Worth 6 minutes of your life to watch

[Okla-homey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

It sums up my sentiments quite well anyway.

[Flagstaffsooner]

:dean: Great!!!

[King Crimson]

the History channel? please.

[85Sooner]

wish one of our leaders would have the balls to do that for real.

[Okla-homey]

wish one of our leaders would have the balls to do that for real.

The pronounced ballage deficiencies among the current crop of candidates is precisely what is bothering me about '08. We need a solid guy who possess gravitas and the ability to act decisively when Achmed hits us again.

[jk the sooner fan]

he's announcing his candidacy around labor day......

[85Sooner]

Thompson or gingrich would probably have the stones. Unfortunately the crop of socialists in this country is in dire need of some cleaning up. the ACLU, MSM and the current congress that seems to think leadership is to stumble and slobber all over themselves trynig to investigate the past rather than find solutions for the future.

[King Crimson]

Thompson or gingrich would probably have the stones. Unfortunately the crop of socialists in this country is in dire need of some cleaning up. the ACLU, MSM and the current congress that seems to think leadership is to stumble and slobber all over themselves trynig to investigate the past rather than find solutions for the future.

sounds like we need a good authoritarian leader to come in and crack some eggs and re-constitute the Republic.

[Okla-homey]

...and the current congress that seems to think leadership is to stumble and slobber all over themselves trynig to investigate the past rather than find solutions for the future.

Dang skippy. That is why Congress's approval numbers are now even lower than the President's. Pretty irony there. It's as if they think they were elected to cudgel the White House while getting a pass on being "do nothings." It seems to me they are holding their collective breath to see what happens in '08 and in the meantime, they occupy themselves by hammering on the war and the administration.

Oh well, as long as they stay focused on bashing GWB, they don't have (as much) time to pass wacky legislation.

[King Crimson]

the last two years of the Bush presidency are/will be/will have been among the most mendacious moments in american political history that i know of. i make no qualms about being against the "war(s)" from day 1....but what this has devolved in to is a nightmare....people are losing their lives, mom's losing their sons so asswipes in congress and prez candidates can jockey around according to polls and the last November election....in a bogus stalemate while americans and iraqis die.

it's really sad.

[Okla-homey]

the last two years of the Bush presidency are/will be/will have been among the most mendacious moments in american political history that i know of. i make no qualms about being against the "war(s)" from day 1....but what this has devolved in to is a nightmare....people are losing their lives, mom's losing their sons so asswipes in congress and prez candidates can jockey around according to polls and the last November election....in a bogus stalemate while americans and iraqis die.

it's really sad.

Since 2001, after nearly six years of war, there have been 3,940 coalition deaths -- 3,646 Americans, two Australians, 163 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 21 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of today -- according to CNN. (I just checked)

In 2005, which is most recent year for which NHTSA has published data, in California alone, there were 43,443 traffic deaths.

That is not to belittle in any way the combat deaths, but merely to add some perspective. Historically speaking of course, this war is not a "bloodbath", "meat-grinder", "nightmare," or any of those other colorful metaphors many people like to use. After all, we lost more than 3600 guys within the first 48 hours in June 1944 at Normandy. We also lost that many bomber crewmen each month throughout 1943 and most of 1944.

Do I wish the war were going better. Yes. Do I think its a stalemate? No. Why? Because there haven't been any sucessful attacks here in the US since 9/11 thus evidencing the wisdom of military engagement in the region.

[Sooner24]

the last two years of the Bush presidency are/will be/will have been among the most mendacious moments in american political history that i know of. i make no qualms about being against the "war(s)" from day 1....but what this has devolved in to is a nightmare....people are losing their lives, mom's losing their sons so asswipes in congress and prez candidates can jockey around according to polls and the last November election....in a bogus stalemate while americans and iraqis die.

it's really sad.

I think Patton addressed you in his speech.

[King Crimson]

I think Patton addressed you in his speech.

i'm sure he did.

[King Crimson]

Since 2001, after nearly six years of war, there have been 3,940 coalition deaths -- 3,646 Americans, two Australians, 163 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 21 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of today -- according to CNN. (I just checked)

In 2005, which is most recent year for which NHTSA has published data, in California alone, there were 43,443 traffic deaths.

