2008 Presidential election

[iceprofet07]

So is the consensus to pullout of Iraq and quit,.....or just keep whining about the details?

Blue Breeze, thanks for the facts, very impressive. No, I am not "surprised" of no recent attacks on our soil. I cannot tolerate any, and am thankful there haven't been any since 2001,....and I attribute it to the leadership and response of our President.

Neut, Bush was our relatively new President during the attack in 2001, and he responded. Quite frankly, had we had a real leader in the office during the attack of 1993, we may not have had to experience the attack of 2001,......but the guy in the Whitehouse at that time was too busy staining dresses, and concerned about his poll numbers, to respond.

Iceprofit07, sorry to make you "elaborate" from the "top of your head", but you are right, those listed items aren't really bad, they are more on the order of "questionable things done by the administration",......sort of more whining than anything. Kind of like the anti-transfer hockey parents,.....that would rather whine to the MSHSL and get more regulation, than help their player compete at the highest level and become the best player he can be.

So lets get to the bottom line, should we keep whining about the details,.......or quit?

"Not really that bad" "sort of more whining then anything".

I don't recall whining about anything, I was merely responding to your request for elaboration on my previous ideas. You asked me to point out "bad things" the administration has done; so I did. Personally, I wouldn't consider somebody pointing out that the administration made deliberate attempts to circumvent the Geneva Convention and the constitution of the United States as feeble complaints. In fact I would consider actions which attempt to do so terrible for any administration.

[iceprofet07]

By the way, as to "quitting." That is a terrible idea, we broke it to what it is now-to leave it broken is a terrible idea. What do we do now? That takes some thought, but you can't forget who bears responsibility for the way the US got in.

President asked for it.
Congress approved it.
Intellegence was terrible--(some might say it always has been).
Who is responsible?

On a side note:

What is the goal of a terrorist?
1. To cause the destruction of human life?
2. To instill fear?
3. To destroy the way of life of a group of people?

Can you define it Knowlzee?

If you look into history book one example jumps to mind that seems to parallel the current US situation. Rome. I personally would rather not repeat history.

[Irishmans Shanty]

Ed shultz calls Rush The druggy limbaugh (spelling)

I still can't believe the former sports anchor at WDAY in Fargo has his own show on Sirius.

I can still see that fleshy man shoving the NDSU Bison and the Moorhead Blues down my throat.

[Wild4hockey]

Knowlzee,

The list is quite extensive, from nominating his own attorney to the supreme court, to ignoring the prior administrations warnings about Bin Laden. He's given billions in tax breaks to oil companies while they post record profits.

He isn't 1/10th the president his father was.

He's the worst.

The facts don't seem to interest you, and I understand, its hard to get at the truth. You wont read the truth in the papers(liberal) nor hear it on MPR (ultra-liberal). And your not going to get the truth from Faux news nor Rush Limbaugh. They're all "selling" you news. Are you buying it?

Clinton did have a shot at Bin Laden in 1998 but they hesitated too long and missed the opportunity (Operation Desert Fox).

Media in America is a joke. I think we have all been influenced at one time or another by the corporate talking heads on cable news, but don't be fooled by their "fair and balanced" portrayal of news events. Neutron is correct they are great at "selling" their product. I for one sold my share in it a long time ago!

[TTpuckster]

Blues Buddy's anglitch was easier to understand than the above mumbo jumbo by Iceprophet07.

If you want to take one of those "questionable" items "from the top of your head", and communicate why it is "questionable" by the administration, you may get a response.

No terrorist attacks to the US since September, 2001,......why do think that is? I wonder if we should keep fighting back and finish the mission,.....or just quit?

Knowleez:

Although I agree with you that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil, there certainly have been many now in IRAQ against our troups supported by Al Queda, (Sp?). A place where they were not before, or maybe were, but not against the U.S. As you well know, we have now lost more troups in IRAQ than civilians at the trade towers.

