Jesus...when is everyone gonna wake up?

[BLS 315]

I just watched Gen. Patraeus say he didn't know if the war in Iraq was making America safer.

 

WTF are we over there for then??

 

To free Iraq...puhlease. It's never been about that.

[BLS 315]

Exactly...13 views and nobody has an answer.

 

I certainly hope you are sitting down, and taking the time to stop and think about this.

These are American kids, fighting a war that all the NeoCons (all 5 of you) say if we don't fight, will be fought in our cities.

Does ANYBODY buy that crap anymore??

[Frank M 181]

Exactly...13 views and nobody has an answer.

 

I certainly hope you are sitting down, and taking the time to stop and think about this.

These are American kids, fighting a war that all the NeoCons (all 5 of you) say if we don't fight, will be fought in our cities.

Does ANYBODY buy that crap anymore??

 

Did any rational person ever buy it?

 

And the short answer is we are there because Cheney and Bush wanted us there for reasons mostly related to inadequacy issues.

[VikesFan 1]

We are over there for oil interests and to pad the pockets of the elite. And as long as the children of these individuals don't sit on the front line, we will continue to be there.

 

 

Ron Paul 2008!!!!

[ADD1CT36 1]

i read this and thought you were asking jesus...

 

sorry

[randandy 0]

i read this and thought you were asking jesus...

 

sorry

 

yea, i thought he was posting to his mexican buddy.

[DAVID RUFFIN 3]

I just watched Gen. Patraeus say he didn't know if the war in Iraq was making America safer.

 

WTF are we over there for then??

 

To free Iraq...puhlease. It's never been about that.

 

 

Cuz if we don't fight them over there...Oh wait...never mind.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Cuz if we don't fight them over there...Oh wait...never mind.

 

Never really understood that little bumper sticker mentality.

 

 

1) It's not like the Iraqis were massing off the Jersey shore before we invaded them and they all furiously paddled back to fight us 'there'.

 

2) 98% of the fockers fighting us over there are 'insurgents'. Be definition, they stop fighting (us) when we leave.

 

3) ...So for the other 2% (or whatever), wouldn't it be better to take that half a TRILLION dollars and 100,000 soldiers & uh, I dunno, SECURE our borders & ports so they CAN'T come here if they try?

 

...Unless of course, they walk scott-free across the Messican border. Because George thinks the only way terrorists come into the US is via Airplane.

[jerryskids 7,141]

Exactly...13 views and nobody has an answer.

 

I certainly hope you are sitting down, and taking the time to stop and think about this.

These are American kids, fighting a war that all the NeoCons (all 5 of you) say if we don't fight, will be fought in our cities.

Does ANYBODY buy that crap anymore??

I sat down, thought long and hard, and here is my answer, with the caveat that I didn't see the interview:

 

It is not Patraeus's job to answer such a question. It is his job to perform his assignment to the best of his abilities.

 

HTH

[natomasb 0]

I cant disagree with anything you say.

 

However, most people I know feel that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Bush and company has their agenda and could give a squat what is best for the country. Congress is just a bunch of.......politicians, not a backbone or moral among the bunch. I wish the answer were something as simple as Ron Paul but we know better.

[Rusty Syringes 479]

Glad to see you lathered up about it all.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

17 UN resolutions violated.

 

Cease Fire Agreement Violated.

 

Ok, I'll stipulate we went to war for bogus reasons if you will agree that we should dismantle the UN and kick them the hell outta the U.S.

 

Oh, and throw in never signing a Cease Fire Agreement with anyone ever again.

[Drizzay 749]

We're there for the religeous artifacts/historical purposes. Modern day Iraq is on top of the center of the Mesopotamian/Babylon empires.

 

People got upset when Hussain said he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus we're there to collect the artifacts stolen from Jerusalem and Egypt in the 6th century BC.

 

[BLS 315]

I sat down, thought long and hard, and here is my answer, with the caveat that I didn't see the interview:

 

It is not Patraeus's job to answer such a question. It is his job to perform his assignment to the best of his abilities.

 

HTH

 

 

Honestly, Jerry, I agree. It's not his job.

