New word to know

[Buford]

I just learned a new word watching an MSNBC piece on Iraq

Phased Redeployment

Im not sure but I think it's democrat
for surrender

[trust me]

I missed the news, but it does indeed sound like a protracted retreat.

[schroader]

CNN said that the DEMOCRAPS said that the US would be out of IRAq in 3 to 6 months..........:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

So them we can bring the WAR over here, with Bin Laden....

LORD help us now.

Schroader

[grouser68]

CNN said that the DEMOCRAPS said that the US would be out of IRAq in 3 to 6 months..........:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

So them we can bring the WAR over here, with Bin Laden....

LORD help us now.

Schroader:rolleyes:

Just like a REPUBLICANT.....I too watched CNN, it said they wouldlike to start.....I repeat.......START Troop pullout in 4-6 months! Geez Loiuse!

[raktrakr]

:rolleyes:

Just like a REPUBLICANT.....I too watched CNN, it said they would start.....I repeat.......START Troop pullout in 4-6 months! Geez Loiuse!And thats called buying votes for the 2008 presidential election

[grouser68]

And thats called buying votes for the 2008 presidential election

Nope! Thats called setting the record straight.....period! If your going to watch and then report the news, try to get it right!

[Buford]

:rolleyes:

Just like a REPUBLICANT.....I too watched CNN, it said they wouldlike to start.....I repeat.......START Troop pullout in 4-6 months! Geez Loiuse!

Whatever Grouser-a name well chosen...
The piece I watched with some democratic governor=god only knows why they interviewed a governer- said nothing of the kind
Phased redeployment- a vague, politically correct term for surrender
maybe you need to get it right before you spout off

[Buford]

I feel terrible for these guys over there
I cant imagine dealing with the daily stress and then finding out that the politicians at home are against your mission

[GSP]

Guys, keep it clean.

[grouser68]

Whatever Grouser-a name well chosen...
The piece I watched with some democratic governor=god only knows why they interviewed a governer- said nothing of the kind
Phased redeployment- a vague, politically correct term for surrender
maybe you need to get it right before you spout off

I never said a word about phased redeployment Buford! Seems your the one doing the spouting off!


GSP, your right! I called them republicants after the democraps remark! I should'nt have stooped to their level! For the record......thats the frist and last time I will be exchanging in the name calling game! It's just that after sooooooooooooo much of it, a man gets tired!

[grouser68]

In the immortal words of Wildcat...........congress can't do squat! It's up to the Prez to decide on all the troop issues! Congress can only take the money away.......and if you have been watching the news, the dem's have promised they would never.....ever.....take money from the troops. So, no need to get wrapped around the axel about any of this!

[Buford]

Yeah, dont pay any attention to the words of the democrats
Grouser says it doesnt matter

[Xi Bowhunter]

WOW:eek: Yet ANOTHER Democrat bashing thread, who would have guess since the last one got closed down. You might as well face it fellas, you got us for at least 2 years:D

[Buford]

No prob XI
but just call it a pullout
dont get po'd for getting called out... "phased redeployment" smacks of a chickenshat way of saying pullout

[grouser68]

Yeah, dont pay any attention to the words of the democrats
Grouser says it doesnt matter

I don't quite think I said that! Can you find that quote for me please?

One in your own party pointed out to us all that congress just holds the purse stings on the war, and he is right!

Why does what the democrats say bother you so?It's words! Should you believe what the news reports, why only report and believe in the negative? As I recall the Prez, and the new congress said they wanted to work together! Why can't you be positive and report that? Will they work together? Who knows, but they said they would try! I would hope they do!

The democratic congress does'nt take office until Jan. 20th if I recall right, why can't some give them a chance to try and help instead of trying to tear up the country with poisonous words meant to divide?

I can see the negativity will never stop on kentuckyhunting.net. But in the real world, in every day life I see people who are a bit more positive then what you will see here.

On a sidenote Buford, your comment about my screen name on here, I for one have no idea what that remark means, and am probably glad I don't! I believe it's just more partisan bitterness showing that I want no part of!