The lack of attacks on our soil, I am willing to bet to some degree, comes from the successful military operations in Afganistan which did a great number on disabling Bin Laden and his cronies. And of course our ability to stunt their finances. All good work, no doubt.
I just wish we had concentrated on Afganistan with troups and financial support to GET Bin Laden and Co. to the end. I would feel a lot better about this administration and about total REVENGE had that occurred.

[Irishmans Shanty]

The mistake that was made in Iraq was that we don't understand what Iraqi people identify with.

We call them Iraqis, but that is about 6th on their priority list.

Iraqis associate with;
1st Family
2nd Tribal origins
3rd Ethnic background (Kurdish, Arab etc)
4th Religious persuation (Sunni, Shia', Sufi)
5th Political Party
6th Iraqi citizen

Though we all come from different towns, have differenent ethnic roots, and religious beliefs, we all agree we fly under the same banner. A lot Iraqi people could care less what their country is called, who runs it, or what's on the flag. This is the reason why democracy is not replicating there the way it worked in the Petri dish.

This is the exact reason why the mission in Iraq is stuck. You can't stay, you can't leave. Saddam provided bad structure, but sometimes bad structure is better than none at all. Take your guess as to who's in charge in Afghanistan, Sudan, or Somalia.

I don't care who was running the White after 9/11, Republican, Democrat, tree hugger, or professinal wrestler, they would have done the same thing. The path led to Iraq but we underestimated the complexities of the people there.

[Wild4hockey]

Very well put Shantyman. The structure supercedes the person or group. This is a great argument because I believe it is at the root of a lot of issues. It really doesn't matter who our president is because very little actually differentiates the Dems from the Republicans.

If Gore would have won the election in 2000 he would have responded precisely the way Bush did and we would have the Republicans crying foul instead of the Dems. I find it funny that not more than a year ago Pelosi and other prominent Democrats were suggesting a surge in troops. When Bush decideds this is the best course of action they jump all over him.

[Irishmans Shanty]

There is a good line in the movie 13 Days where JFK says "The joint chiefs have a great advantage, if they are wrong about bombing Cuba, nobody will be left alive to tell them that they were wrong."

The party, not in power, in this case the democrats, has the same advantage. Everything they say about the last 7 years is correct because they've had the advantage of watching the game before they've needed to place the bet.

After 9/11, Bush went on TV with bags under his eyes, messed up hair, crooked tie, and stuttered through a speech where he promised action. Americans loved it because it and he looked real. Though he didn't know how to proceed, he promised more action than discussion. Approval ratings for him were in 80's or 90's.

Well, he attacked, dropped bombs, deployed troops and asked questions later. While we all beat the drum for payback, thus war, nobody actually thought anyone would die. Well, wake up, that's what war is.

When you look at the roots and Radical Muslim hatred towards the West, you will find out this attack was brewing since 1948.

What I want is a Presidential candidate to stand up and tell the truth. Concerning the Middle East, the first person that says "I don't know what to do, there's no manual or protocal for this, but I will do everthing I can to protect the masses and American soil" gets my vote.

[TTpuckster]

The mistake that was made in Iraq was that we don't understand what Iraqi people identify with.

We call them Iraqis, but that is about 6th on their priority list.

Iraqis associate with;
1st Family
2nd Tribal origins
3rd Ethnic background (Kurdish, Arab etc)
4th Religious persuation (Sunni, Shia', Sufi)
5th Political Party
6th Iraqi citizen

Though we all come from different towns, have differenent ethnic roots, and religious beliefs, we all agree we fly under the same banner. A lot Iraqi people could care less what their country is called, who runs it, or what's on the flag. This is the reason why democracy is not replicating there the way it worked in the Petri dish.

This is the exact reason why the mission in Iraq is stuck. You can't stay, you can't leave. Saddam provided bad structure, but sometimes bad structure is better than none at all. Take your guess as to who's in charge in Afghanistan, Sudan, or Somalia.