That is not to belittle in any way the combat deaths, but merely to add some perspective. Historically speaking of course, this war is not a "bloodbath", "meat-grinder", "nightmare," or any of those other colorful metaphors many people like to use. After all, we lost more than 3600 guys within the first 48 hours in June 1944 at Normandy. We also lost that many bomber crewmen each month throughout 1943 and most of 1944.

Do I wish the war were going better. Yes. Do I think its a stalemate? No. Why? Because there haven't been any sucessful attacks here in the US since 9/11 thus evidencing the wisdom of military engagement in the region.

as a historian, you would agree that the nature of war and killing technology is different than it was in 1944?

as far as "colorful metaphors" go, i'd like to see WWII not be the moral vantage point of reference for the current wars. it's an ideological swindle (often used by politicians), they are no where near fought for the same reason.


and i don't need to be told about WWII, my granddad from Perry, Oklahoma and all 5 of his brothers were all decorated vets. to quote my great uncle Elmer: "well, we already knew how to shoot guns".

[jk the sooner fan]

the last two years of the Bush presidency are/will be/will have been among the most mendacious moments in american political history that i know of. i make no qualms about being against the "war(s)" from day 1....but what this has devolved in to is a nightmare....people are losing their lives, mom's losing their sons so asswipes in congress and prez candidates can jockey around according to polls and the last November election....in a bogus stalemate while americans and iraqis die.

it's really sad.

so you're against the war in afghanistan as well?

[King Crimson]

before i answer, you'd have to remind me who that war was against. despite the official terminology wars don't happen "in" places. and how much media coverage do we get about that "war"?

[jk the sooner fan]

taliban/AQ

[King Crimson]

taliban/AQ

i'm not really interested in fighting about this on my weekend. you are military and are a true believer in the administration. i'm not. i think the public has been lied to and the last 2 years of the Bush administration are a joke and the dems are showboating while people die. the next administration, Dem or Repub, will inherit a stupid mess. that's all i posted.

[jk the sooner fan]

who's looking to fight? i was just asking for a clarification since you said you were against war(S) from the beginning, which led me to believe you were against the assault on the taliban and AQ

if you dont wish to answer it, thats fine

[King Crimson]

if the war on AF and AQ were such a hot success why don't we hear about it more? "the war" is always Iraq.

american kids die there too.

[Okla-homey]

as a historian, you would agree that the nature of war and killing technology is different than it was in 1944?



Not much on one level. Human beings still tend to die when they are targeted with explosives. On a different level, this war is far more dangerous to the American people given the advent of nuclear weapons and the fact we aren't likely in any event to use ours.

And, FWIW, I quite agree that there is no debate possible if one side refuses to accept the notion that there is hardly any difference between the causes and the stakes in the third world war and those of the second world war.

[jk the sooner fan]

there's plenty written about afghanistan, you just have to look for it

but you dont see it on the evening news because its not iraq......

yes american kids die there too........

you still didnt answer my question, not directly anyway

[King Crimson]

i did answer it. the war is/was "in" Afghanistan. it's not against Afghanistan, right? the war is not against Iraq, it's "in" Iraq. we liberated them 4 years ago.

[FaninAma]

before i answer, you'd have to remind me who that war was against. despite the official terminology wars don't happen "in" places. and how much media coverage do we get about that "war"?

Please suggest your proposals for making this country safer and less likely to be attacked again by Islamo-facists. I am a pretty open-minded kind of guy. If the left has a great solution then let's hear the details....it's possible I could get on board with their plan.

It begins with, I am sure, pulling out of Iraq. Then what?

If you have no further suggestions then you really have no credibility to criticize what we are doing now. And the lack of credibility is why Congressional approval will soon be in single digits.

[Harry Beanbag]

It's the War on Terror, not the War to Avenge 9/11. I still can't believe some people just don't have the ability to grasp that concept and have a little foresight to understand that.

[Okla-homey]

I agree that Afghanistan is a tarbaby. I said it after I had been there a week. I also believe it is a tarbaby we had to punch. Ditto Iraq.

FWIW, I think there are least two other tarbabies we'll have to engage sooner or later. Namely, Iran and Pakistan (after the jihaadis finally get the Paki prez)

[King Crimson]

Please suggest your proposals for making this country safer and less likely to be attacked again by Islamo-facists. I am a pretty open-minded kind of guy. If the left has a great solution then let's hear the details....it's possible I could get on board with their plan.

It begins with, I am sure, pulling out of Iraq. Then what?

