posted on January 31, 2005 08:37:30 AM new
cheryl I am sorry to hear you arent feeling well. its o.k. to be cranky and irritable. it does indeed come with the crud. Go buy yourself a flower you like at lunchtime for your desk. nature is a true healer! [at least that always help brighten things up for me.]
I will address your contradictory statement though:
"Not one of us is saying we should drop everything and leave now"
Oh Yes quite a few one of the democrats are. Ted Kennedy is calling for it. and some whatshername (d)rep from Ill. was on CNN saying the same thing this am.......
My lament and it is really painful to witness this shift for the worst...Linda is correct, the democrats are in a collective fog anymore. All they want to want to do is sing the resentment song.
When the constant is to prefixing your statements as to: "blah=-blah-blah...BUT, BUT! BUT...!! -- that "BUT" just about negates everything the first part of the statement originally intended to profess.
Helen, you are so mired with baggage you carry of GW Bush, You will NEVER be able to see getting from HERE to THERE. It's a good thing you are not in charge of planning a exit strategy.
posted on January 31, 2005 08:38:39 AM new
cheryl - No one will say WHEN the troops will be coming home. No one will give even an estimate.
Would we have been able to give an exact date during our occupation of Germany or Japan? NO!!!
The timeframe for troop withdrawal has been repeatedly stated to be when the Iraqi's can secure their own country. Or when they ask us to leave.
That's what you progressives/socialists just don't get. If we left now...the terrorists/saddam supporters would murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. Just like saddam did after 1991. That's what you'd be asking for when you argue to bring the troops home.
Because only kennedy and one other - can't remember his name...Specter I want to say..but not sure on that...want our troops to start coming home there are NO OTHER's in our Congress calling for that at all. And I am fully confident that the $80 Billion dollars to continue the war will be granted. Because there aren't enough in Congress who think the way you and helen do. Other, more reasonable dems, KNOW we must be successful here....for world security.
So I'm glad to see that you and helen don't have much support for your ideas/opinions in our government....and that they're not all extremists.
Condi Rice was asked and didn't answer. Why? Because it could be YEARS. So, if you have a date or even an estimate in mind, I'd appreciate you sharing it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 08:46:14 AM new
dblfugger - I watched Lieberman on Fox last night...he wants to see more unity in this war effort from the dems since the Iraqi people have shown their interest in voting/forming their new government. He said he and McCain think what those [like kennedy] are doing is not in our best interests.
So there are more moderate dems who might or might not have like that we went into Iraq....but are fully standing up to say they DO support us being successful there. Unlike some of the dem extremists think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
As we worry about Iraq, there is a frightening possibility is that Iran is on the agenda this year along with a draft. Air attacks and covert actions against Iran are reportedly being scheduled against Iran this year as a part of the multination neocon plan that Wolfowitz mentioned before the war. We could be at war for the next 25 years. Israel will probably begin the aerial bombardment for peace and democracy.
posted on January 31, 2005 08:51:27 AM new
Yes, we could, helen.
Do you suggest we just sit back and do nothing....just wait until Iran has the ability to nuke anybody they want to?
You just don't appear to really believe there are those who wish to destroy our nation do you?
Draft???? I just read the US. Airforce and Navy have turned away somewhere around 9,000 people who wanted to sign up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 08:59:38 AM new
Linda I am not mislead on this 'call to'... The reason they are speaking about an immediate withdrawal now is to insure a preemptive catastrophe ensues. then the results of which they can say we told ya so we told ya so come, let us lynch g.w.bush now. it is such a old tired gain/game plan. it is friggin embarrassing. alright. give no credit to georga for the happiness of the iraquies, if you must. they really do need to find new ways to cut a rug in washinton politics. the old ones aren't working anymore.
Iran is no Iraq. An attack on them would come with dire consequences because next would be North Korea setting the stage for WWIII. If you don't think that's possible, go back and read a little more history. If that happens, I suggest you say long goodbyes to the ones you love because the end will be near.
dblfugger9
Yes, this flu-thing is miserable. I've been snapping at anyone who gets in my way today. I finally got to come home where at least I can lay down if I want to. I went out and bought a whole lot of comfort food including chicken noodle soup from my favorite carryout!