I don't care who was running the White after 9/11, Republican, Democrat, tree hugger, or professinal wrestler, they would have done the same thing. The path led to Iraq but we underestimated the complexities of the people there.

IS, I most respectfully disagree with that last statement.
I believe that Gore would have concentrated on Afganistan and getting Bin Laden and the top Al Queda, (Sp again?).

All the war in Iraq did was make our troops targets of Al Q. Al q wasn't even in Iraq before we went there.

[Irishmans Shanty]

You could be right about Gore, I guess we'll never know what Gore would have done.

Radical Muslims have been around too long, it's too well organized now. Getting Bin Laden in the early 2000's wouldn't have mattered. OBL should have been a priority in the early 90's. They knew about him. But they didn't see him as a threat in the continental US.

We can only look forward.

You can drive yourself nuts doing the "we should have" thing. In 1979 we should have helped our most clear and present danger at the time, the Soviets, to run a road grader through Afghanistan during the Afghan War. Instead we gave the Mujahedin stingers to help drive out the Soviets. What a win when the Red Army went back to Moscow making Bin Laden a war hero against the infidels.

[Neutron 14]

There is a good line in the movie 13 Days where JFK says "The joint chiefs have a great advantage, if they are wrong about bombing Cuba, nobody will be left alive to tell them that they were wrong."

The party, not in power, in this case the democrats, has the same advantage. Everything they say about the last 7 years is correct because they've had the advantage of watching the game before they've needed to place the bet.

After 9/11, Bush went on TV with bags under his eyes, messed up hair, crooked tie, and stuttered through a speech where he promised action. Americans loved it because it and he looked real. Though he didn't know how to proceed, he promised more action than discussion. Approval ratings for him were in 80's or 90's.

Well, he attacked, dropped bombs, deployed troops and asked questions later. While we all beat the drum for payback, thus war, nobody actually thought anyone would die. Well, wake up, that's what war is.

When you look at the roots and Radical Muslim hatred towards the West, you will find out this attack was brewing since 1948.

What I want is a Presidential candidate to stand up and tell the truth. Concerning the Middle East, the first person that says "I don't know what to do, there's no manual or protocal for this, but I will do everthing I can to protect the masses and American soil" gets my vote.

Nobody's ever more popular than the back up quarterback. Very true Shanty.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

George Herbert Walker Bush

Yes, Arabs have disliked us since the creation of Israel. But the hypocrisy of this president railing against religious fundamentalism in Iraq, all the while publicly stating he consults HIS god when making decisions, probably does as much damage. For every ounce of statesmanship we get out of this administration, we get 5 pounds of John Wayne.

IMHO foreign policy IS a main strength of the republican party. But this guy is the "decider". He creates an atmosphere, even within his own party, that any dissent is unpatriotic or irresponsible. That HAS to change.

[tomASS]

stated perfectly on a South Park rerun last night

our only choices are a turd sandwich or a douche bag
our choices will always only be a turd sandwich or a douche bag

but our vote counts so choose wisely

[Knowlzee]

Some excellant discusssion last night,.......and some more whining. Here are a few thoughts on some points, not going to comment on the whining.

With regard to "revenge" of an incident (911), that may be a little shortsighted as there are many incidents over the years, and they are trying to continue with more, which is why they need to be defeated. That doesn't mean when we capture Osama and its over, although that would be great progress. The terrorist cult (imbedded in many places of the world) needs to be defeated. We are fortunate to have a President that is willing to recognize the situation for what it is and address it head on, and has the resolve to stand up for principle, rather than cower to poll numbers.

With regard to the Iraqi people, they are different, but I think mostly because they have been suppressed by an evil dictator, rather than what we may percieve as their identity. They will grasp freedom. Freedom is easy to like, but it may take a little time to regain trust. To think that they are so different and may never grasp freedom, never stand up for themselves, never trust each other,......is not only negative, but may be a little racisist. They certainly deserve the chance, and to abandon them part way through the process is in nobodys best interest. Again, thank God, we have a leader with resolve, a true Statesman.

