Please don't vote for McCain

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2472836
Not really... they say the shells they found were from the time of the Gulf War. But even if those weapons had the capablility to reach Israel or Kuwait... its not an imminent threat to the United States as portrayed by the Bush Admin at the start of the war. The shells that were found were said to be unharmful.
If they did strike Israel that may would lead for us to get invloved; however, didn't Israel just go through something like this not to long ago and they responded with their own military against Hezbollah?
What?
Who is "they"? I posted a link, from a reputable news source, saying the troops suffered effects of Sarin poisoning and were treated. Artillery shells are not missile warheads. I think you're confusing the two.
President Bush, as I quoted, said "Imminent threat to the world", not just the USA. You keep trying to change that. A listed several reason why he was a threat to the world.
No. Israel did not go through something similar. I'm not going to bother explaining the recent conflict involving Israel and the differences.
How about explaining how a binary shell tested positive for Sarin in 2004?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2472840
Its not a reason to wage a war.
And haven't we already fought Iraq... this makes no sense... He also seems to be testing us in the Bush Admin... so are you saying he is a cut and run politican? I doubt that you are... This is not the cold war or a fight against communism... we are in new times and you can't really relate the 2 eras. I'm not saying we need to go to war with them, so don't make that assumption, as I am sure you would do.
Rylan, I'm sure you've noticed President Bush is leaving office soon. As is Putin.
We are in "new times". The time for showing weakness and singing Koombya" died after
on Sept 11.
I know you're not saying we should go to war with them. I know exactly what you were saying. You were trying to mix a flyby of a Russian bomber with Saddam's 2000+ hostile actions against Allied pilots in the No Fly Zone.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2472854
I agree with this, which is why I have a hard time believing Saddam supported terrorist organizations.
Don't let the facts alter your beliefs in any way...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...shtml?source=s
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe....palestinians/
"Saddam funneled his funds through the front, which gave $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, $10,000 to the families of those killed in the intifada, and smaller sums to the wounded." (taken from last link)

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2472871
You did answer your own questions.. You asked me to summarize in question #1 where you provided a link...so all the info was right there...no need for me summarize
#2 who was the president after desert storm? Ummm ...
#1. So read and summarize it... there is a lot of great info in that Resolution you don't seem to know.
#2. Wrong. Try again.
#3. Still waiting. How long should the Inspectors have been given?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2472876
Not really... we have the capablity of taking those missles out before they would be a threat, 2nd if he sent them.. that would be a justification for war.
We allow S. Korea and Iran to have nukes... this is more of an imminent threat.
First off, South Korea is an ally, and they don't have Nukes.
Second, North Korea was given a nuclear program under President Clinton. Kind of too late to stop them. The current Admin has been doing everything possible to stop their program; including getting China to pressure them.
Third, you say China and North Korea are more imminent threats, yet the last time I checked neither of them had invaded a neighbor and started a major war in the last 20 years.
Fourth, our missile shield technology if far from perfect... as clearly shown by the number of SCUDS that hit Israel.
Fifth, so your policy is to let our troops sit within range of a WMD attack and not doing anything until they are gassed? Only then is that justification for war?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2472880
As I said if they said those remarks, I don't know and am not defending... they can say whatever they want... but if I said it... it would be making the comparison that this a war that will have no winners... we have objectives over there that are not being fulfilled. As I see it there are 2 options.
1. Withdraw our troops over a period of a year or so, and keep some presence in the area.
2. Stay in a war and in Iraq for the nxt 10-100 years.
You left out option 3. Win

I know thats up to Iraq but we need to give it a few more months to see if they are going to get their act together before deciding how we get out. All the Dems "ill end the war in 30 days" crap is just that.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2472880
...
1. Withdraw our troops over a period of a year or so, and keep some presence in the area.
2. Stay in a war and in Iraq for the nxt 10-100 years.
#1. See, Obama has said similar, and it's a stupid statement. The "Surge" has produced numerous positive changes in Iraq. So you want to remove most of those troops. Don't you think that will get the remaining American troops in the area all killed? Do you think their casualty numbers will go up or down when you withdraw most of the army?
Why keep a presence in the area?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2472881
This may be true, but who are we fighting?
See Rylan, there is one of your fundamental mistakes. We are fighting terrorism; Not just Al Qaeda. After 9-11 some of us realized that we can't sit back and allow pockets of crazy people around the world continue to train, amass weapons, and plan attacks against us.
Terrorism in general. That's the war that was declared upon us, and the war we are fighting; in Iraq, in Indonesia, In Africa, In Afghanistan, In Central America, and a whole host of other places you and I will never hear about.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2472924
You left out option 3. Win

....
To many Democrats that's not an option.
They painted themselves in a corner with the "Iraq is lost" dogma. Now, if Iraq is a success, they will have to admit they were wrong, the war in Iraq was a good idea, and they don't know how to handle foreign policy. Furthermore it will be proof they are weak militarily.
They'll sacrifice a victory in Iraq...

