Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Feb 28, 2007.
oops. who could have seen that coming?
This is not surprising since we helped al-Queda to get into Iraq so now they have more places to train and recruit people.
will the 'mission accomplished' debacle go down as the most stupid moment in US history?
This is all Bush's plan to start the second coming of Jesus Christ himself. Why wait when you can speed thing's up with your kind of power?
Everyone (who was paying attention).
That's because Mr. Blair is full of crap. The illegal invasion of Iraq was 100% the justification for the 7/7 bombers actions. They even said so themselves.
When is a politician going to admit he's wrong though? The crazy thing is, there are a lot of people that believe everything their leader says...
John Edwards did, in regards to his Iraq war vote.
And it's great that he's done that. The consequences he will face (from me) for his vote, though, will be that he doesn't get my vote. If I was able to see in 2002 that the war was a bad idea then any Senator should also have been able to see that as well.
Apologizing is great but it doesn't bring back the soldiers or civilians who lost their lives or the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the fire.
If the most we can ask of our politicians is that they acknowledge that a vote to kill people and waste money was wrong then our standards are too low.
I forgot to take that into account . Although it does always seem like they will admit wrong doing if will help them as well. Right now for politicians it is "popular" to admit they were wrong about the war. It is leaders like Bush who can't and won't admit they were wrong. At least until his term is closer to being over, but then he'll go down as one of the worst presidents in history (not that he might not anyway). We may as well be in WWIII already. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and can't believe we actually made a preemptive strike against another country. To me, it doesn't get much lower as far as global relations go.
just out of curiosity, of the potential candidates at the moment, who *would* get your vote? edwards is above most of the field for me. ultimately, i have a feeling the nominee will be a turd who spews "safe" talk and stands up for nothing and i'll be voting for 3rd party, if there is one.
adrian- it should be noted that in the '04 campaign, edwards was extremely vocal about his regret on that vote, moreso than kerry who just kept spinning it as "voted to give the authority to go to war, not voting FOR the war"... that was before it was quite so popular to be against the war
Here is the study referred to in zim's article. A "must read."
Here is another factor in the equation...
I don't really know. Hillary has the same problem, Obama's a possibility, I liked Kucinich in '04. He was and is a goofball but he's an honset goofball, not to mention was always against the war. I'd vote Kucinich in the primaries.
It sucks, because if the '08 race comes down to a choice between a Republican and a Democrat I'm voting Democrat even if the candidate eats a baby on national tv. Even "triangulation" Hillary would be better than our current psychos.
I have no doubt that Iran and Syria don't want a US puppet in their neighborhood. I think the whole anti-democracy thing is secondary. Not to mention that they aren't the only ones promoting death in their own interests. As I recall, we're the ones who invaded and destabilized the region. Neither of us are right to continue the carnage, but I find it hard to condemn them given our actions. We're the ones who decided what rules to play by, they're just playing the hand we dealt them.
Also worth noting that both Syria and Iran are seeing themselves encircled by US forces and/or allies. Of course they're going to try and retard the process. No country in the world wants to be besieged.
even a guy like rudy? don't get me wrong, i don't like him overall, but i'm not sure he's the idiot/hawk that some of the republicans are. meanwhile, i'm totally underwhelmed by hillary and still not knocked off my feet by obama. kucinich is the man. very inspiring talk at the '05 green fest here in dc.
just for clarity- i'm not suggesting you should (or i would!) vote for rudy over one of those dems, just that if the choice is between hillary and rudy, i don't see a ton of difference.... (and therefore i'd lean towards 3rd party, or whatever)
I tend to lean towards a 3rd party also, but it usually turns out to be a wasted vote amirite?
not in my opinion. no more than any vote for a non winner of an election. if less people thought of it that way, and more people voted who weren't interested in the 2 major party candidates, then there might be realistic 3rd and 4th choices rather than the current 2 which is the minimum # possible to even consider it a "choice".
back on topic though, to answer zim's thread title.
simply: it has not!
It's been coming for 1,300 years or more.
No, us electing Bush not once but twice should go down as the stupidist moments in history.
Don't let Rudy fool you. He's a snake in the grass too, far worse than even Hillary. I have no love for her, but except for a few mistakes and just being a plain unpleasant woman, at least she isn't as grossly incompetent. America's mayor was terrible during 9/11 (there are many other links like those if you'd like).
Plus, the man seems to flip flop more than Hillary and McCain combined.
Which is why we shouldn't have helped make it worse.
That's the elephant in the room everyone is too politically correct to acknowledge. There was no war during the cole bombing, right? or the first bombing of the WTC? You could trace all this crap back into the 80s to the iran/iraq war and ussr/afghanistan war. Not to mention the Jihad that goes back to who knows when.
It seems to me the war on terror was designed to make it "worse". To break the cycle NOW before it breaks too badly in the future.
Do you actually think we're helping? Seems to me we're just making things worse. If we wanted to stop it from breaking, we didn't do a very good job.
There was war by proxy, through the US's blind support for Israel.
Getting cramped in here with all these elephants isn't it?
Is it worth pointing out here that Iraq was NOT a failed state before we blundered in there? Dictatorial, with widespread examples of summary justice maybe, but not a failed state by any usual definitions. As for smugly claiming "it's been coming for 1,300 years or more", snappy soundbite though you may think it is, it is simply untrue. In Iraq especially, intermarriage between the sects was both very common and unremarkable until our meddling sparked the present civil war.