"Mission Accomplished"

[Snapshot9]

Congressional procedures need to change. There is too much outside influence, and Congress does not get the important issues taken care of in the time frame it should.

At least Clinton balanced the budget. Other than getting a BJ, Clinton wasn't a bad president, and we will never know whether it was Bill's ego or Hillary's coldness that drove him to it. Most men don't go out looking for something if they are happy at home.

JFK has a steady stream of women going in the door, and out to his Pool parties out back. Actually, it is quite common for men in high powered pressure jobs to have extra cirricular activities. Doesn't make it right, but it exists.

Bush's road has led our country upon the brink of financial ruin, CAFTA, NAFTA, Iraq. etc., and the obvious shun of important internal issues, like Helth Care Costs, Alternate Fuels, Dependency on Middle East, Immigration issues, Social Security, and others.

[Ixiah]

It doesn't look like McCain will be much of an improvement over Bush. Its scary but from a federal budget standpoint I'm begining to think Hillary might be the most conservative of the three! :shock:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_delusional_tax_plan

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/17/opinion/main4024185.shtml

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/270/mccain-tax-plan-reagan-redux-and-not-good-way

[Snapshot9]

I agree with you. Hillary might be the best choice for our country overall. I am not exactly in favor of having a woman in charge during war times, but she has stated she would end it which I think is best.

Over 4,000 of our armed forces, 47 in April alone, have been killed and not to mention how many has been maimed or handicapped. Afganistan has increased violence lately too.

We don't have any business in Iraq, they have more problems than we can ever solve. They will go back to before whenever the war ends there anyway.

McCain is wrong in his staying there for 100 years, IMO, and that very statement turned me off to him.

And I would not vote for Obama for too many reasons to list here.

I think Hillary would address the budget, and internal problems in our country moreso than McCain and Obama in a better fashion.

[capnkirk]

shocks771
"Now Marty, we don't need to start including relevant facts in this debate. Everyone knows that Bill Clinton caused much more embarassment"

Clinton did cause more embarassment than Bush has. IE the bj incident and the hearings about it broadcast all over the world. And the use of cigars for "stuff". Lying under oath about it, and what about whitewater? When someone will serve jail time instead of testifying, that pretty much acknowledges there was some illigal goings on.

Bush is no saint, I am anxiously awaiting his replacement. I do not like our troops being in Iraq. We need to get them home asap.

[Denny Crane]

I'm glad we have so many military experts on here. The next time I need advice for a briefing I will look all of you up.

[Tyrone Shoelace]

First of all "Mission Accomplished" was in fact mission accomplished. The "mission" was to get Saddam out of power. Therfore, Mission Accomplished.
If getting troops out is the mission, then I guess we are still fighting WWII because we have troops in Germany, France, and most of Europe.

Something else to think about: democrats ran on 3 platforms in 2006
1) Get troops out of Iraq
2) End "ear marks"
3) reduce gas prices

After 2 years of running congress, how are they doing on their platform?

[SHOCKvalue]

I'm glad we have so many military experts on here. The next time I need advice for a briefing I will look all of you up.

You sort of touched on a point that I always think is ironic, that being the HUGE majority of military service members are right-leaning, and mostly Republican in party affiliation. Those in the military- almost overwhelmingly- despised Clinton, and by in large support Bush.

Ironic, eh?

[martymoose]

First of all "Mission Accomplished" was in fact mission accomplished. The "mission" was to get Saddam out of power. Therfore, Mission Accomplished.
If getting troops out is the mission, then I guess we are still fighting WWII because we have troops in Germany, France, and most of Europe.

Something else to think about: democrats ran on 3 platforms in 2006
1) Get troops out of Iraq
2) End "ear marks"
3) reduce gas prices

After 2 years of running congress, how are they doing on their platform?

Here we go, someone buying into Washington's manipulation on words. I don't have a problem with people defending the "war" with Iraq, I just have a problem with extreme arguments like yours.

You do realize the initial plan was to have 130,000 US troops to Iraq in 2003...now, 5 years later there are 154,000 troops in Iraq. Do we have more troops in Germany right now when compared to during WWII? No, I don't think so, what we have in Germany are military bases, with about the same security as the ones in the United States. These bases are used to support military operations in that part of the world, not to lay the smack down on Germany. Also, we've lost more lives since the so called "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, have we lost more lives in Germany since WWII war was declared over?....I think by this point you realize your comparison was foolish...

Also, I thought a major part of the mission was to obtain Saddam's WMD's, before they were used against us or fell into the wrong hands....

Tyrone, I think you and others who are defending Bush on this point (I think you're the only one so far) needs to listen to his speech on the aircraft carrier again, and stop trying to hear things that aren't there.

[SubGod22]

The Administration did screw up by not having a better plan, or any at all, for after the initial overthrow of Saddam and his military. Then they waited too long to actually do something about it. With that said, pulling out and leaving Iraq in the shape it's currently in would be foolish in my opinion. We can't go in, right or wrong, and not finish what we started and leave it with a chance of success.