If you have no further suggestions then you really have no credibility to criticize what we are doing now. And the lack of credibility is why Congressional approval will soon be in single digits.


i have no credibility.....blah blah blah, like you do. i said nothing about pulling out of Iraq. i said it's a stupid stalemate for the next couple years. project some more that when anyone questions your largely unquestioned assumptions about foreign policy you call them the devil: liberal, democrat.

you people are so stupid with your knee jerk polar political stuff. dems vs. the truth. did you read my post, i never said anything about pulling otu of iraq. i said we are in a stalemate mess that also include the democrats grandstanding.

you are far from an open-minded kind of guy, you use the word islamo-facist jsut like FOXNEWS taught you to. you used to post articles from Newsmax.com and at the same time criticize the NY TImes as a liberal rag.

your concept of truth is that you agree with what you agree with.

please.

[Harry Beanbag]

your concept of truth is that you agree with what you agree with.

please.


There's a lot of that going on around here.

[FaninAma]

i have no credibility.....blah blah blah, like you do. i said nothing about pulling out of Iraq. i said it's a stupid stalemate for the next couple years. project some more that when anyone questions your largely unquestioned assumptions about foreign policy you call them the devil: liberal, democrat.

you people are so stupid with your knee jerk polar political stuff. dems vs. the truth. did you read my post, i never said anything about pulling otu of iraq. i said we are in a stalemate mess that also include the democrats grandstanding.

you are far from an open-minded kind of guy, you use the word islamo-facist jsut like FOXNEWS taught you to. you used to post articles from Newsmax.com and at the same time criticize the NY TImes as a liberal rag.

your concept of truth is that you agree with what you agree with.

please.

Thank you. I fully expected the response you gave. BTW, you can freely substitute the plan of any of the politicians you support in place of recommendations of your own. I suspect I'll get the same type of answer from you.

It's easy to criticize and sit on the sidelines. It's a little harder to come up with a plan of action and allow it to be criticized by those who want to sit on the sidelines.

[King Crimson]

Thank you. I fully expected the response you gave. BTW, you can freely substitute the plan of any of the politicians you support in place of recommendations of your own. I suspect I'll get the same type of answer from you.

It's easy to criticize and sit on the sidelines. It's a little harder to come up with a plan of action and allow it to be criticized by those who want to sit on the sidelines.


rah rah rah. the old "i expected it" routine. fact is: you use to post newsmax.com articles as some semblance of "truth" and a corrective to that evil MSM before it was the MSM.

which politicians do i support?

what's your solution, brainiac?

[FaninAma]

rah rah rah. the old "i expected it" routine. fact is: you use to post newsmax.com articles as some semblance of "truth" and a corrective to that evil MSM before it was the MSM.

which politicians do i support?

what's your solution, brainiac?

I'm not the one criticizing our actions in Iraq. In fact I agree with it other than the fact that I think Rumsfeld should have sent in a lot more troops originally to control the country better.

And why are you so defensive? I asked your opinion and your ideas/thoughts on the subject. Apparently all you have is criticism.

[King Crimson]

the fact is that many posters here think that because someone disagrees with them they are the opposite in a small-minded polar politcal discourse.

hoo-ray.

i'm not doing this on my weekend. many of you have VERY small minds that can only conceive of disagreement as that opposite. that american politics has turned into it, you go. you got what you wanted. the internal scapegoat Rush loves.

blame the liberals for everything, ignore reality, and talk about not being the victim and
accountability while you razz the eternal scapegoat.

[Harry Beanbag]

the fact is that many posters here think that because someone disagrees with them they are the opposite in a small-minded polar politcal discourse.

hoo-ray.

i'm not doing this on my weekend. many of you have VERY small minds that can only conceive of disagreement as that opposite. that american politics has turned into it, you go.


Now you're playing the everyone that disagrees with me is an idiot card? Awesome.

[FaninAma]

the fact is that many posters here think that because someone disagrees with them they are the opposite in a small-minded polar politcal discourse.

hoo-ray.

i'm not doing this on my weekend. many of you have VERY small minds that can only conceive of disagreement as that opposite. that american politics has turned into it, you go.

I have no idea if I disagree with you or not. You haven't posted anything of substance that would lend itself to disagreement.

Quit dancing around the issue. Give us some suggestions on how this country should protect itself from terrorists' attacks or name a politician that has a plan that you agree with. It really isn't that difficult.