I respect him and any other man or woman in uniform, doing what is asked of them.

I do NOT hate our military men and women. I have a ton of respect for them.

Regardless of whether they believe it's right or wrong, they do their job.

 

But my point was (and you know this) if the General leading the war effort can't say without a doubt that this war is making us safer, it doesn't bode well for us.

[BLS 315]

I cant disagree with anything you say.

 

However, most people I know feel that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Bush and company has their agenda and could give a squat what is best for the country. Congress is just a bunch of.......politicians, not a backbone or moral among the bunch. I wish the answer were something as simple as Ron Paul but we know better.

 

 

So, the answer is do nothing and go on with our lives????

 

I can't make a guarantee that Ron Pau is the answer. Typically the President doesn't have THAT much power, but he CAN end the war.

He can cut spending. He can repeal the Patriot Act.

 

And I'd MUCH rather have my money, my countrymen's freedom and my civil liberties back than a continuation of this bullshit, or to have Hitlery tell me I have to pay more in taxes for people who don't have health care.

[BLS 315]

17 UN resolutions violated.

 

Cease Fire Agreement Violated.

 

Ok, I'll stipulate we went to war for bogus reasons if you will agree that we should dismantle the UN and kick them the hell outta the U.S.

 

Oh, and throw in never signing a Cease Fire Agreement with anyone ever again.

 

 

AMEN! Screw the UN!

Going to war for a United Coalition when our men/women are pulling quadruple shifts to theirs is enough for me.

I don't see ANY reason why we should go to war because 10 other countries say we should, and leave us to do all the work, and pay for the bills.

[Angry White Male 0]

I sat down, thought long and hard, and here is my answer, with the caveat that I didn't see the interview:

 

It is not Patraeus's job to answer such a question. It is his job to perform his assignment to the best of his abilities.

 

HTH

 

“Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die”

[pingpong 0]

Never really understood that little bumper sticker mentality.

1) It's not like the Iraqis were massing off the Jersey shore before we invaded them and they all furiously paddled back to fight us 'there'.

 

2) 98% of the fockers fighting us over there are 'insurgents'. Be definition, they stop fighting (us) when we leave.

 

3) ...So for the other 2% (or whatever), wouldn't it be better to take that half a TRILLION dollars and 100,000 soldiers & uh, I dunno, SECURE our borders & ports so they CAN'T come here if they try?

 

...Unless of course, they walk scott-free across the Messican border. Because George thinks the only way terrorists come into the US is via Airplane.

So what happens over there if we just pick up and leave? Do the Sunni/Shiites/Kurds just keep killing each other until eternity? Or does one group emerge by slaughtering the others? Once they are in power, what next? Are they signing peace accords with Isreal and the US? Or is it a peace accord with Iran and Syria?

 

While I agree that the borders need to be sealed better than they are, do you really think surrounding out country with guns is the best way to protect us? Or might it be better if we could somehow work to stabilize the hornets nest itself, even if it takes a little longer than many have the stomach for?

[jerryskids 7,141]

Honestly, Jerry, I agree. It's not his job.

I respect him and any other man or woman in uniform, doing what is asked of them.

I do NOT hate our military men and women. I have a ton of respect for them.

Regardless of whether they believe it's right or wrong, they do their job.

 

But my point was (and you know this) if the General leading the war effort can't say without a doubt that this war is making us safer, it doesn't bode well for us.

Sorry but I continue to disagree, and I think you are making a very weak connection with your conclusion. First, he is not in a position to necessarily know the impact of his activities on American safety. Second, even if he is, he is smart enough not to answer it because it is a question of policy and not of execution.

 

Think about it, do you want our military leaders to vocally support military policies? I think we have a pretty good system, where non-military people make those high-level calls, and military people execute the plans.

[Me_2006 14]

So what happens over there if we just pick up and leave? Do the Sunni/Shiites/Kurds just keep killing each other until eternity? Or does one group emerge by slaughtering the others? Once they are in power, what next? Are they signing peace accords with Isreal and the US? Or is it a peace accord with Iran and Syria?

