to advise in 59. I have read where they actually took part in combat missions, but I can neither verifiy, nor deny this.

 

It was the old domino theory that was the prevalent from the late 40s until the Berlin wall fell under Reagan. I won't go into what the theory was, since I know you are well aware of it.

 

Anyway, the point is this---------------->Pump was not putting forth a red herring at all. But what Vietnam taught ALL of our enemys was-------------->Americans will not sustain a war for long unless they fear attack on the homeland.

 

Nobody cared about the domino theory in Vietnam.

 

Everyone on here who is against the current wars first arguements always are-------------->1. It was not Iraq or Iran, 2. There hasn't been an attack since 2001, 3.then they try........we took down the towers ourselves to justify this action, 4. Bush didn't have faulty info, he lied to start it, etc, etc.

 

These types of words undermine support for this war, just by raising questions no matter how ridiculous they are.

 

EBRITT, I ask you------------->knowing what YOU know to be factual now, don't you believe that the next President that takes us into any kind of war MUST take the gloves off and totally destroy anything that would cause resistance down the road, or face losing the war by trying to fight it humanely while these peaceniks complain, obfuscate, re write history to fit the bill, etc?

 

You see, this is what I believe, and these peaceniks have caused this all out war to happen next time around. The one thing they deplore will be caused by them if there is a next time.

 

A next war forced upon a President will demand he tells civilians to get out of the way, or die. He/she must win while there is support at home, or actually lose the war because our enemies know us to well............just hold out and cost the Americans lives, and the homefront will demand a political solution.......even if unfavorable to them.

 

They also know we don't keep score to feel better about it--------------->we killed 200,000, they killed 2000 so we are winning.

 

The only thing I don't understand is this (and maybe it is because I am not politically astute enough)-------------->Once you are a lame duck president, why even use any pretense of gloves? You aren't coming back anyway, and Eisenhower didn't use gloves, and as we see, his legacy is fine. Patton didn't use gloves, and he is still considered a hero. (in fact, he was a son of a bitch by his own addmission)

 

This action shoulda been over looooooong ago. I never heard of when at war, you put on gloves!!!!! And look at what happened when we did!!!!! Instead of being admired like Eisenhower and Patton were, we are now like Patton descriptively and thought of as "American son of a bitches" collectively.

 

So much for playing nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

First off, there is a great deal more than just "peacniks" that are opposed to this war. For me, and I think many others, this war is nothing short of a catastrophe, and the consequences of which we have not even begun to suffer. Secondly, I really do not understand why we need to "take off the gloves" and start slaughtering Iraqis en masse? What's wrong with you? Bush has said himself countless times that we never had any qualms with ordinary Iraqis, only their leader. Here is one of many, many quotes from bush on the matter.

 

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

 

He refers to them as "enslaved". The only reason we are having a problem now is that Bush&Co completely botched the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Instead of listening to General Shinseki, who as Army chief of staff, said -

 

“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required” to stabilize Iraq after an invasion, he said.

 

“We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems,”

 

Not only did Shinskeki's advice go unheeded, but the terms of the occupation was handed to a department, that had little experience and virtually no support. Bush gave the responsibility of post war Iraq to the defense department. The State Department had an encyclopedia, in fact thirteen volumes of how to establish and maintain a post war Iraq. None of which was adhered too, because the initial organization sent to Iraq after troops went into Baghdad was a joke. For the first year in Iraq, the ignorance and stupidity displayed by U.S. forces is almost beyond comprehension. Iraqis looted and destroyed their own country, all while we watched. We watched as they burned and looted their museum, and National Library. Considering Sumer is the birthplace of civilization, the history lost was not insubstantial.

 

If you think that's the responsibility of the Iraqis, think again, we invaded and conquered, therefore, it was up to us to restore order. You take away the police and the judges in any city, in any country and chaos will come, sooner or later. You don't think they noticed the fact we watched looters burn thousands of years of history and destroy parts of their heritage, all while the only building we protected was the oil ministry.

 

Our forces were to thin, we had the Fourth I.D. floating in the Med, and Rummy canceled the First Cavs deployment. What's worse, we disbanded the Iraqi Army all the while leaving dozens of ammunition storage sites unprotected. Iraqi insurgents were driving off in convoys loaded with tons of munitions, many of which would later kill countless Americans.

 

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass about the Iraqis, but at the same time, why should they die for our mistakes. Many of those we deem terrorists are heroically considered freedom fighters, defending their country from another colonialist power. We went in with no plan, we just expected to install Chalabi and leave. When things seemed to be getting out of hand, it took the Bush administration fully a year before they even admitted there was an insurgency. You cannot address a problem until you acknowledge its existence.