[King Crimson]

Now you're playing the everyone that disagrees with me is an idiot card? Awesome.

no, i'm playing the opposite. too bad you are all caught up in your "common sense" to figure it out.

adios

[FaninAma]

no, i'm playing the opposite. too bad you are all caught up in your "common sense" to figure it out.

adios

And that in a nutshell is the Democrat's plan for combating terrorism....take a powder. :D

[jk the sooner fan]

too funny.......

[King Crimson]

except i'm not a democrat. morons. you guys are just looking to blame. "accountability".

[FaninAma]

except i'm not a democrat. morons.

I thought you were leaving.:cool:

[King Crimson]

i am.

[usmc-sooner]

i'm not really interested in fighting about this on my weekend. you are military and are a true believer in the administration. i'm not. i think the public has been lied to and the last 2 years of the Bush administration are a joke and the dems are showboating while people die. the next administration, Dem or Repub, will inherit a stupid mess. that's all i posted.

I'm military and and the public and I don't think we've been lied to. Not at all. Now if you want to dig you a hole and put your head in the sand, like most liberals do that's fine. The President laid out his plans before everyone on day 1, he said from the jump it would be a long hard fought war.

Also you guys who claim this is Bush's war seem to not remember anything before 2000.
Clinton had problems with the Mid East. Firing missiles at them, the first WTC, the USS Cole, he got us into Bosnia, and we still don't have a real clear direction as to what we are supposed to do over there.
Before that it was Bush I, who had problems with Iraq. (The Gulf War)
Before that Reagan had problems with Iraq/Iran and the Soviets
Before that Carter had problems with Iran.

So for the last 32 years we've had problems (with Dem Presidents and Pub Presidents) with in some way shape or form with Iraq/Iran and some of you guys think this is a Bush problem.

So yeah let's just pull out because after 32 years of beef in this region that's going to clear things up. If it wasn't for Bush we'd probably be BFFs, hell they'd be giving us free oil.
You guys watch too much T.V. and don't take the time to think about it with common sense. It's real easy to sit on the sidelines and jump on the criticize the President bandwagon.
For the record I don't just fall in line with everything Bush does but I thought the immigration bill was retarded but even that started way before him.

[Flagstaffsooner]

^What he said^.

[85Sooner]

I'm military and and the public and I don't think we've been lied to. Not at all. Now if you want to dig you a hole and put your head in the sand, like most liberals do that's fine. The President laid out his plans before everyone on day 1, he said from the jump it would be a long hard fought war.

Also you guys who claim this is Bush's war seem to not remember anything before 2000.
Clinton had problems with the Mid East. Firing missiles at them, the first WTC, the USS Cole, he got us into Bosnia, and we still don't have a real clear direction as to what we are supposed to do over there.
Before that it was Bush I, who had problems with Iraq. (The Gulf War)
Before that Reagan had problems with Iraq/Iran and the Soviets
Before that Carter had problems with Iran.

So for the last 32 years we've had problems (with Dem Presidents and Pub Presidents) with in some way shape or form with Iraq/Iran and some of you guys think this is a Bush problem.

So yeah let's just pull out because after 32 years of beef in this region that's going to clear things up. If it wasn't for Bush we'd probably be BFFs, hell they'd be giving us free oil.
You guys watch too much T.V. and don't take the time to think about it with common sense. It's real easy to sit on the sidelines and jump on the criticize the President bandwagon.
For the record I don't just fall in line with everything Bush does but I thought the immigration bill was retarded but even that started way before him.


DITTO

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'm military and and the public and I don't think we've been lied to. Not at all. Now if you want to dig you a hole and put your head in the sand, like most liberals do that's fine. The President laid out his plans before everyone on day 1, he said from the jump it would be a long hard fought war.

Also you guys who claim this is Bush's war seem to not remember anything before 2000.
Clinton had problems with the Mid East. Firing missiles at them, the first WTC, the USS Cole, he got us into Bosnia, and we still don't have a real clear direction as to what we are supposed to do over there.
Before that it was Bush I, who had problems with Iraq. (The Gulf War)
Before that Reagan had problems with Iraq/Iran and the Soviets
Before that Carter had problems with Iran.

So for the last 32 years we've had problems (with Dem Presidents and Pub Presidents) with in some way shape or form with Iraq/Iran and some of you guys think this is a Bush problem.