 

While I agree that the borders need to be sealed better than they are, do you really think surrounding out country with guns is the best way to protect us? Or might it be better if we could somehow work to stabilize the hornets nest itself, even if it takes a little longer than many have the stomach for?

 

 

Good point. Pulling out of the war just to get elected says alot about the type of people who are running for office. When it was popular, they were for it. Now that it's not, they're claiming they "technically" didn't do thiis or that or that they were mislead. Well, maybe they were. But if that's the case, I don't want someone in office who can't find things out for themselves and make their own decisions. Like him or not, Dubya does what he thinks is best. That has to be respected, in my opinion.

 

Now, I don't know a ton about Ron Paul, but if I remember correctly (BLS correct me here, if I'm wrong) he didn't support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. While I think it's absurd not to have supported both (in the beginning, to each his own now), he's one of the few who can honestly say he didn't support the war and even if it's for his own semi-strange reasons, at least he's not a backtracking, double-talking, big government lunatic.

[wiffleball 4,797]

So what happens over there if we just pick up and leave? Do the Sunni/Shiites/Kurds just keep killing each other until eternity? Or does one group emerge by slaughtering the others? Once they are in power, what next? Are they signing peace accords with Isreal and the US? Or is it a peace accord with Iran and Syria?

 

While I agree that the borders need to be sealed better than they are, do you really think surrounding out country with guns is the best way to protect us? Or might it be better if we could somehow work to stabilize the hornets nest itself, even if it takes a little longer than many have the stomach for?

 

You have to look at the bumper sticker mentality I was addressing. This nonsense of "If we don't fight them there, they'll follow us here". That just doesn't make sense.

 

#1) Most of those fighting us aren't AQ, in fact, AQ is a very small minority. Most of the fighting going on is either factional interests vying for power in the new Iraq or regional players looking to extend influence into Iraq. Those guys AREN'T going to "follow us back to America", those guys could give a chit about America and really hate the fock out of Al Qaeda too.

 

#2)...Which leaves us with Al Qaeda. And then you have to ask yourself, WTF didn't we invade Somalia which has a huge AQ presence? Or WTF did George create an Al Qaeda haven by refusing to go after Pakistan - the one country that more AQ training camps and terror madrassas than any other? And, oh by the way, the one country that admitted to spreading nuclear technology to Iran and NoKo? If we're going after Al Qaeda, why just Iraq? Won't 'the terrorists' 'follow us home' from any of these places - or the dozens of other countries where AQ has folks? If so, do we invade and occupy every one of these places too?

 

#3) The idiocy that with say, 1 BILLION Muslims in the world, somehow, our actions in Iraq are keeping say, half a dozen of them from blowing up Penn Station. Are they all sitting around the tent saying "Gee, I'd LIKE to attack America but I got a truck bombing in Anbar, then I gotta plant an IED in Baghdad, then it's right off to Buquba - Boy, a terrorists work is never done!"

 

That's really what I'm talking about. This idea that somehow we're keeping terrorists from hitting New Jersey because we're mired down in Buquba is just plain stupid, and I'd like to think most people know it - but with a brainwashed, ignorant and apathetic public, I'm not so sure.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

17 UN resolutions violated.

 

Cease Fire Agreement Violated.

 

Ok, I'll stipulate we went to war for bogus reasons if you will agree that we should dismantle the UN and kick them the hell outta the U.S.

 

Oh, and throw in never signing a Cease Fire Agreement with anyone ever again.

 

LMAO at the resident Demwits totally ignoring the UN angle on the Iraq war.

[BLS 315]

Good point. Pulling out of the war just to get elected says alot about the type of people who are running for office. When it was popular, they were for it. Now that it's not, they're claiming they "technically" didn't do thiis or that or that they were mislead. Well, maybe they were. But if that's the case, I don't want someone in office who can't find things out for themselves and make their own decisions. Like him or not, Dubya does what he thinks is best. That has to be respected, in my opinion.

 

Now, I don't know a ton about Ron Paul, but if I remember correctly (BLS correct me here, if I'm wrong) he didn't support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. While I think it's absurd not to have supported both (in the beginning, to each his own now), he's one of the few who can honestly say he didn't support the war and even if it's for his own semi-strange reasons, at least he's not a backtracking, double-talking, big government lunatic.