Regarding TomASS's last post, what is most important is,......we still have a choice.

[BIAFP]

Choice?

I learned at an early age that there are always two choices......Right and WRONG.

And the conservatives are on the RIGHT. So...........

[Knowlzee]

Even though it is primarily whining, I will address Neut's claim of hypocricy, only because examples were specifically asked for in previous posts.

First of all, there is no legitimate religion that promotes the killing of anyone. Islam does not. The terrorists have highjacked the Islam religion to rationalize their actions, and brainwash people to do things they would not normally do in the name of religion,....to ultimately achieve their adgenda to eliminate free society.

To imply the conflict in Iraq is a skirmish over "religious fundamentalism" by different factions of Iraqi's is, to put it nicely, nieve. They want to eliminate US (and the jewish people). For our President to seek help from "HIS god", is quite frankly refreshing,.....certainly not hypocritical,......as with apparent wavering by poiliticians from both partys who seem more concerned with their own power, or the power of their own political party than our national defense,.....we need all the help we can get.

[goldy313]

While religion does not ok killing others it is hardly unique to Islam to use it as a just cause. Catholic Croatians and Eastern Orthodox Serbs did it in the former Yugoslavia to clense the largely Muslim Bosnians, during which he US sat on its hands and watched. The IRA/Orange Army in Northern Ireland have used religion to justify killing each other. Even in the USA we have had our share of killings in the name of religion; the Salem witch trials, the treatment of some Native Americans and some would even make a good argument that the FBI has engaged in killing for religious reasons, all of which are or were Government sponsered or endorsed.

To intervene in a country in which we have zero intellegence and still have to rely on others, had no cultural awareness of what internal Iraq might be, and then to top it off to try and fight using the same tactics as we failed with in Vietnam was stupid. As anyone should have learned 30 years ago you can't fight a war and try to do it "nicely". We had no problem fire bombing German and Japanese cities but we're afraid to hurt any civilian in Iraq. That's fighting a war with both hands tied behind your back and a great way to lose. If Sadr City is the head of the dragon, destroy it. If the borders are to open, close them. You can't fight war in the court of public opinion, yet that's where Bush chooses to fight it and continues to lose it.

War isn't won until the civilian population is so sick of death, destruction, starvation, and thirst that they no longer have the will to fight back. The difference between the West and others is after victory we use the local population to rebuild the country. It worked in places as different as Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea; it would work in the Middle East as well.

Bush needs to be held accountable for trying to fight a war without trying to win it.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemmed to repeat it" Santayana

[Wild4hockey]

Bush's decisions have been unpopular but I think we have to recognize his ideology. The "Bush Doctrine" is a completely different approach for the United States in the area of Foreign Policy. Bush delivered a speech to the graduating class of West Point in 2002 in which he outlined how he was going to procede in terms of foreign policy. Focusing on preventive measures has and will continue to make America safer.

All I ever hear out of the Democratic leaders is the need for multi-level, diplomatic measures. Well they clearly don't realize who they are dealing with. Our problem as Americans is we are rational beings. The terrorists we are at war with are not. Their mission in life is chaos and destruction. They will never stop and cannot be eradicated. Therefore we must always be on the offensive. I scares me to think that the election of 2008 could result in a new/old foreign policy that is doomed to failure in the world we are currently living in. The last time we focused on isolationism, Hitler gained control and almost succeeded in European domination.

If the Democrats are wise they will recognize that the United Nations and other foreign coalitions lack the backbone to effectively deal with terrorism.

I will not be surprised one bit if we attack Iran in the coming months. I read a quote from someone the other day regarding the situation over there as "America may be very good at occupying a country but we are great at invading and removing bad leaders"

[Goldy Gopher]

Doesn't this thread violate the Hockey Cafe Forum Rules & Statement of Purpose?

