60% of Americans Think Iraq makes more Terrorism in US

[Sarge]

Really? Our troops are not American? And tell me what attacks were directed against America under Clinton? The 93' bombing and what?

If you want to use the argument there have been no attacks on American soil, then obviously Clinton did a stellar job in combating terrorism huh? i mean how many Americans died under Clinton's watch? 500? 600? How many under Bush? 6000? Who was better at fighting terrorism?

Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. . .

How many Americans have to die before you get off your ass and do something?

1993, World Trade Center garage bombing, NYC 6 dead, 1000 injured

1995, attack on U.S. military advisors in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 7 dead, 42 injured

1996, Khobar Towers bombing, Saudi Arabia, 19 dead, 500 injured

1998, bombing of U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, 291 dead, 5000+ injured

1998, bombing of U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 10 dead, 77 injured

2000, bombing of U.S.S. Cole, Aden, Yemen 17 dead, 39 injured

And why was the Cole hit? For one, due to clinton's gutting of the military, which even you acknowledged at one point went too far, we had no at sea tender/refuling capabilities because they had been cut from the fleet.

So the Cole goes to Yemen, but when they saw the terrorists boat coming along side, all they could do is waive daisies at the terrorist because the PC *******s in the Pentagon at the time said you couldn't shoot at anyone. Couldn't dare draw a gun on someone, why that might ofeeeend them, wouldn't it?

You can sit here and spin for clinton and try to revise history all you want, but the fact is clinton didn't do **** against terrorists. Oh, he set up a committee, he set up this and he set up that, but he didn't give anyone any power to do nasty things to people. That again might have offeeeeeened someone.

And not being offensive is a hell pf a lot more important than national security and self defense

[CurseReversed]

Based on what??? Seriously, you have argued absolutely NOTHING, said i am the enemy and offered nothing in terms of how to win this war. Instead you say just keep doing what we have been doing. Well is that working? Is terrorism increasing or decreasing?

You have to be honest and ask those fundamental questions if you are going to get ANYWHERE in the discussion. Saying I am the enemy, and equating my wants to the same thing as a terrorist wants is not only a complete joke, dishonest to the core and absolutely laughable, but it shows you will repeat what the party tells you to repeat like a good lemming does.

Again, what is YOUR solution??? I have told you mine, you said it can't be done, so we will do the same thing we have. Well, what in the world has worked so far? The situation has deterriorated into chaos and an all out war between different factions of Islam and all you can offer it this bad, we know it is bad, but we have no other choice?

Just the emotional rant I would expect from you chom. "You said I'm the enemy blah blah blah" :laugh: I guess the fact that you want us to pull out and they want us to pull out DID disturb you.... And NO we dont have any other choice but to continue to do what weve been doing which is train troops, attempt to provide security, rebuild infrastructure, reinforce the govt, and adapt and innovate to an enemy that has changed its focus from killing us to killing each other. Will we be successfull, judging by the way things have gone it is debatable, but we have to continue to try, sorry:mad:

Dont ask how long untill we give up, the only answer is not yet.

[terpskins]

60% of Americans are right. :thumbsup:

[tizzod]

Chom,

Just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, I like some ideas on both sides, hate some ideas on both sides, just like a ton of people, I would imagine.

If this was a Democrat administration turning Iraq into a serious fustercluck, would you be screaming just as loud and as passionately?

And no, "a Democrat would never put us in this situation" is not an acceptable answer.

I just wonder how far people actually take their party loyalties. Sometimes the answer disappoints me.

[Redskins Diehard]

Chom,

Just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, I like some ideas on both sides, hate some ideas on both sides, just like a ton of people, I would imagine.

If this was a Democrat administration turning Iraq into a serious fustercluck, would you be screaming just as loud and as passionately?

And no, "a Democrat would never put us in this situation" is not an acceptable answer.

I just wonder how far people actually take their party loyalties. Sometimes the answer disappoints me.

He is going to tell you he has no party loyalty. That he is a "free thinker" and his opinions are motivated by nothing more than a quest for the truth whatever that may be. That he would be yelling just as loud and as passionately no matter the administration, might even throw in the fact that in the past he has sided more with the Repubs.

[Predicto]

He is going to tell you he has no party loyalty. That he is a "free thinker" and his opinions are motivated by nothing more than a quest for the truth whatever that may be. That he would be yelling just as loud and as passionately no matter the administration, might even throw in the fact that in the past he has sided more with the Repubs.

I knew one of Chom's diehard opponents would rush in to answer this question for him. I thought it was going to be nelms, however.

[tizzod]

He is going to tell you he has no party loyalty. That he is a "free thinker" and his opinions are motivated by nothing more than a quest for the truth whatever that may be. That he would be yelling just as loud and as passionately no matter the administration, might even throw in the fact that in the past he has sided more with the Repubs.

I don't know, maybe. Maybe not.