Implimenting a Democracy isn't easy and takes time. As Americans it took us a few years to figure things out initially and we didn't have quite the chaos that Iraq has had to deal with between themselves and others. Yes, I do think the Iraqi gov't has been slow to act on issues, but I'm not ready to completely abandon them. A stable Iraq would be good not only for Iraqis, Israelis and Americans, but to the entire region and the world. We can debate if we think that's possible as some seem to think no country in that region can or will ever accept a Democracy.

But in order to give them the chance they need we have to keep a strong presence over there until they can take care of themselves. That's another thing we had going for us. We weren't surrounded by a bunch of hostile countries like they are. Their military has been trying to do more on their own and that's a positive, but they do still need support from us and more training.

[jocoshock]

I'm glad we have so many military experts on here. The next time I need advice for a briefing I will look all of you up.

You sort of touched on a point that I always think is ironic, that being the HUGE majority of military service members are right-leaning, and mostly Republican in party affiliation. Those in the military- almost overwhelmingly- despised Clinton, and by in large support Bush.

Ironic, eh?

Interesting to note that the Democrats were the war hawks during Vietnam and the Republicans were the party that got us out. It took 5 years of peace talks in Paris to get us out of Vietnam "with honor" in 1973, only to see Saigon fall to the North Vietnamese in 1975. I was 6 years old and in the second grade when I first heard the word Vietnam in 1964. We had already been there for several years at that time. I was 17 when we evacuated Saigon in 1975 and a month short of graduating high school.

I find it "ironic" that the Republicans did not learn from the Democrats and their experience with Vietnam. It will be ironic in about 10 years when the country looks at the Republicans and Iraq, the same way they look at the Democrats and Vietnam. There is absolutely no excuse for an administration that grew up in the Vietnam era not to learn from the mistakes we made then.

[Denny Crane]

I'm glad we have so many military experts on here. The next time I need advice for a briefing I will look all of you up.

You sort of touched on a point that I always think is ironic, that being the HUGE majority of military service members are right-leaning, and mostly Republican in party affiliation. Those in the military- almost overwhelmingly- despised Clinton, and by in large support Bush.

Ironic, eh?

Interesting to note that the Democrats were the war hawks during Vietnam and the Republicans were the party that got us out. It took 5 years of peace talks in Paris to get us out of Vietnam "with honor" in 1973, only to see Saigon fall to the North Vietnamese in 1975. I was 6 years old and in the second grade when I first heard the word Vietnam in 1964. We had already been there for several years at that time. I was 17 when we evacuated Saigon in 1975 and a month short of graduating high school.

I find it "ironic" that the Republicans did not learn from the Democrats and their experience with Vietnam. It will be ironic in about 10 years when the country looks at the Republicans and Iraq, the same way they look at the Democrats and Vietnam. There is absolutely no excuse for an administration that grew up in the Vietnam era not to learn from the mistakes we made then.

Tell me about all the time you have spent in Iraq to make such a similar comparison between the two situations.

[jocoshock]

The Administration did screw up by not having a better plan, or any at all, for after the initial overthrow of Saddam and his military. Then they waited too long to actually do something about it. With that said, pulling out and leaving Iraq in the shape it's currently in would be foolish in my opinion. We can't go in, right or wrong, and not finish what we started and leave it with a chance of success.

Implimenting a Democracy isn't easy and takes time. As Americans it took us a few years to figure things out initially and we didn't have quite the chaos that Iraq has had to deal with between themselves and others. Yes, I do think the Iraqi gov't has been slow to act on issues, but I'm not ready to completely abandon them. A stable Iraq would be good not only for Iraqis, Israelis and Americans, but to the entire region and the world. We can debate if we think that's possible as some seem to think no country in that region can or will ever accept a Democracy.

But in order to give them the chance they need we have to keep a strong presence over there until they can take care of themselves. That's another thing we had going for us. We weren't surrounded by a bunch of hostile countries like they are. Their military has been trying to do more on their own and that's a positive, but they do still need support from us and more training.

To contiine the comparison to Vietnam, the common post war themes from that war is that we didn't fight to win. Unfortunately, we don't fight wars to win anymore; especially when you trying to simultaneously win and liberate at the same time. Too counterproductive; killing the people you are trying to liberate in mass quantities (which is required if you truly want to win).

As far at it takes time to build a democracy, the same or nearly same argument was used in Vietnam. We have to stay until Vietnam can stand up for themselves. Didn't happen then; not going to happen now. Eventually, whoever is president, we will negotiate a solution that allows us to withdraw; the opposition will mark time and all hell will break loose. It is ironic that John McCain stresses his experience to tell us what will happen if we leave. Of course it's his experience; his experience in Vietnam. Where was his experience when it was time to vote? If anyone should have known how this would turn out, it should have been a Vietnam war veteran who spent 5 years in a POW camp.