[kevhunter]

WOW:eek: Yet ANOTHER Democrat bashing thread, who would have guess since the last one got closed down. You might as well face it fellas, you got us for at least 2 years:D

I have noticed that it doesnt take much to get a thread closed anymore. A little arguing,a little disagreement and its over. I mostly get on here cause its no fun arguing with the wife anymore and now you cant even do that on here. Whats the world coming too?:)

[Multidigits]

I don't quite think I said that! Can you find that quote for me please?

One in your own party pointed out to us all that congress just holds the purse stings on the war, and he is right!

Why does what the democrats say bother you so?It's words! Should you believe what the news reports, why only report and believe in the negative? As I recall the Prez, and the new congress said they wanted to work together! Why can't you be positive and report that? Will they work together? Who knows, but they said they would try! I would hope they do!

The democratic congress does'nt take office until Jan. 20th if I recall right, why can't some give them a chance to try and help instead of trying to tear up the country with poisonous words meant to divide?

I can see the negativity will never stop on kentuckyhunting.net. But in the real world, in every day life I see people who are a bit more positive then what you will see here.

On a sidenote Buford, your comment about my screen name on here, I for one have no idea what that remark means, and am probably glad I don't! I believe it's just more partisan bitterness showing that I want no part of!


check the intentions. first order of business...start investigating the Republicans. Not what the people voted for....that's not change, just more of the same.

[gwhilikerz]

No prob XI
but just call it a pullout
dont get po'd for getting called out... "phased redeployment" smacks of a chickenshat way of saying pullout
I have no problem saying pull-out. The country voted last week and the message was pretty clear, to clear headed people. The people said that "Stay the Course" was no course at all and it was time for someone to actually come up with a plan to end our involvement in Iraq.

[gwhilikerz]

check the intentions. first order of business...start investigating the Republicans. Not what the people voted for....that's not change, just more of the same. Multi i don't agree with investigations either, but it is hardly an exclusively democrat thing. Didn't we have investigations and impeachments when the republicans took control in 94? ( And no I don't like any of the Democrat power people, it is still way to left for me. Although John Murtha has always been bold and truthful enough to say what he thinks about the war-the one in Iraq not the one on terror.

[maxcam]

“We need to redeploy,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”
That decision should be made by military officers in Iraq, he said. “And I think it should start within the next few months.”

Ol dirty Harry aint for it if he cant make a buck!

On the other hand.....

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican considering another run for president, said setting a date for withdrawal “will lead to chaos in the region” and that more troops might be required for stability.
“I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this but they all require the presence of additional troops,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

very contrasting opinion from a very moderate republican......

[slickhead slayer]

I have no problem saying pull-out. The country voted last week and the message was pretty clear, to clear headed people. The people said that "Stay the Course" was no course at all and it was time for someone to actually come up with a plan to end our involvement in Iraq.

Well since your one of these "clear headed people" who wanted someone with a plan on Iraq, can you tell me the Dems plan on Iraq???????
Because its the million dollar question, and the Dems have yet to give an answer.
I think your analysis is way off, the country punished the Repubs. But they didn't select someone who had a plan on Iraq, because the Dems have never had a plan.

[gwhilikerz]

slickhead I didn't say the dems, any of them, have come up with a plan. I said the voters told the republicans that they were not pleased with their "Stay the Course" plan and they want a new direction. We will have to wait and see what that direction is.
Don't you want someone with a plan too, or are you happy to see 2-3 soldiers killed per day for the foreseeable future? Is anything in Iraq worth 2900 American lives? We can't be the "cop on the beat" for the whole world. Make the Iraqis stand up and help themselves.

[maxcam]

Ive heard several from the democratic party say that redeployment and withdrawal are their plan.....

Pelosi and Murtha from the House....

Reid and Levin from the Senate......

Those four are your congressional leadership.......They are saying their plan is for troup withdrawal..... Some say within the next few months and others say within 4-6 months.....

I just listened to the general incharge of coalition troops in Irag say that anything less than staying till the end of next year would severely damage the success of their mission.....But what does he know!