 

[stdreb27]

At some point, before my life ends, I'd like to see a democrat give a educated, well developed response to something.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471900
No, whats hypocritical is that McCain said he and Congress regrets the genocide they allowed to happen in Rwanda, and that he doesn't want it to happen in Iraq...yet its happening right now in Africa. I read a report that like in the last 8 years or so there have been over 500,000 deaths in Sudan region.
Less than 200 people have died in Africa in the last 10 years. Africa is relatively peaceful. The only reason people want us to go there is because they want to occupy more countries and steal their resources.
***EDIT***
The above statement is totally false. I made it up and posted it only as an example of how important it is to post facts, that you have substantiated, and that you can back up, when having a discussion like this.

 

[bdhutier]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2472926
The "Surge" has produced numerous positive changes in Iraq. So you want to remove most of those troops. Don't you think that will get the remaining American troops in the area all killed? Do you think their casualty numbers will go up or down when you withdraw most of the army?
Certainly, Journey! I believe this was Bush's fundamental mistake... if he had listened to Shinseki instead of firing him, and sent in around 300K* troops at the onset, I believe the region would look substantially different. I do agree with McCain on this issue. As much as I hate to, since I'm going back into the Army, I agree with him we need more people there.
Listen, Democrats... the government needs improvement, no doubt, but THERE IS NO POLITICAL SOLUTION. There can only be a political solution when the majority of insurgents are Iraqis. The VAST majority of them are still foreigners (Syrians, Chechens, Saudis, Iranians, etc.), and could care less what the Iraqi government does. How could you possibly form an internal political solution with foreigners???

*Edit: I pulled 300K out of my wazoo while posting, what I've seen from his testimony to the Senate was this: "... several hundred thousand."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/fallows.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ite-usat_x.htm

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2472959
Less than 200 people have died in Africa in the last 10 years.
huh? Sorry man that doesn't make any sense.

 

[aquaknight]

200? That's like how many people hippo's eat daily, right?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2472865
I've heard this comparison on numerous occasions, usually to indicate that the US will lose. These comparisons have come from Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, T Kennedy the leaders of your party.
Ok, let me play journey or even darth...
Name 5 independent sources that support this view.

 

[darthtang aw]

Ok, first off what am I being asked.
Second you have not answered the original three questions posed by Journey.
3rd you fail to comprehend that you have yet to list ONE country that was doing all things Hussein and Iraq were. Sure, I can 20 doing one or 2 of those things, but all of them or even 80% of them? no.

 

[m0nk]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2472959
Less than 200 people have died in Africa in the last 10 years. Africa is relatively peaceful. The only reason people want us to go there is because they want to occupy more countries and steal their resources.
Yeah, I gotta admit, I think you're a little off there. Sorry, but I think that's like how many people die from AIDS every week or something. Hell, even some 1,000 people have been killed so far in the election problems in Kenya over the past couple months.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2472917
#1. So read and summarize it... there is a lot of great info in that Resolution you don't seem to know.
#2. Wrong. Try again.
#3. Still waiting. How long should the Inspectors have been given?
I answered #3

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2473012
Ok, let me play journey or even darth...
Name 5 independent sources that support this view.
what? the very charge I'm charge is saying that LIBERALS are comparing Iraq to Vietnam in the sense it is unwinnable. You say name an independence source? I'd have to quote moronic liberals to back up my point. I love your gauntlet, to bad you can't prove what you say. But I leave you with a quote from harry ried. And a link to the fringe left that your leaders pander to on a daily basis.
“I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything”
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0419-11.htm

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2472926
#1. See, Obama has said similar, and it's a stupid statement. The "Surge" has produced numerous positive changes in Iraq. So you want to remove most of those troops. Don't you think that will get the remaining American troops in the area all killed? Do you think their casualty numbers will go up or down when you withdraw most of the army?
Why keep a presence in the area?
The statement may be stupid to you, but the majority of americans feel otherwise.
Keep a presence in case we have to go in to dismantle a terrorist organization setting up or whatever.. I don't think anyone is saying we should cut and run .... but that we should get out responsibably and keep an eye on the situation.. So I am okay with missions if they are needed, but not having the soilders there on a constant basis, except for the embasy.