 

You're partially correct.

 

He DID vote for the war in Afghanistan. He's a HUGE proponent of going after Bin Laden, but that has obviously gone by the wayside in order to slay larger dragons.

He voted against Iraq for 2 reasons, one it was unconstitutional to give the Bush administration the AUTHORITY to wage war without Congressional Approval (which they DID do for Afghanistan), and 2nd, there are DOCUMENTED videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OenXhQvgYwo) in 2002 BEFORE the war where Ron Paul was very adimate about researching the so called intelligence and had NOT found that any of the intelligence was very credible.

 

Watch it...it'll really open your eyes.

 

Whether you belive W is doing what he thinks is best is of course, debateable. I happen to think he's had this in his mind for a long time before 9/11.

But there's not much to prove either point. (likely less on my side)

[BLS 315]

Sorry but I continue to disagree, and I think you are making a very weak connection with your conclusion. First, he is not in a position to necessarily know the impact of his activities on American safety. Second, even if he is, he is smart enough not to answer it because it is a question of policy and not of execution.

 

Think about it, do you want our military leaders to vocally support military policies? I think we have a pretty good system, where non-military people make those high-level calls, and military people execute the plans.

 

 

I see your point of view, and to an extent I agree. It's a bit of a jump on my part.

Although I also can't see how you can say he is not in a position to know. If not him...then who?

The CIA? The problem is, you're right. He can't really know.

But please tell me who would know better? Is he killing AQ? Is it enough numbers to win, simply by attricion?

 

I mean, if he KNEW his troops were reporting that they are killing AQ at a tremendous rate, then wouldn't it be safe enough to say "yes, we are eliminating the enemy"?

The other good point you make is that yes, he is smart enough NOT to make any assertation like that because that would lay some sort of culpability on him.

The problem with that is simply politics. Hence the reason I hate it to it's very essence. It's all about CYA.

[pingpong 0]

You have to look at the bumper sticker mentality I was addressing. This nonsense of "If we don't fight them there, they'll follow us here". That just doesn't make sense.

 

#1) Most of those fighting us aren't AQ, in fact, AQ is a very small minority. Most of the fighting going on is either factional interests vying for power in the new Iraq or regional players looking to extend influence into Iraq. Those guys AREN'T going to "follow us back to America", those guys could give a chit about America and really hate the fock out of Al Qaeda too.

 

#2)...Which leaves us with Al Qaeda. And then you have to ask yourself, WTF didn't we invade Somalia which has a huge AQ presence? Or WTF did George create an Al Qaeda haven by refusing to go after Pakistan - the one country that more AQ training camps and terror madrassas than any other? And, oh by the way, the one country that admitted to spreading nuclear technology to Iran and NoKo? If we're going after Al Qaeda, why just Iraq? Won't 'the terrorists' 'follow us home' from any of these places - or the dozens of other countries where AQ has folks? If so, do we invade and occupy every one of these places too?

 

#3) The idiocy that with say, 1 BILLION Muslims in the world, somehow, our actions in Iraq are keeping say, half a dozen of them from blowing up Penn Station. Are they all sitting around the tent saying "Gee, I'd LIKE to attack America but I got a truck bombing in Anbar, then I gotta plant an IED in Baghdad, then it's right off to Buquba - Boy, a terrorists work is never done!"

 

That's really what I'm talking about. This idea that somehow we're keeping terrorists from hitting New Jersey because we're mired down in Buquba is just plain stupid, and I'd like to think most people know it - but with a brainwashed, ignorant and apathetic public, I'm not so sure.

Couldn't agree more. The bumper sticker mentality is perfect for those that would rather not think about the situation, but still want to have an opinion. The same goes for the lines about how W 'lied' to us, how 'W' stole the election. how 'War is Not the Answer', etc.

The fact remains, the entire Middle East is a very dangerous place. We are currently in a war over there. People that keep stating that we need to 'bring our boys home right now' are as guilty of living with blinders on as those saying 'stay the course'. We need our politicians and policy makers to start thinking about the county's best interests, and not what their political advisors tell them is in their best political interest.