[Bray]

Whether you are republican or democrat it doesn't matter, the American people voted and chose to change something about Iraq. The democrats chose to run on the Iraq ticket and hit paydirt. The president has no other choice but to listen after all there is 2008 to think about. But I wouldn't look for him to just pull out though, I believe that he wants whats best for that country. Pulling out isn't whats best, they have to come up with another plan and thats what I look for. You can call it what you want but we have to get out of there sometime the Iraq armed forces have to get their feet wet sometime. The American people have spoke up and staying the course simply isn't an option anymore.

Which brings me to my next point, The Democrats won the election becuase they pressed hard on getting out of Iraq. Everyone knows that. What gets me is that the politicians are allowing the security of our country to relie on someones election campaign in 2008. I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 becuase I thought that he would be the best man for our country. I didn't vote for him becuase Clinton had screwed up the integretity of the Whitehouse and it was time for a change. The average voting American doesn't know didly about foreign policy, wartime strategies, what fuels the economy, heck the average American can't balance a check book much less decide our foreign policy. But for some reason this is what's happening. Instead of voting for the man who will do the best no matter what the situation Americans have said "We want out of Iraq, these people can do it". If you will remember this happened to George Sr. on the first go round. Americans so the "road of death" and no longer supported the effort. Sr. bailed out before the job was done, truthfully it's his fault Iraq is in such a state now. I guess my point is that the American people shouldn't be left to decide the fate of our country. That wasn't the way our country was designed. The democrats made this election about the war and not about the person who will represent them in washington. I think because of the we will all suffer. (By suffer I don't mean the world is going to end, just that we aren't as good off as if the election was about electing the best man. THIS IS NOT GLOOM AND DOOM, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTIAN, lol)

[Buford]

There's not a person on here that doesnt want the killing of americans to end and for our guys to come home...The difference in opinion here is that I think if we simply come home all those guys died for nothing...It wont make anyone over there start loving us.
If we cant leave the region having stabilized it then we havent made the world any safer for our families.
IMO Running away compounds the problem and disgraces the cause men died for. I think those in the armed forces and their families show this feeling very clearly when interviewedd.

[Art]

It's all a big cycle. The dems will bring everyone home, and that's fine. Everything will appear cool on the surface for a few years for the most part until something happens that we realize could have been prevented. Then we will have to go back over there to take care of some things and it will start all over again. Sound familiar?? I'll admit that our plan in Iraq may be somewhat flawed in certain aspects BUT we already know that the "do nothing, turn the other cheek" approach doesn't work either. It seems that both sides have learned nothing.

[Xi Bowhunter]

No prob XI
but just call it a pullout
dont get po'd for getting called out... "phased redeployment" smacks of a chickenshat way of saying pullout
I hope they do pull out and send all the troops home. We haven't gotten anything accomplished by being over there but getting more of our own people killed. If we can't get what we set out to accomplish completed in 4 years then we need to cut our losses and leave it alone. We are supposed to be the world "super power", but all I see is our people trying to control a nation that we have no business trying to control. Either we take the nation over full force, or we leave it alone, simple as that. But this "humanitarian" approach of bombing buildings then giving them money to build them back up and spending our american lives to try and create a democracy in a land that doesn't want it is a bunch of crap. Face it, your boy "BUSH" couldn't get it done, so it's time to move on to other plans of action before mor e blood is spilled. You can't shove demoracy down a nation's throat that doesn't want it. They have their way of doing things and that is fine with me as long as they do it way over there. What we need to focus on is protecting our borders. Not just mexico, but all our borders and make sure another 9/11 never happens again. I'm not going to argue witgh you about this, I am just stating how I feel about the situation and what I think is the right direction.

[grouseguy]

Is anything in Iraq worth 2900 American lives?

From my perspective, that is exactly why I voted for a change last Tuesday. Once we have finally found out most of the truth, we simply had no business in Iraq to begin with and those 2,900 lives have been wasted, which as an American, I simply couldn't tolerate. Personally, I would love to see us pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. Being a father, I can't imagine what it would be like to loose my son, but to think his life was wasted as one of the last soldiers killed in a flawed mission would be nearly unbearable.