[east hockey]

Doesn't this thread violate the Hockey Cafe Forum Rules & Statement of Purpose?

Killjoy.

Lee

[Wild4hockey]

It may skirt around the defined rules but so far everyone is playing fair and not letting emotion to get in the way of some good conversation. Plus a big tie by Duluth East will hopefully keep Lee in a good mood until section time

[east hockey]

Plus a big tie by Duluth East will hopefully keep Lee in a good mood until section time

I wouldn't exactly call it a "good" mood.

I'm thinking that maybe we should have just one topic for politics, one for religion. You know, keep that garbage/vital banter from infesting all the other topics which have/had the potential to be productive. Others will certainly disagree but once Mitch decrees it, I enforce it. (I need a Godfather emoticon here, a small one)

Lee

[Neutron 14]

Ask and ye shall receive..

[tomASS]

great opinion/editorial in the Feb 13th issue of Forbes about hope in the middle east based on the current action taken by the US. It was done by a British Historian, if I recall now, by the name of Paul Johnson. I read it on the plane and didn't grab the article

Very informative and a must read for all with an opinion on the war.
It gave me a fresh perspective that we have set in motion events that will benefit the sitaution in the long term

He suggested we need to have more patience and courage - two things that most politicians don't have. Bush has done the right thing.

[iceprofet07]

stated perfectly on a South Park rerun last night

our only choices are a turd sandwich or a douche bag
our choices will always only be a turd sandwich or a douche bag

but our vote counts so choose wisely

So true and so sad.
Dark side of American democracy.


I think almost everybody hopes for a healthy democracy in Iraq. It would represent a triumph of good over evil and possibly set an example for the entire region. However I also think that how we go about doing it is important. I agree with the quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemmed to repeat it" and believe that if the strategy doesn't alter we will be doomed to a destabilizing withdrawl. Unfortunately, the whole situation would be simpler if we had ben able to declare war on the Iraqi nation as a whole--instead we restricted or declaration to the Iraqi government thus limiting ourselves from the mass bombing strategies of the Second World War. Additionally, the administration has declared that much of the action taken against US troops has been led by external groups. Thus to carpet bomb Sadr City or other deadly spots might only worsen the situation. Conversely, leveling the areas in Iraq where the enemy resides might end the war quickly, but assuming that it does and leads to a democracy, how might said action affect post-war relations with the United States? If massive bombing raids kill too many innocent lives. We could revolve back into a situation similar to Palestine where a group similar to Hezbollah could commandeer the Iraqi legislature.

My biggest fear with regards to Iraq right now is that political manuvering is about to condemn the Iraq plan to failure. The democratic viewpoint seems on dividing Iraq by racial lines on pulling out. Many Republicans seem fixated on "staying the course" and "standing down as Iraqi's stand up". Neither is promising and truth is that there are other global threats that are becoming just as dangerous to America's superpower status. We simply can't afford to stay in both Iraq and Afghanistan fo rlong periods of time. China is growing dangerously fast in regards to their economy, military, and technology and have made it clear that there not on the best of terms with America or its much closer American ally, Japan. North Korea has apparently created low-yield nuclear weapons and is being run by possibly the most dangerous man in the world. Iran and Syria are nations that are known to have supported terrorists in the past and are continuing to do so. Venezuela has recently siezed almost all Western assets in the country and are threatening to halt oil supplies. Even Russia-while only a shadow of its former self is reverting to a more dictatorial government. Currently, America can't take offensive actions in all these areas (barring a nuclear annihilation) to ensure its security so the reality of the situation necessitates that we maintain favorable relations with the allies we have left.



(I am sorry if there are any grammer or spelling errors.)

[RSI]

You can add Rudy Giuliani to the list of candidates, he announced today that he is running for President.