Who are you voting for. [Archive] - Page 2

dataintsmiff

11-29-2007, 04:56 PM

At what number of deaths should we leave? I think that the number of deaths we have had, however unfortunate, is a paltry sum when compared with the untold body bags that the collapse of stability in the MiddleEast would bring. Not to mention the cost of pulling out and then having to redeploy in a matter of 1 - 2 years.

Although war is a necessary evil and losing American Soldiers over there is horrible, I must say that I agree with your statement...this country was built on the backs of American GI's who gave their lives so that we could live as we do today, and I will bet my last dollar that the majority of those who are serving over there right now are proud to be there representing our country, I would know this SuperBran because I was one of those and I understand the Soldier in combat because I lived that life.....I weep everytime one of my brothers or sisters are lost, I don't like it, but each of them knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed up, remember, we are protected by a military that is an all VOLUNTEER FORCE....:jestera:

dataintsmiff

11-29-2007, 04:58 PM

Iraq was more stable when Saddam was in power. He was ruthless. We are not.
Like I mentioned above - we should have left him in power. It would have been cheaper to keep him in the fishbowl that we trapped him in.

While I believe it might have been cheaper, I don't believe that would've been the smartest thing to do, considering how many of his people wanted him dead, he probably wouldn't have lasted long anyhow!:alien:

WheatCity

11-29-2007, 05:02 PM

Although war is a necessary evil and losing American Soldiers over there is horrible, I must say that I agree with your statement...this country was built on the backs of American GI's who gave their lives so that we could live as we do today, and I will bet my last dollar that the majority of those who are serving over there right now are proud to be there representing our country, I would know this SuperBran because I was one of those and I understand the Soldier in combat because I lived that life.....I weep everytime one of my brothers or sisters are lost, I don't like it, but each of them knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed up, remember, we are protected by a military that is an all VOLUNTEER FORCE....:jestera:

I agree. I think the greatest honor we can do our fighting men and women is to make policy decisions that put them in a position to have the most success with the smallest sacrifice.

BTW - thanks for your service. I'm the first in a long line of Marines not to serve. My father and grandfather demanded that I go to college instead of the Marines........and if I had not promised by passed Grandfather not to enlist.......I wouldn't still feel guilty for not enlisting.

WheatCity

11-29-2007, 05:04 PM

While I believe it might have been cheaper, I don't believe that would've been the smartest thing to do, considering how many of his people wanted him dead, he probably wouldn't have lasted long anyhow!:alien:

You are absolutely correct - he would have been eliminated at some point. However, I feel that situation would have been infinetely more manageable. Like I said in a previous post, the hardest part is that deBaathification has removed the infrastructure of an affective government.

Kamd50

11-29-2007, 05:54 PM

I may be wrong, but I believe there were more people killed in the WTC attacks than soldiers have died in Iraq. Im sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

Here is, unfortunately, everything one needs to know when it comes to this topic.
http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 06:03 PM

Here is, unfortunately, everything one needs to know when it comes to this topic.
http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

At least it looks like they are getting smaller in the by-month comparison. Still, too many though.

dataintsmiff

11-29-2007, 06:20 PM

At least it looks like they are getting smaller in the by-month comparison. Still, too many though.

Thanks for the info., unfortunately still too high..

SuperBran

11-30-2007, 10:41 AM

Whatever you said, again, it makes no sense, something that you are most probably used to though

if it makes no sense to you then you obviously have a problem with comprehension.

..you did say that Iraq was more stable than when we as a military got there, which Einstein, means that Saddam was in power then, so one could only presume that you meant it was more stable with him in power

oh dear god. you "presume" that i meant it was more stable with hussein in power??? i specifically said:

the country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.

what needed to be presumed there?

AGAIN, although hussein was a horrible person, the country was MUCH more stable before we got there. you mistake stability with civility. the country is now an absolute mess. anyone who takes office has to pray that he wakes up the next day.

but i shouldn't expect much from a guy who tried to tell people that there are no deaths occurring over there right now. LOL.

WheatCity

11-30-2007, 11:57 AM

AGAIN, although hussein was a horrible person, the country was MUCH more stable before we got there. you mistake stability with civility. the country is now an absolute mess. anyone who takes office has to pray that he wakes up the next day. .

SuperBran,

I you were in a place of influence, what would your Iraq solution look like?