The people have spoken...its now time to correct past mistakes with as few additional casualties as possible. IMHO, whether we leave now, a year from now or five years from now, the end result for Iraq will be the same...a continuation of the ongoing civil war with eventually a military/religious dictator rising to power to take the place of Saddam Hussein. Once the new Iraqi government decided to form a "theocratic republic" instead of a democracy, their fate was sealed.

[Xi Bowhunter]

From my perspective, that is exactly why I voted for a change last Tuesday. Once we have finally found out most of the truth, we simply had no business in Iraq to begin with and those 2,900 lives have been wasted, which as an American, I simply couldn't tolerate. Personally, I would love to see us pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. Being a father, I can't imagine what it would be like to loose my son, but to think his life was wasted as one of the last soldiers killed in a flawed mission would be nearly unbearable.

The people have spoken...its now time to correct past mistakes with as few additional casualties as possible. IMHO, whether we leave now, a year from now or five years from now, the end result for Iraq will be the same...a continuation of the ongoing civil war with eventually a military/religious dictator rising to power to take the place of Saddam Hussein. Once the new Iraqi government decided to form a "theocratic republic" instead of a democracy, their fate was sealed.
Very well Said.

[schroader]

Fact of the matter is, is that We (as in everybody here in the US.) does know all the FACTS and for that part never will. We only get told what they what us to know.Everybody has an opinion but to pull out now would be stupid. That would mean that all of those who have DIED, died for nothing.....


Schroader

[grouseguy]

Everybody has an opinion but to pull out now would be stupid. That would mean that all of those who have DIED, died for nothing.....
Schroader

OK...now that we know what we know (as little or much as that may be)...what exactly did those 2,900 Americans die for in Iraq?

[Multidigits]

OK...now that we know what we know (as little or much as that may be)...what exactly did those 2,900 Americans die for in Iraq?


For one, to protect American soil from nut jobs like Saddam Husein and what happened on 9/11. I guess you've noticed that it hasn't yet been repeated?

[gwhilikerz]

No it hasn't been repeated but I'm not sure that has anything to do with Iraq. Didn't the British just break up a group that planned to bomb several places in England and the USA?. It takes vigilance at home to be able to stop those type things. All the 9-11 terrorists flew into this country and walked around openly until 9-11. What does our being in Iraq do to stop that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the war on terror. I think we should remain in Afghanistan until we find that sob and all his crew there, even if it means going into pakistan. But we accomplished the original mission in Iraq, we deposed saddam. Now we are not sure what the mission or strategy is there. I know people say that it would be chaos if we left now, but isn't chaos what we have there now?

[Multidigits]

No it hasn't been repeated but I'm not sure that has anything to do with Iraq. Didn't the British just break up a group that planned to bomb several places in England and the USA?. It takes vigilance at home to be able to stop those type things. All the 9-11 terrorists flew into this country and walked around openly until 9-11. What does our being in Iraq do to stop that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the war on terror. I think we should remain in Afghanistan until we find that sob and all his crew there, even if it means going into pakistan. But we accomplished the original mission in Iraq, we deposed saddam. Now we are not sure what the mission or strategy is there. I know people say that it would be chaos if we left now, but isn't chaos what we have there now?

Every one we kill over there or for each that kill themselves over there, that equates into less that will be over here doing what they do. Won't be long, Saddam will be swinging instead of sponsoring idiots to blow themselves up in front of inocent people.

[Bray]

No it hasn't been repeated but I'm not sure that has anything to do with Iraq. Didn't the British just break up a group that planned to bomb several places in England and the USA?. It takes vigilance at home to be able to stop those type things. All the 9-11 terrorists flew into this country and walked around openly until 9-11. What does our being in Iraq do to stop that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the war on terror. I think we should remain in Afghanistan until we find that sob and all his crew there, even if it means going into pakistan. But we accomplished the original mission in Iraq, we deposed saddam. Now we are not sure what the mission or strategy is there. I know people say that it would be chaos if we left now, but isn't chaos what we have there now?