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on January 31, 2005 09:58:35 AM newGood thing you weren't around in the Civil war days...when the voting took place then....or where you? ...cause not all American's were able to vote then either. None-the-less the election was still held.
In 1860 thevoter turn out was roughly 80%. Voter turnout in 1864 was a little lower but then went back up in 1868. Not being able to vote because you did not have the right to vote vs not be able to vote because of fear or not being able to get to the polls safely are two different things.
Would you have had a different opinion if sections of the South were not able to cast their votes in November because of bomb threats and gunfire. Having a portion of the country not vote because they are unable to cast their vote in a safe manner can swing the vote of election and questions the legitimacy of the election.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 31, 2005 10:50:40 AM new
cheryl - MORE predictions of what the future holds...from the left who hasn't predicted ANYTHING correctly yet? You guys and your scare tactics. Did this past election not prove the people don't believe the democratic party anymore when it comes to defending this nation?
------------
dblfugger - I know....and more than the 'right' is beginning to notice. It will only decrease more dem support for their own party if their 'ultra-liberal elites' keep this nonsense up. More dems are patriotic and want to see us be successful...that those on the extreme far left who want us to fail...just so they can, as you said, say I told you so. That's pretty sad.
---------
helen - You CRACK me up. You are the best at pulling up threads and finding links on the internet to support your anti-war drama all the time. And you can't find one article that speaks to the issue of the recruits? Somehow, I just don't believe you can't find the articles all by your self. They're there....reported within the past week or so. And since I know it's true and you don't believe it and want PROOF....look for it yourself. You never believe anything I say anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 11:08:28 AM newMORE predictions of what the future holds...from the left who hasn't predicted ANYTHING correctly yet? You guys and your scare tactics.
Yes Linda only you and the religious right can predict the future properly especially when dealing with the issue of same sex marriages and the so called gay agenda. You guys and your scare tactics.
Yeah I know it is wrong for the left to predict the future but it is fine for the right when it supports your theories and your agenda.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 31, 2005 11:39:36 AM new
logan - I'm referring to the 'regurgitation' those on the left keep spewing - over what's already happened.
Too late...we're already there.
Their predictions HAVE all been wrong and I'd think they'd be embarassed to continue saying things when they have no way of knowing...with their track record of being so wrong. The 'doom and gloom' at it's finest.
------
Also logan - on the Civil war and who voted....the people of the US in 11+ states DIDN'T vote. AND the Iraqi women ARE voting...how many years did it take for US women to 'get' the right to vote in 1920?
-----
helen - Because I won't get it for you, doesn't mean it's not in print.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 11:52:06 AM new
Predictions?
Well, the left, Democrats, some Republicans, and most of the world predicted that invading Iraq would be opening a big violent can of worms and it would take a LOT longer than the week or two PREDICTED BY BUSH AND COMPANY!
posted on January 31, 2005 11:52:49 AM new
For anyone who would be interested in hearing the "Good News" that the mainstream media won't/rarely report...you can always save this link.
Authur Chrenkoff does an article, about every two weeks, on the "GOOD NEWS from Iraq". Kind of counter-balances the left's negativity....and the media's focus only on the challenge's we face, rather than giving the whole picture.
Also good news and our troops accomplisments/mission's successfully completed can be found on the DoD website. http://www.dod.mil
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 12:01:42 PM new
I get a kick out of how neocaons refer to the mess in Iraq, thousands of deaths, horrible injuries, little fresh water, sporadic electricity, terror and destruction .....
posted on January 31, 2005 12:16:54 PM new
Gee...let's see....some appear to be forgetting ALL those democrats in both the House and the Senate who voted to go after saddam. All THEIR statements about womd. Yea, I'm sure they voted that way because they didn't believe he had womd. right.....
Even kerry voted and some should read kerry's statements about womd in Iraq, post war, of course. And right after we entered Iraq...kerry praising this President. But when the going got tough....kerry wanted to run and started another of his 'infamous' flip-flops.