SuperBran

11-30-2007, 01:21 PM

SuperBran,

I you were in a place of influence, what would your Iraq solution look like?

first of all, i wouldn't have been so eager to go to war. there are reports that bush made his decision to go to war without consulting cheney, rumsfeld or powell. also there are reports that in november of 2001, three months after september 11, bush ordered rumsfeld to develop a war plan for iraq.

our self-proclaimed "war president" was hell bent on entering iraq, regardless of the amount of evidence we had.

that's neither here nor there, though, as we can't go back in the past.

right now i think there needs to some sort of plan.....ANY plan...........for withdrawal. the only plan we have right now is "stay the course." bush pulled back and ended major operations. after that our death tolls increased dramatically.

i don't think that we can just up and leave tomorrow. we definitely need a timeline for withdrawal (not within a week or a month, but definitely not within years). during that time we work to develop a political infrastructure, hopefully with the assistence of other allies. we also step up our operations to combat insurgents and go on the offensive. some of what i'd do is what we're doing now. however, i think that we definitely need a date of withdrawal. if the country is unstable after that time, sadly it probably never will be stable. unfortunately that's what happens when you rush in without a plan. regardless, though, i'd rather have our troops home. i don't want them over there for years trying to fight a lost cause, while at the same time watching the death tolls rise. we shouldn't become a permanent fixture in that country.

i truly believe that much of the chaos over there has to do with our presence in the country, just like our country would be in an uproar if we were occupied.

would my plan be the perfect plan plan? probably not....especially since i'm not privy to the information that our countries leaders have access to on a daily basis. however, if i have the choice of having our troops home with iraq in a mess, or our troops over there with iraq a mess, guess which one i'd prefer?

WheatCity

11-30-2007, 01:55 PM

Thanks for the response.

Unfortunately, it ignores one essential problem. Regional stability. True, Iraq is a mess w/ or w/out us being there - at least in the present.

However, we need to examine the desires of the nations in the region:
1) Iran wants to be the dominate power in the Persian Gulf. Also, like Russia's self imposed identity of "protectors of all slavs" pre-WWI, Iran sees themselves as the ultimate protectors of all Shi'ia- Iraq's majority.

2) Saudia Arabia needs to maintain the status quo. The last thing they want is a new power in the Persian Gulf (especially Iran) that may hinder the Al-Saud's ability to exploit oil revenues. If they loose their cash flow, their savagely repressed population would topple them. Also, Egypt and Saudia Arabia are allied protectors of the Sunni.

If we leave, Iran is going to make a play to control the Persian Gulf. This provides 2 likely outcomes:
1) Iran becomes the dominant regional power and cuts our cheap oil off. This would lead to worldwide depression
2) Saudi Arabia checks Persian agression and all out regional war breaks out. A war that we would HAVE to participate so that old ladies don't freeze to death in the winter. Obviously, this would be a much larger problem than our current state of affairs.

We not only are going to be there for years, we are going to be there for decades. We are still in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea.
The only thing that would allow us to leave is the widespread use of an alternative energy source.

SuperBran

11-30-2007, 02:38 PM

We not only are going to be there for years, we are going to be there for decades. We are still in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea.
The only thing that would allow us to leave is the widespread use of an alternative energy source.

that's the choice we have to make....either stay there indefinitely or back out. the difference between iraq and germany, japan, or s. korea is that we would have to have a much larger presence in iraq, especially with the religious tensions on iraq. if we remain in iraq then we're either going to have to commit a huge number of troops over there or try to gain the support of others.

these are issues/questions that should have been addressed prior to going to war.

to say that the iraq situation is a mess is an understatement.

dataintsmiff

12-01-2007, 01:54 PM

if it makes no sense to you then you obviously have a problem with comprehension.

oh dear god. you "presume" that i meant it was more stable with hussein in power??? i specifically said:

what needed to be presumed there?

AGAIN, although hussein was a horrible person, the country was MUCH more stable before we got there. you mistake stability with civility. the country is now an absolute mess. anyone who takes office has to pray that he wakes up the next day.

but i shouldn't expect much from a guy who tried to tell people that there are no deaths occurring over there right now. LOL.

Originally Posted by SuperBran
the country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.
:dance:
That pretty much says it all there einstein, The country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.....hmmm, let's study that....the dictator at that time was, yeah you got it right sherlock, Hussein.....guess you should go back and study what you wrote before you try to push your liberal agendas on someone else....get a clue....you make me want to puke...:dance:

SuperBran

12-02-2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by SuperBran
the country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.
:dance:

yep, that's what i said.