We don't know 1% of what goes on when it comes to home land defense. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY OR WHAT HAS STOPPED TERRORIST ATTACKS? Maybe the government should question you or subscribe to whatever magazine you are reading. I AM SURE THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ? Those are pretty bold words, can you show me the facts behind this or has someone just told you that? Just curious

[grouseguy]

We don't know 1% of what goes on when it comes to home land defense. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY OR WHAT HAS STOPPED TERRORIST ATTACKS? Maybe the government should question you or subscribe to whatever magazine you are reading. I AM SURE THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ? Those are pretty bold words, can you show me the facts behind this or has someone just told you that? Just curious

How about findings from the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ex=1316750400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.



For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.



More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”

[Multidigits]

How about....

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”


s (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ex=1316750400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)


what was the grade under Clinton who did absolutely nothing to combat Islamic extremists, including allowing bin Laden a free pass and setting up several attacks against the US, including the USS Cole and the 9/11 attack.

[maxcam]

I would have to interject that alot of intelligence has been gained from capturing key Al Qaeda members in Iraq.

Tune in to CNN tonite at 7:00, 9:00 or 12 midnite to find out what the extreme fundamentalist Muslem movement is all about.......Glen Beck evidently has been monitoring several arabic news channels and tv stations and has put together a expose' on just what the leadership of this cult is promoting......Then form your own opinion!

[Xi Bowhunter]

We don't know 1% of what goes on when it comes to home land defense. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY OR WHAT HAS STOPPED TERRORIST ATTACKS? Maybe the government should question you or subscribe to whatever magazine you are reading. I AM SURE THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ? Those are pretty bold words, can you show me the facts behind this or has someone just told you that? Just curious
Always trust what the government says...no matter WHAT!:rolleyes: No questions asked!

[Multidigits]

Always trust what the government says...no matter WHAT!:rolleyes: No questions asked!


What about trust what the Leader of the military effort in Iraq says....or what Lieberman says about sending in MORE troops?????

[gwhilikerz]

We don't know 1% of what goes on when it comes to home land defense. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY OR WHAT HAS STOPPED TERRORIST ATTACKS? Maybe the government should question you or subscribe to whatever magazine you are reading. I AM SURE THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ? Those are pretty bold words, can you show me the facts behind this or has someone just told you that? Just curious

I think it was multi who said that our being in Iraq has stopped attacks here. My opinion is out there for anyone to read, but to explain it to you r..e..a..l s..l..o..w, we are not accomplishing one thing in Iraq. We have lost far more good men after overthrowing hussein than we did in the war against him. Why? Because we are just sitting there trying to keep the peace between waring factions of muslims. Iran is getting nukes, we do nothing, north korea has nukes, we do nothing. Saudi Arabia funds all sorts of terrorists, we do nothing. But more of our troops should die to defend a sunni from a shia from kurd? That is just stupid on our part.
Now load up you cap letters and shove them...oh well, I need to be more understanding.

[schuyler olt]

From my perspective, that is exactly why I voted for a change last Tuesday. Once we have finally found out most of the truth, we simply had no business in Iraq to begin with and those 2,900 lives have been wasted, which as an American, I simply couldn't tolerate. Personally, I would love to see us pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. Being a father, I can't imagine what it would be like to loose my son, but to think his life was wasted as one of the last soldiers killed in a flawed mission would be nearly unbearable.

The people have spoken...its now time to correct past mistakes with as few additional casualties as possible. IMHO, whether we leave now, a year from now or five years from now, the end result for Iraq will be the same...a continuation of the ongoing civil war with eventually a military/religious dictator rising to power to take the place of Saddam Hussein. Once the new Iraqi government decided to form a "theocratic republic" instead of a democracy, their fate was sealed.

Ah, yes. The politics of change. We cite 2900 dead Americans which, although sad, are fewer in number than we lost on September 11th. We have overthrown a dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own people, and we have given his people the window to create a free society. We seem to forget the sacrifices of the French and Hessians without whom we would not have won the Revolutionary War.