But of course, the -anti-Bush, doom and gloom club, don't want to acknowledge anyone other than this President believed they had womd.
Hey maybe that's part of why Daschle didn't get re-elected...the dems were pissed that he too supported this war.
And I still do believe saddam had them...why else would he not comply all those 13 years? Dems never answer that one either. I think in all the months leading up to the war...when the republicans were doing their best to appease all those dems....saddam could have shipped them anywhere. We'll find out the truth to where they went....and no one can deny he DID have them...because he USED them. And they have no explanation as to where they mysterious went. So they claim they weren't there. No proof of that either....but who cares about that. None have been [b]FOUNDp/b]...no one's saying they're not THERE or weren't THERE.
[rant over ] We're there....argue all you want about why we shouldn't have... too late and it obviously didn't make enough difference to the majority of voters who re-elected him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 12:19:02 PM new
The ones that voted were brave and I think it shows their will and determination to get control of their own country and then hopefully some stability there.
This is possibly the greatest and most significant day in the past 50 years of Iraqi history. And everyone on Earth except for our President and his supporters were HOPING for a big failure.
Statements such as that one and other assumptions made here recently only reinforce in my mind how little some of you know about the rest of the world and some of us here.
posted on January 31, 2005 12:35:53 PM new
your mind, kiara?
people in here?
I think I must have missed all the cheers and praising our soldiers got from the left in here somehow. I don't see any happiness about their successful mission or giving them the credit for their part in the success of this election...which is THE REASON this vote happened at all...with them and President Bush...it wouldn't have. They'd still be enjoying having their tongues cut out for speaking against saddam...which would be the situation HAD we followed the anti-war peoples desires.
Are there world leaders who think this voting was a bad thing?
----
This whole free voting might just make the Iranians speak out because they've decided THEY'D like to vote freely too. And then we'll watch democracy get a foot-hold in that country too.
This President's decisions, our soldiers efforts and the Iraqi security defending their own, are the reason those Iraqi voters are singing and dancing in the street.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 12:55:05 PM new
Proving "delusional"
linduh says, the only person in this world who says, "And I still do believe saddam had them"
It has been proven over and over that he didn't have WMD's ...he didn't have them spit into the wind but he still didn't have them.
I haven't FORGOTTEN that bush fooled even some of own by swearing there were WMDs in Iraq.
Congress voted to give bush the AUTHORITY to invade Iraq AFTER all diplomatic efforts were made.
bush lied to them and the minute it was signed he went to war......
a war that was planned LONG BEFORE 911.
oh, by the way, now that we "saved" Iraq....do you think we could maybe start looking for Osama Bin Forgotten.....you know...the guy RESPONSIBLE for 911 !!
posted on January 31, 2005 01:19:45 PM new
Oh ..uh, excuse me everyone...I'm just looking around here for a spare 9 BILLION dollars.......kinda missing in Iraq....let's see how do you LOSE 9 BIL ? Let's see ....maybe it was those cardboard voting booths.....no, not really , you see, there isn't ANYTHING to show where that 9 BILLION of our money went !!!!!!!!!!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 02:23:06 PM newAlso logan - on the Civil war and who voted....the people of the US in 11+ states DIDN'T vote. AND the Iraqi women ARE voting...how many years did it take for US women to 'get' the right to vote in 1920?
Right the 11 states that did not vote no longer considered themselves part of the US. So they should not have been allowed to vote. Women were not allowed to vote back in 1864. You are comparing apples to oranges. Four provinces in Iraq did not vote because of the violence, but they are still considered part of Iraq and could have influenced the election outcome.
If California had a big Earthquake in days before the last election and 90% of the state was left without power and damaged do you think it would have been fair to have an election without allowing those in Califiornia to vote. They could have voted but simply did not have the "means to vote". How many people would be crying foul, if certain states were not allowed to vote in a presidential election due to circumstances beyond their control?