[paulinstl 296]

Couldn't agree more. The bumper sticker mentality is perfect for those that would rather not think about the situation, but still want to have an opinion. The same goes for the lines about how W 'lied' to us, how 'W' stole the election. how 'War is Not the Answer', etc.

The fact remains, the entire Middle East is a very dangerous place. We are currently in a war over there. People that keep stating that we need to 'bring our boys home right now' are as guilty of living with blinders on as those saying 'stay the course'. We need our politicians and policy makers to start thinking about the county's best interests, and not what their political advisors tell them is in their best political interest.

 

As much as I thought going into Iraq at the time we did was a huge mistake, and being proven correct mostly, to leave now would only compound the problem. I really think the best way to get any kind of redemption for having gone there in the first place is to stay long enough to see an actual government in place that can handle their own security. Once that happens, we pull out and allow Iraqis to run their own country, even if what they choose turns out to be more of a threat to our interests than Sadam's Iraq was, which I truly believe will be the case. I can see some kind of unified Iran/Iraq/Syria radical Muslim stronghold. Ironic isn't it?

[pingpong 0]

As much as I thought going into Iraq at the time we did was a huge mistake, and being proven correct mostly, to leave now would only compound the problem. I really think the best way to get any kind of redemption for having gone there in the first place is to stay long enough to see an actual government in place that can handle their own security. Once that happens, we pull out and allow Iraqis to run their own country, even if what they choose turns out to be more of a threat to our interests than Sadam's Iraq was, which I truly believe will be the case. I can see some kind of unified Iran/Iraq/Syria radical Muslim stronghold. Ironic isn't it?

Well stated. It just drives me nuts to hear people still argue that they didn't want us there in the first place, so we should get out. Politicians are changing their opinion weekly based on what they think their 'base' wants them to say. If you step back, look at the current situation, you have a totally different perspective than if you still can't get past that we are there in the first place. The fact is, we are there. Now what? Leaving by the end of the year would be catastrophic IMO.

[BLS 315]

As much as I thought going into Iraq at the time we did was a huge mistake, and being proven correct mostly, to leave now would only compound the problem.

 

 

This assertation is based on what knowledge exactly??

A guess? Fox News? A politician?

 

The fact is, we have no freaking clue what will happen.

The reality is if we pull out and give them the keys and the last thing they see if our planes and choppers flying away, they might get off their collective a$$es and start running their OWN DAMN COUNTRY.

 

Wasting American Tax Dollars and American Soldiers for a theory is kinda stupid isn't it?

[Baby Jesus 0]

You start wearing a helmet when you get on your motorcycle and then you can preach to me about safety.

[edjr 6,942]

You start wearing a helmet when you get on your motorcycle and then you can preach to me about safety.

 

 

Why don't motorcycles have seatbelts?

[BLS 315]

You start wearing a helmet when you get on your motorcycle and then you can preach to me about safety.

 

 

Liberty is all about making decisions for yourself. Even if they may hurt you.

[kutulu 1,714]

6 am during the week...8 or 9 on the weekends.

[wiffleball 4,797]

6 am during the week...8 or 9 on the weekends.

 

 

Fist LOL of the day.

[cmh6476 1,143]

a lot of our soldiers believe the insurgents will bring the fight to us if we don't fight them over there

[wiffleball 4,797]

a lot of our soldiers believe the insurgents will bring the fight to us if we don't fight them over there

 

I doubt it. Been pretty well discussed above already though. I'm guessing most of them are smart enough to look past that.

 

What they DO see though, is daily brutality rendered on innocent people and upon their friends and colleagues and feel a strong sense of duty to stop and/or kill the mofo's who committ such acts. And that sure as hell is a much more valid, tangible reason than any bumper sticker BS that Rush or the other Beltway pundits can come up with.

 

Gotta Respect That.

 

[skins56 0]

He can repeal the Patriot Act.

 

Because that would definitely make us safer.

 

The question that the General didn't answer was a loaded one that no intelligent person would answer. You say "no" and it makes everything he has presented moot. You say "yes" and then you're asked for evidence which is impossible to provide.