And I guess we could have written off the Arizona and its 1500 lives, and stayed out of WWII, and left the German citizens somehow deal with living under the Nazis.

But anyway, we went out and voted out our local representatives to "send a message" on the war. So in Louisville, we gave up a seat on the Appropriations Committee, ten years of seniority, a Congresswoman who doesn't mouth equal rights but lives it through her adopted children, and who was instrumental in converting the mission of Fort Knox and saving it from base closures. In exchange we got a guy who already is questioning the bridge project and who has already said he will not introduce any bills and will vote for the Democrat proposals. Now if you remember, most Democrat domestic proposals are not coal friendly, not tobacco friendly and sure don't favor those tax incentives to own race horses, and they certainly see to it that NYC, LA and San Fran gets theirs first before we look at poor little old Kentucky.

Just think--in the future you can cast yet another meaningless vote and get rid of the Senate Minority leader. That will SURELY help Kentucky!

The plebocite on the Iraq War was about the most naive voting behavior I've seen. Unfortunately, that little protest will cost the poor in this community dearly.

[C.L.Button]

Ah, yes. The politics of change. We cite 2900 dead Americans which, although sad, are fewer in number than we lost on September 11th. We have overthrown a dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own people, and we have given his people the window to create a free society. We seem to forget the sacrifices of the French and Hessians without whom we would not have won the Revolutionary War.

And I guess we could have written off the Arizona and its 1500 lives, and stayed out of WWII, and left the German citizens somehow deal with living under the Nazis.

But anyway, we went out and voted out our local representatives to "send a message" on the war. So in Louisville, we gave up a seat on the Appropriations Committee, ten years of seniority, a Congresswoman who doesn't mouth equal rights but lives it through her adopted children, and who was instrumental in converting the mission of Fort Knox and saving it from base closures. In exchange we got a guy who already is questioning the bridge project and who has already said he will not introduce any bills and will vote for the Democrat proposals. Now if you remember, most Democrat domestic proposals are not coal friendly, not tobacco friendly and sure don't favor those tax incentives to own race horses, and they certainly see to it that NYC, LA and San Fran gets theirs first before we look at poor little old Kentucky.

Just think--in the future you can cast yet another meaningless vote and get rid of the Senate Minority leader. That will SURELY help Kentucky!

The plebocite on the Iraq War was about the most naive voting behavior I've seen. Unfortunately, that little protest will cost the poor in this community dearly.

Well said and a bit too polite Sky. ;)

[grouseguy]

Ah, yes. The politics of change. We cite 2900 dead Americans which, although sad, are fewer in number than we lost on September 11th. We have overthrown a dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own people, and we have given his people the window to create a free society. We seem to forget the sacrifices of the French and Hessians without whom we would not have won the Revolutionary War.



Sky,

You are better than the above. I expect some here to continue to try to link 9-11 and Iraq in feeble attempts to justify our presence there, but you know there was no connection and to bring it up in this context places a credibility cloud over the remainder of your post. Then you follow that statement with another weak justification regarding how bad of a person Hussein was/is, when you know full well that is not sufficient justification for commiting our military to solve another country's internal problems, especially when you conviently omit the number of innocent Iraqi's that have lost their lives as a direct result of our presence in THEIR country. I guess I expected more from you than petty bitterness and misrepresentations, but then again, according to you, I am naive regarding this subject. Excuse me for having differing priorities and opinions.:mad:

[grouser68]

Ah, yes. The politics of change. We cite 2900 dead Americans which, although sad, are fewer in number than we lost on September 11th. We have overthrown a dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own people, and we have given his people the window to create a free society. We seem to forget the sacrifices of the French and Hessians without whom we would not have won the Revolutionary War.

And I guess we could have written off the Arizona and its 1500 lives, and stayed out of WWII, and left the German citizens somehow deal with living under the Nazis.