So yeah let's just pull out because after 32 years of beef in this region that's going to clear things up. If it wasn't for Bush we'd probably be BFFs, hell they'd be giving us free oil.
You guys watch too much T.V. and don't take the time to think about it with common sense. It's real easy to sit on the sidelines and jump on the criticize the President bandwagon.
For the record I don't just fall in line with everything Bush does but I thought the immigration bill was retarded but even that started way before him.
Concur

[Okieflyer]

First off I would like to say I like KC. I just disagree with him.

The thing no one as figured out yet is this, that we have always had Wars and always will. At least until the end of the manmade government.

What is not understandable about "modern" warfare is that we try to make it antiseptic. War is horrible and always will be. That's why we would try our best to avoid it. That's where emotions should be considered and used. But once the war has begun, we should go out there and win at all costs. Emotions then need to be laid aside until it's over. Everyone was warned about these Muslims, but it wasn't politicly correct to say it. It might hurt their feelings. Now it's time to finish it. It doesn't matter if it was a good reason to start the war or not. We're in it and cannot afford to lose or run. Which I think is the same thing.

I think one of the biggest solutions is to get off foreign oil. So I think I'll make deal. If all of the libs who believe in manmade globalwarming and think we should just get out of Iraq will sell their cars and start riding bikes. I'll go buy a hybrid car, just to help out.

As long as the terrorist keep killing innocent civilians, then we should kill them where they sleep and be brutal about it.

[Okla-homey]

I'm military and and the public and I don't think we've been lied to. Not at all. Now if you want to dig you a hole and put your head in the sand, like most liberals do that's fine. The President laid out his plans before everyone on day 1, he said from the jump it would be a long hard fought war.

Also you guys who claim this is Bush's war seem to not remember anything before 2000.
Clinton had problems with the Mid East. Firing missiles at them, the first WTC, the USS Cole, he got us into Bosnia, and we still don't have a real clear direction as to what we are supposed to do over there.
Before that it was Bush I, who had problems with Iraq. (The Gulf War)
Before that Reagan had problems with Iraq/Iran and the Soviets
Before that Carter had problems with Iran.

So for the last 32 years we've had problems (with Dem Presidents and Pub Presidents) with in some way shape or form with Iraq/Iran and some of you guys think this is a Bush problem.

So yeah let's just pull out because after 32 years of beef in this region that's going to clear things up. If it wasn't for Bush we'd probably be BFFs, hell they'd be giving us free oil.
You guys watch too much T.V. and don't take the time to think about it with common sense. It's real easy to sit on the sidelines and jump on the criticize the President bandwagon.
For the record I don't just fall in line with everything Bush does but I thought the immigration bill was retarded but even that started way before him.

I agree and would emphasize, that like the dimwitted, plagiarizing, and finally, justly terminated Prof. Ward Churchill posited, this war is just the "chickens finally coming home to roost." However I disagree with the now soundly discredited former CU professor that we are the bad guys in all this. Instead, we simply acquiesced to too much for too long. Nonfeasance, not malfeasance. That and overdependence on Arab oil. Those two factors combined to put us in the fix we're in.

[Okieflyer]

I also think the Iranians are their own worst enemy. I don't think we'll have to attack them, unless they get a nuke. They're alienating they own people with the crack downs on dress and anything western. I think they will revolt, maybe not soon enough though.

[Okla-homey]

I also think the Iranians are their own worst enemy. I don't think we'll have to attack them, unless they get a nuke. They're alienating they own people with the crack downs on dress and anything western. I think they will revolt, maybe not soon enough though.

The nuclear sabre-rattling and demonizing of the West is what keeps the corrupt and absurdly anachronistic Iranian government in power. It's the oldest trick in the book. Tyrants remain in power by pointing to boogey men across their borders poised to strike and convincing the people that only the current leadership is capable of defending them from doom. It's simply a matter of taking folks minds off the fact they live in squallor and are repressed out the yingyang. Let's review: Napolean, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Tito, Saddam, Kim, and now, Iwannajihaad in Iran.

The US left would add GWB to the above list. Such assertions are patently absurd given our freedoms and economy are in great shape.

[Okieflyer]

The nuclear sabre-rattling and demonizing of the West is what keeps the corrupt and absurdly anachronistic Iranian government in power. It's the oldest trick in the book. Tyrants remain in power by pointing to boogey men across their borders poised to strike and convincing the people that only the current leadership is capable of defending them from doom. It's simply a matter of taking folks minds off the fact they live in squallor and are repressed out the yingyang. Let's review: Napolean, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Tito, Saddam, Kim, and now, Iwannajihaad in Iran.