 

Here's a question: Did any of you think that our country would be void of any terrorist attacks 6 years after 9/11? Does our government and or military deserve any credit for that?

 

Also, one last major thing that really gets on my nerves. "Why didn't we invade the Sudan if we are in the business of liberating people and humanitarian efforts?" Or, "Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia because most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from there?" Or, why didn't we invade (insert country here) becasue there are more Al Qaeda there than in Iraq?" Anyone who asks these questions is a moron. Clearly we went to war with Iraq because their violations of all those UN violations gave us an "in" to do so. Its right in the middle of that clusterfuck thats over there and long term it COULD have an impact in calming that region down. Maybe it won't but I'm glad I'm not in charge of making these decisions because I'm not sure anyone has the right answers for how you fight a war with terrorists. Is the answer to do nothing? Setting a good example is great and all but if you think Al Qaeda and the fundamentalist Islam world will just leave us alone if we mind our business then I don't know what to say to you.

[Snuff 10]

Because that would definitely make us safer.

 

The question that the General didn't answer was a loaded one that no intelligent person would answer. You say "no" and it makes everything he has presented moot. You say "yes" and then you're asked for evidence which is impossible to provide.

 

Here's a question: Did any of you think that our country would be void of any terrorist attacks 6 years after 9/11? Does our government and or military deserve any credit for that?

 

Also, one last major thing that really gets on my nerves. "Why didn't we invade the Sudan if we are in the business of liberating people and humanitarian efforts?" Or, "Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia because most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from there?" Or, why didn't we invade (insert country here) becasue there are more Al Qaeda there than in Iraq?" Anyone who asks these questions is a moron. Clearly we went to war with Iraq because their violations of all those UN violations gave us an "in" to do so. Its right in the middle of that clusterfuck thats over there and long term it COULD have an impact in calming that region down. Maybe it won't but I'm glad I'm not in charge of making these decisions because I'm not sure anyone has the right answers for how you fight a war with terrorists. Is the answer to do nothing? Setting a good example is great and all but if you think Al Qaeda and the fundamentalist Islam world will just leave us alone if we mind our business then I don't know what to say to you.

 

[wiffleball 4,797]

Clearly we went to war with Iraq because their violations of all those UN violations gave us an "in" to do so.

 

This would be the UN the Bush Administration called "Irrelevant", correct?

 

If we're invading countries that have violated Umpteen UN resolutions - in regional clusterfocks (to use your parameters), why not Israel?? They're on record as having violated a crapload more of the "Irrelevant" UN resolutions than Iraq.

 

[skins56 0]

This would be the UN the Bush Administration called "Irrelevant", correct?

 

If we're invading countries that have violated Umpteen UN resolutions - in regional clusterfocks (to use your parameters), why not Israel?? They're on record as having violated a crapload more of the "Irrelevant" UN resolutions than Iraq.

 

 

I don't think I explained myself very well...the UN resolutions provided us with a way to go to war in Iraq but it was not the true reason we went to war in Iraq. To put it in the most simplistic terms possible I think what happened after 9/11 was that Bush and the boys said, "how the hell do we respond to this?" Afghanistan, done...but what else can we do in that mess over there that will send a message and benefit us in the short and long term by possibly transforming the region? Saudi Arabia, yeah right. Pakistan, uhhh no. Iran, maybe but Iraq is the easiest target with a host of solid reasons why we could/should go in there: lots of intelligence on WMDs, Saddam and the humanitarian side of things, and the UN resolutions.

 

It wasn't my point but I don't know how people can't say the UN is irrelevant...and thats before you take into account all the scandals.

[paulinstl 296]

a lot of our soldiers believe the insurgents will bring the fight to us if we don't fight them over there

 

Are these the same soldiers of whom 70% still believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11?

 

This argument is ridiculous. Just how much easier is it to get arms, people and materiel into Iraq than it would be to get it into this country? A lot of the insurgents are coming in from neighboring countries, they're not having to travel halfway around the world with bombs and suicide bombers. It's like if the criminal element decided to move to St. Joe from K.C. as opposed to moving in from Capetown South Africa.

 

Ridiculous argument, plain and simple.