I think we have invested waaaaay too much in Iraq, including American lives, to just walk away. Or QUIT, as some might see it. I do agree that some serious changes of tactics need to be looked at, but I'm sure they are on a daily basis. Maybe a broader change of tactics, though.

I personally agree that Rumsfeld should be riding on the back of a trash truck somewhere, and Cheney should be put out to pasture, but when you are stuck with it, the only thing you can do is ride it out until the ballot box opens again. The way they seem to have planned for laurels and flowers and kisses when we entered the country was downright shameful. To not plan for the absolute worst situation you can possibly imagine, in a war situation, is completely inexcusable. Completely. And the lack of troop strength has astonished me from the beginning. Not to mention how horribly the soldiers hands are tied on the ground as far as rules of engagement.

Am I a bit worried about Democrats taking over? I am, I'll be honest. But maybe they aren't as soft on this issue as the Republicans are way overbearing. Who knows. I don't. I'll see who the choices are, think for myself, make my own decisions, and act accordingly. Then sit back and watch the ride and see if I was as smart as I hoped, or an idiot. Either is very possible.

Oh, one more thing. I still maintain to this day that Bush had it in for Saddam from day one, and was going to get him no matter what. I can't back that up, it's just a feeling.

[Redskins Diehard]

I knew one of Chom's diehard opponents would rush in to answer this question for him. I thought it was going to be nelms, however.

I don't think it was a scathing answer. Do you think it is off? I thought if board input wasn't desired then it went to PM's. Nice use of diehard to describe the opponents though...clever

I am anxious to see what, if any, part of my answer Sr. Chomerics has with my estimation

[Predicto]

I don't think it was a scathing answer. Do you think it is off? I thought if board input wasn't desired then it went to PM's. Nice use of diehard to describe the opponents though...clever

I am anxious to see what, if any, part of my answer Sr. Chomerics has with my estimation

Actually, you are probably right.

[alexey]

I think we have invested waaaaay too much in Iraq, including American lives, to just walk away.

One cannot justify further investment by pointing at past investment.

Past investment does not justify further investment. One can use the same logic to argue that we must pull out asap.

Yes staying in Iraq may be the better option - but that conclusion cannot possibly come from the line of reasoning quoted above.

And how do you plan on looking in the mirror if Iraq turns out BAD and we end up wasting lives of 1000 more soldiers after staying because we already wasted 2500+?

[PokerPacker]

One cannot justify further investment by pointing at past investment.

Yes staying in Iraq may be the better option - but that conclusion cannot possibly come from the line of reasoning quoted above.

if you are playing poker, and the pot is currently at $1,000,000, and someone raises you $.25, do you fold?

[Redskins Diehard]

One cannot justify further investment by pointing at past investment.

Yes staying in Iraq may be the better option - but that conclusion cannot possibly come from the line of reasoning quoted above.

And how do you plan on looking in the mirror if Iraq turns out BAD and we end up wasting lives of 1000 more soldiers after staying because we already wasted 2500+?

Some of us don't classify those lost as a "waste"

[alexey]

if you are playing poker, and the pot is currently at $1,000,000, and someone raises you $.25, do you fold?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

[Predicto]

One cannot justify further investment by pointing at past investment.

Past investment does not justify further investment. One can use the same logic to argue that we must pull out asap.

Yes staying in Iraq may be the better option - but that conclusion cannot possibly come from the line of reasoning quoted above.

And how do you plan on looking in the mirror if Iraq turns out BAD and we end up wasting lives of 1000 more soldiers after staying because we already wasted 2500+?

Nations are not investors. There are collateral consequences to pulling out of a conflict abruptly. If nothing else, our allies would have little faith in us backing them up in the future, and our enemies would become certain that we can be defeated simply by holding out long enough.

[alexey]

Some of us don't classify those lost as a "waste"

Sounds patriotic.

And if it so happens that Iraq is going downhill and we cannot do anything about, how many soldiers are you willing to sacrifice before pulling out?

[alexey]

Nations are not investors. There are collateral consequences to pulling out of a conflict abruptly. If nothing else, our allies would have little faith in us backing them up in the future, and our enemies would become certain that we can be defeated simply by holding out long enough.

I am not advocating a pullout.

Many soldiers died in Iraq. Sacrificing more soldiers will not bring them back. We should weigh our options carefully.

I do not think we can justify sacrificing more soldiers by saying "we have already sacrificed so many"

[Predicto]

I am not advocating a pullout.

Many soldiers died in Iraq. Sacrificing more soldiers will not bring them back. We should weigh our options carefully.

I do not think we can justify sacrificing more soldiers by saying "we have already sacrificed so many"

If that is your position, then I agree.