The US left would add GWB to the above list. Such assertions are patently absurd given our freedoms and economy are in great shape.

Now don't get me wrong, the reason it would bother me to go into Iran is the same reason we're having problem in Iraq. We wouldn't go to win. We would do the same crap we're doing in Iraq and I'm not talking about our military and whether or not we're winning. It's the "war weary" american people.

It's has happened before with the Soviets falling from within. I guess, though, you could have another tiananmen square.

But if they do get a nuke and we don't do anything, we're in big trouble.

[SoonerBorn68]

you people are so stupid with your knee jerk polar political stuff. dems vs. the truth. did you read my post, i never said anything about pulling otu of iraq. i said we are in a stalemate mess that also include the democrats grandstanding.

you are far from an open-minded kind of guy, you use the word islamo-facist jsut like FOXNEWS taught you to. you used to post articles from Newsmax.com and at the same time criticize the NY TImes as a liberal rag.

your concept of truth is that you agree with what you agree with.

please.

This sounds like something a pointy headed, elitest, college professor might say when he's backed into a corner with the truth...

Oh wait...

[jk the sooner fan]

spek to usmc

[soonerscuba]

It's the oldest trick in the book. Tyrants remain in power by pointing to boogey men across their borders poised to strike and convincing the people that only the current leadership is capable of defending them from doom.

Refer: Dick Cheney.

I think that the idea of Iraq and WWII being framed the same is about the biggest logical leap one can make. The proof is in the pudding, Americans hate the war in Iraq, are sick of paying for it, and see no tangible gain from being there. Whereas WWII had resounding support from the public, was a team effort, and the stakes of losing were obviously a threat to our way of life. If, in 1944 we banged the war drum, gathered our forces, drove our boats on the beach, and there wasn't a German to be found, then yes, it would be quite similar to Iraq. After this, if FDR made a hasty argument that the French people needed liberating from the nonexistent Germans by means of occupation, then boy oh boy would Iraq and WWII be peas in a pod.

I know this board thinks that I am a bleeding heart, but really, I just believe in American exceptionalism. I would be perfectly happy to reduce that country to a pile of rubble, hear the lamentations of their women and steal their oil, just don't insult my intelligence by packaging it as "freedom". Hell, at least we get something out of it.

[Harry Beanbag]

Refer: Dick Cheney.

:rolleyes:




I think that the idea of Iraq and WWII being framed the same is about the biggest logical leap one can make. The proof is in the pudding, Americans hate the war in Iraq, are sick of paying for it, and see no tangible gain from being there. Whereas WWII had resounding support from the public, was a team effort, and the stakes of losing were obviously a threat to our way of life. If, in 1944 we banged the war drum, gathered our forces, drove our boats on the beach, and there wasn't a German to be found, then yes, it would be quite similar to Iraq. After this, if FDR made a hasty argument that the French people needed liberating from the nonexistent Germans by means of occupation, then boy oh boy would Iraq and WWII be peas in a pod.

We are simply going by the plan that Winston Churchill proposed before WWII even started. Try to finish it before it gets out of hand. Unfortunately nobody listened to him back then.




I know this board thinks that I am a bleeding heart, but really, I just believe in American exceptionalism. I would be perfectly happy to reduce that country to a pile of rubble, hear the lamentations of their women and steal their oil, just don't insult my intelligence by packaging it as "freedom". Hell, at least we get something out of it.

I think we should steal their oil too, but that's not happening. Bush's biggest problem is he hasn't told it like it is. He tried to come up with some gimmick to sell the American people and it backfired. He should have just come out at the beginning and said we're going to go out and kill every mother ****ing radical Islamic terrorist, their families, their protectors, and their sympathizers.

[StoopTroup]

Homey...

Your the history guy...

Didn't Preisdent Woodrow Wilson have some problems with sending our boys to war?

Maybe you could elaborate on his concerns at the time.

Are many of our current Leaders just having similar concerns?

I think alot of us just differ on how we should go about handling this terror thing.

I understand some peoples opinion that diplomacy can keep the World from completely falling apart and pushing the masses into another World War....

I also agree that if you attack the US on her own soil....you better expect to get your a$$ kicked.