 

Finally, look at where we are now, five years after the onset of war; we are arming the Sunnis, U.S. officers handing out suitcases of money in Al Anbar and stockpiles of weapons to former Sunni insurgents, all the while seemingly distancing themselves from the Shia. So, instead of a potential Shia super empire, they seem to be trying to organize the Sunnis, perhaps another Sunni dictator. So, we kill some seven hundred thousand Iraqis, lose four thousand soldiers not to mention all the wounded and for what, to try to get to get back to where we started from, another Sunni dictator? Am I the only one that is confused?

[Trimdingman]

Ebritt,

 

I am not suggesting things were hunky dorey. But pump was right!!!!! Originally, secy secy American mercenaries were sent in to advise in 59. I have read where they actually took part in combat missions, but I can neither verifiy, nor deny this.

 

It was the old domino theory that was the prevalent from the late 40s until the Berlin wall fell under Reagan. I won't go into what the theory was, since I know you are well aware of it.

 

Anyway, the point is this---------------->Pump was not putting forth a red herring at all. But what Vietnam taught ALL of our enemys was-------------->Americans will not sustain a war for long unless they fear attack on the homeland.

 

Nobody cared about the domino theory in Vietnam.

 

Everyone on here who is against the current wars first arguements always are-------------->1. It was not Iraq or Iran, 2. There hasn't been an attack since 2001, 3.then they try........we took down the towers ourselves to justify this action, 4. Bush didn't have faulty info, he lied to start it, etc, etc.

 

These types of words undermine support for this war, just by raising questions no matter how ridiculous they are.

 

EBRITT, I ask you------------->knowing what YOU know to be factual now, don't you believe that the next President that takes us into any kind of war MUST take the gloves off and totally destroy anything that would cause resistance down the road, or face losing the war by trying to fight it humanely while these peaceniks complain, obfuscate, re write history to fit the bill, etc?

 

You see, this is what I believe, and these peaceniks have caused this all out war to happen next time around. The one thing they deplore will be caused by them if there is a next time.

 

A next war forced upon a President will demand he tells civilians to get out of the way, or die. He/she must win while there is support at home, or actually lose the war because our enemies know us to well............just hold out and cost the Americans lives, and the homefront will demand a political solution.......even if unfavorable to them.

 

They also know we don't keep score to feel better about it--------------->we killed 200,000, they killed 2000 so we are winning.

 

The only thing I don't understand is this (and maybe it is because I am not politically astute enough)-------------->Once you are a lame duck president, why even use any pretense of gloves? You aren't coming back anyway, and Eisenhower didn't use gloves, and as we see, his legacy is fine. Patton didn't use gloves, and he is still considered a hero. (in fact, he was a son of a bitch by his own addmission)

 

This action shoulda been over looooooong ago. I never heard of when at war, you put on gloves!!!!! And look at what happened when we did!!!!! Instead of being admired like Eisenhower and Patton were, we are now like Patton descriptively and thought of as "American son of a bitches" collectively.

 

So much for playing nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

We can't just go in there and wipe everybody out. Think about the repercussions. We have to take it slow. We have a lot of allies over there. All this talk against the war by the Democrats is just politics. A change in government will not result in a change in foreign policy.

[Trimdingman]

That sounds like a compliment...are you saying it is favorable to believe in Judaism? ^_^

 

 

People can believe in whatever they want, just as long as the government doesn't force people to believe in some religion like the Moslems do. I have my own beliefs. Christians believe that I am a heathen. I believe that they are stupid. I can say that because I am not a politician. No two religions can both be right, but any two religions can both be wrong. Nobody can argue that. Apply a little logic, and you will see that no religion is right.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Trimdingman

[Trimdingman]

just to add some more to this...the actual war started during the kennedy yrs.(dumped into jfk's lap from from the previous admin.) and jfk in early 1963 had issued and signed for the total withdrawal of u.s.troops from vietnam BY XMAS 1965 knowing full well a win was unattainable...however upon the assasination of jfk pres. johnson's 1ST act as the president of the u.s.a. was to withdraw this order and remain and increase our presence in vietnam...WHY?...nothing changed except for the assasination of jfk...it's not hard to figure out. big business & the military had their war and many died because of it. isn't it funny that vietnam today is emerging as a thriving country while we plod on finding evil. communism STILL SUCKS as a way of life and in the long term is self defeating as witnessed during the downfall of the soviet bloc but is it communism or big business and it's strangle hold on america and our way of life that we should fear. i think most of us know the answer to that................ask any vet of that time they KNOW.

 

 

Viet Nam is obviously being propped up by China. China's prosperity began when they got Hong Kong back; sort of like the tail wagging the dog. These countries are now Communist largely in name only. Their prosperity is based on their moving towards Capitalism. Communism is dying off.