That pretty much says it all there einstein, The country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.....hmmm, let's study that....the dictator at that time was, yeah you got it right sherlock, Hussein

so now you've established that hussein was the dictator that i was referring to. um, i think i said that in my original post, genius. what dictator did you think i was referring to?

yes, you've FINALLY put the pieces together, and it's only taken you a few more days to do it than my cat. congrats!

so let me say it one more time in a way that even you can understand: iraq was more stable under hussein than it is now. clear enough? wait, why don't you just post again about hussein was in command at that time......that seems to be your response when you have no comeback.

guess you should go back and study what you wrote before you try to push your liberal agendas on someone else.

you truly don't appear to be very bright. study what i wrote? i know exactly what i wrote. i said that the country was more stable under hussein. simple enough. what is so complex about that?

liberal agenda? try reality. but go back to believing what the president says and ignore the truth. keep telling yourself that no one's dying over there right now.....i'll have fun making you look stupid (although it's really not that hard).

more proof that a GED really isn't equivalent.

dear god, i can't decide if talking to you is like talking to a 3 year old or the wall. thanks for wasting everyone's time. it's taken you this long to establish what i clearly stated in my original post. i think you need to do a little more research before your next round of babble.

TigerFan2000

12-02-2007, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by SuperBran
the country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.
:dance:
That pretty much says it all there einstein, The country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.....hmmm, let's study that....the dictator at that time was, yeah you got it right sherlock, Hussein.....guess you should go back and study what you wrote before you try to push your liberal agendas on someone else....get a clue....you make me want to puke...:dance:

I've been following your posts, and man, you've got me totally confused. What the hell are you trying to say? You don't seem to have it all together guy. You keep referring to left wing and liberal agendas. You sound very parnoid and not with reality. Maybe some xanax, zolof or mind calming yoga can help you out. Oh yeah, yoga's for liberal nuts. Amazing.... Get it together man..

dataintsmiff

12-02-2007, 07:49 PM

yep, that's what i said.

so now you've established that hussein was the dictator that i was referring to. um, i think i said that in my original post, genius. what dictator did you think i was referring to?

yes, you've FINALLY put the pieces together, and it's only taken you a few more days to do it than my cat. congrats!

so let me say it one more time in a way that even you can understand: iraq was more stable under hussein than it is now. clear enough? wait, why don't you just post again about hussein was in command at that time......that seems to be your response when you have no comeback.

you truly don't appear to be very bright. study what i wrote? i know exactly what i wrote. i said that the country was more stable under hussein. simple enough. what is so complex about that?

liberal agenda? try reality. but go back to believing what the president says and ignore the truth. keep telling yourself that no one's dying over there right now.....i'll have fun making you look stupid (although it's really not that hard).

more proof that a GED really isn't equivalent.

dear god, i can't decide if talking to you is like talking to a 3 year old or the wall. thanks for wasting everyone's time. it's taken you this long to establish what i clearly stated in my original post. i think you need to do a little more research before your next round of babble.

Maybe you should spend more time in the gym and less time on the computer...not to mention the fact that your pompous overbearing attitude is about all that I can take...this is a forum to discuss political views...I asked simple questions about your posts, you've been nothing short of rude, and guaranteed, I know for a fact that you don't talk like that face to face with people...Its a forum, if you don't agree with me, get over it, otherwise, leave me alone, your name calling is way over the edge and you need to grow up..

dataintsmiff

12-02-2007, 08:08 PM

um, here's a good tip. actually read, COMPREHEND, and then answer.

did i say that iraq was stable under hussein? absolutely not. i said that it was more stable then it is now. right now it's pure chaos. you talk about the thousands that were slaughtered and tortured. how about the thousands of troops that have died fighting this meaningless "war." bush stormed in with the justification that hussein had WMD. that turned out to be wrong and now he's failing to restore order in the country.........while we sit back and watch young soldiers died each week. my god, they can't even elect officials w/o having them assassinated. if you actually think that the country is more stable right now then you've got your head in a hold.

Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, please refer to YOUR QUOTE ABOVE...flip flop anyone?:dance: I mean first you said it then you didn't, what exactly is your stance? Oh I know, you go by the Kerry form of politics....

SuperBran

12-02-2007, 08:53 PM

Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, please refer to YOUR QUOTE ABOVE...flip flop anyone?:dance: I mean first you said it then you didn't, what exactly is your stance? Oh I know, you go by the Kerry form of politics....

oh my god. please stop embarrassing yourself and your family. i've never met ANYONE, kids included, that has had such a hard time comprehending.

flip-flop? PLEASE explain how i'm flip-flopping???

here's a quick summary:

(1) i originally said that IRAQ, ALTHOUGH UNDER A DICTATOR, WAS MORE STABLE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.