Women were allowed to vote in Iraq because they had the right to vote. Comparing that to the 1860's where women did not vote because they did not have the right to vote is not the same as the women being allowed to vote in Iraq.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 31, 2005 02:26:06 PM new
Linda, you can't keep telling everyone that the left feels no war is worth fighting. I've never heard anyone say that. You also keep saying nobody on the left supports the troops because they don't cheer at their victories, even though people like Helen, Cheryl, Kiara, Crowfarm, Logan, etc., keep telling you their ultimate support is in bringing these guys home.
You don't like the fact that there are millions who believe the U.S. isn't justified in being in Iraq, yet you still protest that the end justifies the means. If that's true, what is the end? Osama wasn't in Iraq. There were no terrorist camps. No womd. The Hussein's were ousted/killed - no difference. You're now there for liberation and to spread democracy in the deeply ingrained religious middle east, even though these insurgents (who have nothing to lose) are breeding like mosquitoes to fight against the U.S. invasion. (And while all this is happening, don't you ever notice how obviously absent the words OIL and HALLIBURTON are from this scenerio?) What is the end?
IMHO the Iraqi's, while going through the motions of a democratic beginning, won't feel free until the U.S. is out of the picture, which won't be soon. They're all just puppets to the U.S. until you're gone.
posted on January 31, 2005 02:27:55 PM new
Well said, KD!
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on January 31, 2005 02:36:01 PM new
Thank cheryl being sick is the pits. I started this business on saturday nite and it still isn't gone. I don't wish this on anyone.
"I'm glad the Iraquis got to vote, however it will never be said that the winner of the election was elected by a majority of the people there. The elections should have been held off until some stability could be accomplished. I don't think the results of the election will be fair because not everyone had the opportunity to vote. Those that didn't vote feared for their lives and I don't blame them for staying away. They've witnessed enough bloodshed and most have lost someone they love or know to this war.
Since I work at the election polls there are many election that get less than 50% of the vote and they are major elections. All elections should be major that is why we vote. Not the Presidential one but one for School Board, which is what regulates your taxes, alderman which have your opinion on what should happen and county supervisor.
Now the iragi people know they have nothing to worry about. Why did they stay away because the insurgents said they should. They need to put their trust in what they are told and they were told that their vote would count.
posted on January 31, 2005 02:41:06 PM new
logansdad - I'm not going to fight the civil war with you. The were US states and they weren't allowed to vote.
The point you appear to be missing or trying to get off of..is cheryl's statement, along with others, now using the excuse that 'they all didn't vote - so it can't really be seen as being successful'. That's why I brought up the 11+ states not voting. Cause we didn't always have all voting either. Hope that's clearer to you now.
If you want to fight the civil war with someone...I'm not interested in doing so. That wasn't my point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 31, 2005 02:46:36 PM new
Thanks Cheryl. We all think the same about this unjustified invasion - just word stuff differently.
I also wonder how the U.S. would feel if the roles were reversed... Lets' say some big wig leader felt Bush was bad news and invaded the U.S. by bombing the White House, a bunch of historical places, maybe a few subdivisions and schools... wiped out the electricity & water (not to mention Wall Street) just to find Bush. After months and months of destruction, they find Bush but it makes no difference and not much is mentioned. Then their army invades everywhere and tries to impose a new set of rules for us all to follow for the rest of our lives. Would you all go along with it?
posted on January 31, 2005 02:47:26 PM new
I need to address something else you said, logansdad.
If California had a big Earthquake in days before the last election and 90% of the state was left without power and damaged do you think it would have been fair to have an election without allowing those in Califiornia to vote. They could have voted but simply did not have the "means to vote". How many people would be crying foul, if certain states were not allowed to vote in a presidential election due to circumstances beyond their control?
--
This appears to be another reversal by the dems here...if they agree with you. Because this is a subject we discussed when all the dems were in a panic mode over the discussion in our Congress about whether National elections should take place IF we had another terrorist attack. I remember the dems being totally against it.
But there are states who have created legislation where they've decided they can vote [as a state] in Federal elections even IF others can't. I believe 8-10 was the number that have already vote to do just that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
You guys and your scare tactics. Did this past election not prove the people don't believe the democratic party anymore when it comes to defending this nation?