[Trimdingman]

Yeh someone else's barren desert land who just so happened to be using it and calling it home.

 

You cant see how the Palastinians would harbour a resentment ?

 

There is no such thing as Palestinians. Where is Palestine? There is no such place.

 

Jews, throughout history have been an identifiable people. Because of their capitalistic ways, they have been persecuted by socialist regimes wherever they have lived. After WWII, in 1948, the UN voted to create the State of Israel. It is a legitimate country and they have a legitimate right to occupy it. They have been attacked, and have sometimes occupied buffer zones for their own defense. That is completely understandable. It is good to have some Democracy in that part of the world.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Trimdingman

[Imawhosure]

First off, there is a great deal more than just "peacniks" that are opposed to this war. For me, and I think many others, this war is nothing short of a catastrophe, and the consequences of which we have not even begun to suffer. Secondly, I really do not understand why we need to "take off the gloves" and start slaughtering Iraqis en masse? What's wrong with you? Bush has said himself countless times that we never had any qualms with ordinary Iraqis, only their leader. Here is one of many, many quotes from bush on the matter.

 

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

 

He refers to them as "enslaved". The only reason we are having a problem now is that Bush&Co completely botched the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Instead of listening to General Shinseki, who as Army chief of staff, said -

 

“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required” to stabilize Iraq after an invasion, he said.

 

“We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems,”

 

Not only did Shinskeki's advice go unheeded, but the terms of the occupation was handed to a department, that had little experience and virtually no support. Bush gave the responsibility of post war Iraq to the defense department. The State Department had an encyclopedia, in fact thirteen volumes of how to establish and maintain a post war Iraq. None of which was adhered too, because the initial organization sent to Iraq after troops went into Baghdad was a joke. For the first year in Iraq, the ignorance and stupidity displayed by U.S. forces is almost beyond comprehension. Iraqis looted and destroyed their own country, all while we watched. We watched as they burned and looted their museum, and National Library. Considering Sumer is the birthplace of civilization, the history lost was not insubstantial.

 

If you think that's the responsibility of the Iraqis, think again, we invaded and conquered, therefore, it was up to us to restore order. You take away the police and the judges in any city, in any country and chaos will come, sooner or later. You don't think they noticed the fact we watched looters burn thousands of years of history and destroy parts of their heritage, all while the only building we protected was the oil ministry.

 

Our forces were to thin, we had the Fourth I.D. floating in the Med, and Rummy canceled the First Cavs deployment. What's worse, we disbanded the Iraqi Army all the while leaving dozens of ammunition storage sites unprotected. Iraqi insurgents were driving off in convoys loaded with tons of munitions, many of which would later kill countless Americans.

 

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass about the Iraqis, but at the same time, why should they die for our mistakes. Many of those we deem terrorists are heroically considered freedom fighters, defending their country from another colonialist power. We went in with no plan, we just expected to install Chalabi and leave. When things seemed to be getting out of hand, it took the Bush administration fully a year before they even admitted there was an insurgency. You cannot address a problem until you acknowledge its existence.

 

Finally, look at where we are now, five years after the onset of war; we are arming the Sunnis, U.S. officers handing out suitcases of money in Al Anbar and stockpiles of weapons to former Sunni insurgents, all the while seemingly distancing themselves from the Shia. So, instead of a potential Shia super empire, they seem to be trying to organize the Sunnis, perhaps another Sunni dictator. So, we kill some seven hundred thousand Iraqis, lose four thousand soldiers not to mention all the wounded and for what, to try to get to get back to where we started from, another Sunni dictator? Am I the only one that is confused?

 

 

Methos,

 

I am not suggesting we take the gloves off in this war; this war is over. It is now civil action. We won the war, and are losing the peace.

 

Were it not for Iran, I would be in your camp demanding our troops home yesterday. Sadly, the odds are at least 50-50 this war is going get bigger. The only stopping it at this time is, the upcoming election I believe.

 

Anyway, politics should be interesting in the next 18 months, don't you think?

 

I am interested to see what happens when the next president takes office.

 

1. If it is Hillary, since the Middle East has little use for women except as slaves, how will the governments over there react?

 

2. If it is Obama and he is a Muslim, how will both the Middle East and Obama react? They know he is the top candidate in the race to remove the troops instantly.

 

3. If Gulliani sneaks in, will he be able to forge support as he did in New York city, and will the Middle East change policy?

 

How Iran handles its politics will be a direct result of who is elected. The only one I see that MIGHT send foreign policy in a totally different direction is Obama. Virtually anyone else, same old-same old.

[methos]

<I have no idea about the attachments below>

Edited November 11, 2007 by methos