But anyway, we went out and voted out our local representatives to "send a message" on the war. So in Louisville, we gave up a seat on the Appropriations Committee, ten years of seniority, a Congresswoman who doesn't mouth equal rights but lives it through her adopted children, and who was instrumental in converting the mission of Fort Knox and saving it from base closures. In exchange we got a guy who already is questioning the bridge project and who has already said he will not introduce any bills and will vote for the Democrat proposals. Now if you remember, most Democrat domestic proposals are not coal friendly, not tobacco friendly and sure don't favor those tax incentives to own race horses, and they certainly see to it that NYC, LA and San Fran gets theirs first before we look at poor little old Kentucky.

Just think--in the future you can cast yet another meaningless vote and get rid of the Senate Minority leader. That will SURELY help Kentucky!

The plebocite on the Iraq War was about the most naive voting behavior I've seen. Unfortunately, that little protest will cost the poor in this community dearly.

I very much respect your opinion,I will make no attacks, lets just debate.

I agree with you that Saddam was a tyrant. In his time, he killed/murdered over 200,000 of his own people in 20 years.I have asked this question several times on here and have yet to get a response.In the same year we invaded Iraq, the Rwandan govt. murdered over 850,000 of their own people.If the reason now is we invaded Iraq because Saddam killed so many of his people, why then did we not invade Rwanda?

Right now in Darfur, the very same thing is happening, what are we doing there?

As for meaningless votes, and naive voting, I respect your opinion on that, but the majority did'nt see it that way.

As for Yarmoth(sp) I would'nt have voted for him either!

[schuyler olt]

Let me explain why I think it is naive to vote out members of the House in a protest to the President.

A Rep has a two year term. Their responsibility is to represent their constituency, and to make sure that local voice is heard in Washington. They have no say whatsoever in the confirmation of cabinet or judicial appointments. To put it somewhat crassly, we send them to DC in order to bring home our fair share of the bacon.

Their ability to do that strongly depends upon their committee appointments. Those appointments, in turn, are largely if not entirely a reflection of seniority. So we had a ten year rep who had a seat on Appropriations, which is one of the most, if not the most, powerful committees in the House. We now have a rookie from a small state.

That's bad news. And that vote won't get one soldier out one day earlier than otherwise. A very strong argument can be made that it will have exactly the opposite effect by suggesting to the insurgents that we are soft--just ask the Viet Cong.

GG, you are worried about losing a son to war. We lose more kids in Louisville to gang violence every week than we have lost in both Iraq wars from this community. I don't know about Saddam's WMD aside from the absolute truth that he had them and used them against his own people and held the UN inspectors at bay for months on end--probably while his trucks carted them over the Syrian border.

I don't care, either. We have our own WMDs in my town--crack, meth, heroin, vicoden, etc. That's what I care about. I want my cops to have mobile data terminals, and Northup got the million bucks to do it. I don't really care what the Baghdad cops have. I'm worried about the effectiveness of Child Protective Services, which has the responsibility for taking care of the crackheads' kids. Every week DOZENS of children in this community come into that system because their parents do dope.

Yeah, maybe I'm bitter. The liberal voters like you GG put the welfare of Iraqi children before the welfare of Kentucky children. Oh sure--we'll have a new minimum wage that will still be below the starting wage at McDonalds. There's just one problem. Dopers and gangbangers don't work. They rob, steal and murder.

The minimum wage we need to think about is the salary base of our police officers.

And by the way, the next time you accuse me of making a "misrepresentation", I would appreciate the courtesy of your pointing out EXACTLY what it is.

[daking]

Here, Here Sky. I wish I'd have been quick enough and eloquent enough to say it. The nail has been squarely struck on its head.

[Auk1124]

I thought the Hessians fought on the side of England, not us.

And I think grouseguy has a point on the Iraq/Rwanda thing. What about East Timor, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, etc.? I think zapping Saddam was a good thing for sure, but it is kinda hard to base the justification solely on the "he was a bad dude" argument when there are so many other bad dudes out there slaughtering people, without us zapping them.

I think whether a lot of us on here like it or not, the American people want an end to this thing, or at least a plan in place with the goal of pulling out of that hell-hole eventually. And they voted that way on the 7th because the powers in place weren't giving them what they wanted to hear. And I think it is as simple as that.