(2) you thought that i said iraq was STABLE under hussein.

(3) i CLEARLY pointed out that i said that IRAQ WAS MORE STABLE WHEN HUSSEIN WAS IN POWER. please note that this is the second time i stated this.

(4) i stated AGAIN, that IRAQ WAS MORE STABLE WHEN HUSSEIN WAS IN POWER.

where the flip-flop genius??????? please don't blame me for your inability to comprehend.

how about i take you to see the wizard, scarecrow.

SuperBran

12-02-2007, 09:01 PM

Maybe you should spend more time in the gym and less time on the computer...

it's ridiculous, asinine posts like this that make you lose credibility.

i think you need to spend time at the library before trying to argue with adults.

this is a forum to discuss political views...I asked simple questions about your posts, you've been nothing short of rude, and guaranteed

no, what you've done is make ridiculous comments that have no factual support....then you get frustrated when people call you out and act foolishly.

I know for a fact that you don't talk like that face to face with people

really? another ignorant comment coming from someone who doesn't even know me.

Its a forum, if you don't agree with me, get over it, otherwise, leave me alone

so you say that this is a forum dedicated to political views, but you want me to leave you alone if i don't agree with you?? LOL. just b/c you can't handle criticism of your views doesn't mean that i can't point out your flawed logic. if you can't handle it, then don't keep responding.

dataintsmiff

12-02-2007, 09:03 PM

[QUOTE=SuperBran;87237]oh my god. please stop embarrassing yourself and your family. i've never met ANYONE, kids included, that has had such a hard time comprehending.

flip-flop? PLEASE explain how i'm flip-flopping???

here's a quick summary:

(1) i originally said that IRAQ, ALTHOUGH UNDER A DICTATOR, WAS MORE STABLE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.

(2) you thought that i said iraq was STABLE under hussein.

(3) i CLEARLY pointed out that i said that IRAQ WAS MORE STABLE WHEN HUSSEIN WAS IN POWER. please note that this is the second time i stated this.

(4) i stated AGAIN, that IRAQ WAS MORE STABLE WHEN HUSSEIN WAS IN POWER.

where the flip-flop genius??????? please don't blame me for your inability to comprehend.

You keep saying that it was stable with Hussein then you state that you did not mean that it was stable under Hussein, which one is it, you're the one that can't get things straight here, please refer to your own quote, and refrain from name calling.......:wtf:

dataintsmiff

12-02-2007, 09:09 PM

Enough is enough, I do know you and thought better of you before I started conversing with you over the computer....Its not about whether you and I disagree or agree on matters, I could care less about who you vote for or who you don't...I could care less if you disagree with my statements or beliefs, I just look forward to reading your comebacks, they're comical, I did not disrespect you so I would hope that you would refrain from doing so with me...That's all anyone could hope for, a heated political conversation between adults with differing opinions...

SuperBran

12-02-2007, 09:09 PM

dataintsmiff

12-02-2007, 09:16 PM

[QUOTE=dataintsmiff;87239]

here is my first post:

please notice the words "more stable." when did i say that it was actually STABLE under hussein? the words "more stable" do not mean that the country was actually stable.

Thanks for the conversation, I still support you, I just don't understand you!:poke:

SuperBran

12-02-2007, 09:18 PM

I do know you

i'm pretty sure you don't.

I could care less if you disagree with my statements or beliefs

it's not about disagreeing with my statements, it's about having to explain myself over and over and over when my point was clear from the beginning. i hope you can appreciate my frustration.

I did not disrespect you

i beg to differ:

whatever you said, again, it makes no sense, something that you are most probably used to though

wake up...bring your head back down to earth...stop sniffing the glue and pay attention

you did say that Iraq was more stable than when we as a military got there, which Einstein, means that Saddam was in power then,

get a clue....you make me want to puke...

you are annoying

dataintsmiff

12-02-2007, 09:25 PM

SuperBran

12-02-2007, 09:30 PM

Again, those were all responses to your rude comments to me....I shouldn't have responded back that way to you and I apologize...Regardless, it's over and forgotten about for me, I'm always here if you want to talk, you know where to find me...

and i apologize to you as well. my job is all about arguing.....and i work extremely long hours. sometimes i vent a little more than i should on this site, since i really don't get to at work.

here's to more productive debates.