[CurseReversed]

And how do you plan on looking in the mirror if Iraq turns out BAD and we end up wasting lives of 1000 more soldiers after staying because we already wasted 2500+?

how can we look ourselves in the mirror after walking out of Iraq knowing that we didnt do everything in our power to help the citizens there obtain some semblance of the peace and order we aspired to give them. Instead leaving them to fend for themselves in a situation that currently is impossible for them to control on their own. No we have not already tried and failed, three and a half years is not enough time to erect a stable government with a well trained police and army. For those who claim Iraq is already in a state of all out civil war, you are seriously mistaken, If we walked out of there right now then you would see an all out civil war, as things would deteriorate exponentially from where they are now.

Of course we do have to consider the option of an eventual unavoidable failure in Iraq, but even with that option looking as propable as it is, we have not even come close to doing all we can. Untill then we are in this whether we like it or not.

[chomerics]

Chom,

Just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, I like some ideas on both sides, hate some ideas on both sides, just like a ton of people, I would imagine.

If this was a Democrat administration turning Iraq into a serious fustercluck, would you be screaming just as loud and as passionately?

Actually, if it was a democrat, I would be screaming louder and more passionately. i actually was one of a gorup of people who ousted a corrupt politician in Mass. Tom Finneran was his name, and he was exactly like a mini Delay. I hated him more then I hate Bush now, and I was part of a group that forced him to resign for accepting money illegally for his campaign. With me, it is not a partisan issue, it is a country issue, and yes, I would be screaming just as loud if not louder if it was a democrat.

And no, "a Democrat would never put us in this situation" is not an acceptable answer.

I just wonder how far people actually take their party loyalties. Sometimes the answer disappoints me.

Unfortunately, our political platform had evolved into a divisive battlefield. I wish it were not the case, but unfortunately you are correct. There are WAY WAY to many people that put their party before their country, and now, if you don't agree with Bush, you are a wacky liberal. . . well I guess you can just call me kooky

[tizzod]

Actually, if it was a democrat, I would be screaming louder and more passionately. i actually was one of a gorup of people who ousted a corrupt politician in Mass. Tom Finneran was his name, and he was exactly like a mini Delay. I hated him more then I hate Bush now, and I was part of a group that forced him to resign for accepting money illegally for his campaign. With me, it is not a partisan issue, it is a country issue, and yes, I would be screaming just as loud if not louder if it was a democrat.

Unfortunately, our political platform had evolved into a divisive battlefield. I wish it were not the case, but unfortunately you are correct. There are WAY WAY to many people that put their party before their country, and now, if you don't agree with Bush, you are a wacky liberal. . . well I guess you can just call me kooky

Cool. Thanks. Just wonderin'.

[chomerics]

I don't think it was a scathing answer. Do you think it is off? I thought if board input wasn't desired then it went to PM's. Nice use of diehard to describe the opponents though...clever

I am anxious to see what, if any, part of my answer Sr. Chomerics has with my estimation

You were pretty close, I did not side with a number of republicans, but I have voted for a few of them. I actually like moderate republicans and democrats, as I am more a middle of the road guy. I voted for Romney here in Mass, although I would not vote for him again, and I voted for Kerry. This election, I will probably vote for Milios, but he doesn't have a chance. I campaigned for Tom Reilly, but I will not vote for him, because I don't believe he is the best man for the job.

I vote who I think will do the best job regardless of party affiliation. It is not a party issue with my, but an ideological one (my ideology )

[Zguy28]

You were pretty close, I did not side with a number of republicans, but I have voted for a few of them. I actually like moderate republicans and democrats, as I am more a middle of the road guy. I voted for Romney here in Mass, although I would not vote for him again, and I voted for Kerry. This election, I will probably vote for Milios, but he doesn't have a chance. I campaigned for Tom Reilly, but I will not vote for him, because I don't believe he is the best man for the job.

I vote who I think will do the best job regardless of party affiliation. It is not a party issue with my, but an ideological one (my ideology )

I too vote for the best guy, unless it violates my personal morals, even if they're democrats. I wanted so bad to pull for John Edwards as what I thought was the best all around, but my conscience wouldn't let me when I found out he was for abortion. Just couldn't do it. I'm telling you, if the Dems field a real moderate candidate who is Pro-Life, they could possibly get my vote.

Dreeeeeeaaaaam...dream, dream, dream, I have to do is dream - Ricky Nelson

[chomerics]

I too vote for the best guy, unless it violates my personal morals, even if they're democrats. I wanted so bad to pull for John Edwards as what I thought was the best all around, but my conscience wouldn't let me when I found out he was for abortion. Just couldn't do it. I'm telling you, if the Dems field a real moderate candidate who is Pro-Life, they could possibly get my vote.

Dreeeeeeaaaaam...dream, dream, dream, I have to do is dream - Ricky Nelson

They won't do it. There will not be a pro-life democrat run for president.

Why should that be an issue anyway? The law is not going to change, it is already on the books, and it is out of the presidents hands to begin with. I can understand voting for a congressman or senator based on that notion, but a democratic president, even if he was pro-life, would not see an abortion bill pass across his desk.