And I think when we leave we ought to suck their oil reserves dry on the way out the door.

Just my two pesos.

[schuyler olt]

Auk, you're right about the Hessians.

The shortcoming of your thinking is that you are almost saying that if we can't take care of all of it, take care of none of it. We obviously don't have the resources to do that.

The situation in Central Africa is terrible, no doubt. But where are the French, the Canadians, the Russians, the Germans, etc.? That would be a humanitarian relief effort worthy of them. But they don't step up, either. Western Europe loves to hide behind the flag of the UN, but when it hits the fan they expect the UN flag to be militarily supported by the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. To some extent, that's the baggage that comes with being a superpower.

There isn't a conservative out there that enjoys the idea that we are in Iraq. It's bloody and it's expensive. But we needed to be in there. Do not ever forget the rhetoric that was coming out of Saddam after 9/11. I'm not saying that we invade because some tinpot spouts off at the mouth--we've put up with that yap dog in Cuba for 40+ years. But Saddam had demonstrated the willingness and the ability to commit genocide, and his words were that we would get ours. Why give him the chance?

We talk about the American people wanting to hear a plan for withdrawl from Iraq. I'm not certain that I really do, because if I hear it, the insurgents will hear it. I remember all too well how the North Vietnamese used our plan to their advantage. Maybe we keep our mouths shut. Maybe we keep them guessing. Disinformation saves lives, as does secrecy.

But short of one vote on some bill, a Representative has about as much say as you or I. When we used that election to "send a message", all we did was shoot ourselves in the foot.

[Xi Bowhunter]

What about trust what the Leader of the military effort in Iraq says....or what Lieberman says about sending in MORE troops?????
It's too little too late, if we can't get the job done in the YEARS we have been over there, what makes you think it will EVER get accomplished in the direction it is going in now? No movement=no success, we need a new plan.

[gwhilikerz]

Would some of you longwinded guys please tell me what the President's plan for Iraq actually is? I supported his plan when it was kick saddam's butt because he has wmd's and he used them back in the 80's against his own people. I didn't support a plan that puts us in another Vietnam so somebody tell me what the plan is. Or should I just trust the President and not worry myself over the details?

[Multidigits]

Would some of you longwinded guys please tell me what the President's plan for Iraq actually is? I supported his plan when it was kick saddam's butt because he has wmd's and he used them back in the 80's against his own people. I didn't support a plan that puts us in another Vietnam so somebody tell me what the plan is. Or should I just trust the President and not worry myself over the details?


The Presidents plan is to let the military decide what is needed. Yesterday, they said it would be a mistake to pull out early. Two Senators wanted to send in more troops, one a dem and one a Rep. and he said it wasn't needed. If you don't want another VN, politics need to stay out of it. Let the Brass decide when it's over.

[yote hunter]

It's too little too late, if we can't get the job done in the YEARS we have been over there, what makes you think it will EVER get accomplished in the direction it is going in now? No movement=no success, we need a new plan.the job would have been done 2 yrs ago if the dems didnt give the terrorist and insurgants moral support.if most americans were on on the same page the the terrorists would have given up buy now.

[gwhilikerz]

the job would have been done 2 yrs ago if the dems didnt give the terrorist and insurgants moral support.if most americans were on on the same page the the terrorists would have given up buy now.
That's a crock.

[gwhilikerz]

The Presidents plan is to let the military decide what is needed. Yesterday, they said it would be a mistake to pull out early. Two Senators wanted to send in more troops, one a dem and one a Rep. and he said it wasn't needed. If you don't want another VN, politics need to stay out of it. Let the Brass decide when it's over.

Multi I watched the General testify. He said he didn't want more troops in Iraq because it would lead to a problem of not having enough forces in reserve to rotate the troops on schedule. If we don't have enough to even do rotations in Iraq how are we going to respond in a timely manner to other threats? I agree the military should be running the war, but I also think that the politicians are telling the generals what to do and if they don't do it then we get a new general. I also don't agree that the military should set the mission. They should get the mission from the White House, what the mission is and what the completion of the mission will be. That's a plan