The terrorists don't care how many people die. George Bush 41 had it right in the first Iraq war; they knew what would happen, and rightly stayed out. They also knew that Saddam Hussein, even if he did have WMD, built it for one reason and one reason only - to deter Iran, not attack the U.S., Israel or anyone else.

The necons, specifically Paul Wulfowitz, Rumsfeld and about 26 others tried to get Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998. They failed to convince him. So they went out and found their next president, Bush 43. This was pre-destined, and that's why the lessons of history were ignored. They managed to sell this to the American people by: 1) lying about WMD; 2) avoiding a military draft by over-taxing the armed forces we have, asking those soldiers and their families to bear the burden of the war, while the rest of us got a tax break so we could stimulate the economies by buying more SUVs. 3) Not asking the American people to pay for the war - borrow the money from China, explode the debt, but by all means don't burden the people with the cost.

Our country used to pay for wars by having the people buy war bonds and savings bonds. Why weren't we asked to do it this time? In WWII every man, woman and child contributed to the effort. Men fought in the armed forces, women built the arsenal, and children took their pennies, nickels and dimes to school and bought bonds with them. We rationed gas - we didn't burn more. Why not this war?

When this country (all of us) are willing to put our money where our mouth is and pay for the war out of our pockets, then I will reconsider our motives for the war. But the people that started would rather run the country into the ground, slowly but surely by exploding the debt than raise taxes - that would be a fate worse than death.

I know we have an all volunteer army, but it is obscene how we are exploiting their courage and honor. I know as volunteers, most, if not all would never express that emotion to us, but that doesn't mean they don't feel it at some point. One of the dirtly little secrets that we are all spared is the number of military suicides not being counted in the official death tolls.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&refer=home&sid=aqlUKTADVlAM

At the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in Washington, Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md., told reporters ``it's quite possible that the suicides and psychiatric mortality of this war could trump the combat deaths."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/post-war-vet-su.html

[Denny Crane]

Thanks for that elitist view that our volunteer army can't think for themselves and are exploitable.

And also thanks for that over simplification of the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam while ignoring my original question.

On your travels to Iraq and in your conversations with the people and the government, what was said that leads you to believe this situation will turn out like Vietnam?

[jocoshock]

Thanks for that elitist view that our volunteer army can't think for themselves and are exploitable.

And also thanks for that over simplification of the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam while ignoring my original question.

On your travels to Iraq and in your conversations with the people and the government, what was said that leads you to believe this situation will turn out like Vietnam?

Wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Ricky Bobby.

Wasn't speaking for folks who serve in the military. I am fully aware of those who volunteer and how they feel. I would not speak for them. They volunteered to serve with honorable intentions. That doesn't mean their honor is being repaid in kind. They can think for themselves and yes, they can be exploited.

Over simplified comparison to Vietnam? The Bush administration has gone out their way to oversimplify the war in Iraq and make sure that the general public does not make the comparisons that existed at the beginning and are now and will continue to become more apparent over time.

As far as it turning out like Vietnam? The military leaders have already said there is no military solution - only political. Vietnam ended politically, and we know how that turned out. McCain does too. That's why he's so set against leaving, and why he's willing to stay 100 years. Look no further than the peace that has been attained wth Israel how long that has taken....

I will note one difference between Vietnam and Iraq. For most of that war Americans could walk down the streets of Saigon without full military body armor and an escort of armed soldiers and helicopter air support. There was no green zone in Saigon.

If you're going to call me Elitist, make sure you have your flag pin on, and kiss Ann Coulter goodnight for me... 8)

[Denny Crane]

Thanks for that elitist view that our volunteer army can't think for themselves and are exploitable.

And also thanks for that over simplification of the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam while ignoring my original question.

On your travels to Iraq and in your conversations with the people and the government, what was said that leads you to believe this situation will turn out like Vietnam?

Wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Ricky Bobby.

Wasn't speaking for folks who serve in the military. I am fully aware of those who volunteer and how they feel. I would not speak for them. They volunteered to serve with honorable intentions. That doesn't mean their honor is being repaid in kind. They can think for themselves and yes, they can be exploited.

Over simplified comparison to Vietnam? The Bush administration has gone out their way to oversimplify the war in Iraq and make sure that the general public does not make the comparisons that existed at the beginning and are now and will continue to become more apparent over time.

As far as it turning out like Vietnam? The military leaders have already said there is no military solution - only political. Vietnam ended politically, and we know how that turned out. McCain does too. That's why he's so set against leaving, and why he's willing to stay 100 years. Look no further than the peace that has been attained wth Israel how long that has taken....

I will note one difference between Vietnam and Iraq. For most of that war Americans could walk down the streets of Saigon without full military body armor and an escort of armed soldiers and helicopter air support. There was no green zone in Saigon.

If you're going to call me Elitist, make sure you have your flag pin on, and kiss Ann Coulter goodnight for me... 8)

Someone other than JoCo Shock please post and tell me if he answered my question. I'm trying my best to find a answer somewhere.