No matter what anyone's view might be...I think folks have the right to question how some of our past engagements have taken place since the end of WWII.

The current War in Iraq is how many folks are making their dough.

It's too bad that more people aren't into the Patriot thing and joining the military. I think they've had a huge problem with trust for some time now.

There is no way I would ever get hard up enough to go to Iraq as a Private contractor but if I was called to duty or drafted...I would go and although I might have some reservations about sending one of own children...I think if you don't teach your kids it's wrong to not be a patriot of this great Nation of ours...your failing to teach your kids the basic concept as to what made this Country great and why it is the Greatest place to live on planet Earth.

[Okieflyer]

The proof is in the pudding, Americans hate the war in Iraq, are sick of paying for it, and see no tangible gain from being there.

I would hope Americans DO hate the war. But sick of paying for it doesn't mean crap. Look at the sacrifice American's had to make in the past. We aren't asked to make any sacrifice, oh except that our stocks might go down.:eek: We aren't rationing anything, oh I guess we are paying higher gas prices, but at least we're not having to ration that either.

No tangible gain from being there? Yes I guess if we could all go back in time and see what would happen if we had done it different would be great! But we can't. Although it makes great books and movies. We'll have the same situation when the Iranians get Nukes. We'll just say "I wished we'd gone in there and stopped them before they dropped one" or "That lying President *****, he took us into this war for political gain". Because it really has helped Bush.

[Okla-homey]

Homey...

Your the history guy...

Didn't Preisdent Woodrow Wilson have some problems with sending our boys to war?

Maybe you could elaborate on his concerns at the time.

Are many of our current Leaders just having similar concerns?

I think if you don't teach your kids it's wrong to not be a patriot of this great Nation of ours...your failing to teach your kids the basic concept as to what made this Country great and why it is the Greatest place to live on planet Earth.

You are correct. This nation was solidly and foursquare isolationist and anti-war prior to both the first two world wars. We only got involved in WWI in 1917, about a year before the armistice that ended it. Unrestricted German submarine warfare is what put us over the edge. Google "Lusitania"

If the Japanese Empire had not attacked first in '41, I'm reasonably confident we would have happily sat out WWII, at least until it looked like the UK was doomed. Heck, it can even be argued we drove the Japanese to attack us. Our policies of steadfastly denying them rubber, steel and oil (the big three in the mid 20th c. necessary for modern societies to function) thru our diplomacy and trade polices is what pushed them over the edge. And the thing of it was, WE turned them on to modernization when Commodore Perry busted in about a hundred years earlier and told a then medieval society (literally) to get with the flippin' program and open their ports and trade to the West.

As a Nation, we haven't went whistling happily off to war since the Span-Am in 1898.

I'll say something else, people who have been in war, universally hate it and hope it will never come again. I could have stayed in longer myself, but I was tired and had done my 23 years and decided to take it to the barn. 45 y/o guys have no business humping a ruck with an infantry brigade in the sandbox. At the same time, sometimes, a nation must step up and do what must be done to defend its way of life. That is what we did in the wake of 9/11 and I STILL support the Presidents leadership decisions, even when it was my Okie a-- on the line because of it. I maintain contact with an many folks involved and at the tip of the spear and they feel the same way.

I have no patience for armchair diplomats, academics. intelligentsia, etc. who engage in endless "coulda, woulda, shoulda." They have no idea what they're talking about and folks who have been involved in the situation in the first person know they're just...silly.

No amount of talking could have fixed the situation in the wake of 9/11. I'm telling you, I've looked these Arabic bastages in the eye on their turf (actually, sand) and spent a lot of personal and professional time trying to get to know and better understand them over my military career. At least since about 1988.

They are irrational, duplicitous and simply cannot be trusted. Its like lying is a sport or something. Pathological. They are an implacable enemy in the sense the "true believers" (happily only about 15% of the total) rejoice in dying for their version of God, especially if that death takes a few of us infidels with it. And it doesn't matter if they are US soldiers or US kindergartners. Either way, its all good.

Finally, the main reason about a half of the American people are disgusted with the war, is because it suits their political goals of throwing the elephants out and it's "cool" to be anti-war. I'll tell you something else, the so-called "waste" involved in the expense of prosecuting this war is helping to keep this economy we're enjoying humming. This country is rich enough to do whatever it deems important. Don't buy the crap that "but for this illegal war, we could do"...whatever.