Quote :

"http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0353522920080707?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Well, Iraq wants us out now. What should we tell em?"

Probably the same thing that has been said the whole time. If we leave now, we "surrender to terror." This is why the war in Iraq is such a different situation than Vietnam. They can't even be compared, in most ways. What we're experiencing is not a quagmire. We've had success in stabilizing Iraq to a degree, and the Iraqi leadership wants to start running things on its own. We should respect that, and work with the leadership there to hand over the country in all respects. Note, I say hand over - not surrender, not cut and run - we just go back home.

The problem I have with the "pro-war right" is that victory doesn't even exist to them. Victory is staying there forever. Victory, to me, is doing what we went there to do. I think if it's to the point where a democratically elected body in Iraq can tell us that it's time to leave, then it's time to leave.

7/7/2008 3:38:33 PM

The british media is very anti bush and antiwar.. most of europe is.

I think that if an elected Iraq govt asks us to leave we have to.. but make sure they know we wont be back.

[Edited on July 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2008 3:39:10 PM

What does that have to do with anything? They aren't just making stuff up.

7/7/2008 3:39:51 PM

Why not debate the facts provided rather than the provider? That's a cheap way of ignoring a powerful argument.

7/7/2008 3:41:05 PM

which facts monky? That none of us know the future.

I was agreeing with biggun about british media.

7/7/2008 3:45:31 PM

WE GOTS TA FIGHTUM THAR SOS WE DON GOTS TA FIGHTUM HEAR!!!1 WE GOTS TA STAY THE COURSE.

seriously. do you people hear yourselves?

"Iraq want's us out."

"No, don't listen to that, that's just leftwing moonbats at Reuters makin' shit up."

christ already. lets just bomb iran now.

7/7/2008 3:58:17 PM

Quote :

" "Iraq want's us out." "No, don't listen to that, that's just leftwing moonbats at Reuters makin' shit up.""

This is what I was addressing, and oddly, what you were almost concurring with.

7/7/2008 4:03:11 PM

yainorite?

7/7/2008 4:12:12 PM

Yeah I could understand if it were an op-ed piece but it's not like they made up that quote from Maliki

7/7/2008 4:15:50 PM

Quote :

"I think that if an elected Iraq govt asks us to leave we have to.. but make sure they know we wont be back. "

You must have missed this in your bashing joe. Where did I say that the story was made up? I only agreed that most european press is very antibush and antiwar. Would you dispute either of those opinions?

BTW, we might have to bomb Iran.

7/7/2008 4:40:05 PM

McCain admits that he can't use a computer. So yeah, pretty unfit.

7/7/2008 4:51:14 PM

^

Quote :

"Mike Allen: Mac or PC? John McCain: Neither. I am a illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get."

Probably has to rely on her for stolen pills from her nonprofit organization too

[Edited on July 7, 2008 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2008 4:53:04 PM

Quote :

"McCain admits that he can't use a computer. So yeah, pretty unfit. "

well there you have it.

7/7/2008 6:01:58 PM

Quote :

"[quote]McCain admits that he can't use a computer. So yeah, pretty unfit."

i hear he's gotten pretty good at programming the VCR to record his favorite soaps.

7/7/2008 6:55:47 PM

In this video John McCain literally told me that Barack Obama is my guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsFJQ2kyRwA

7/7/2008 7:25:36 PM

In this video he proves himself to be a candidate for the people who is willing to let folks speak their minds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsFJQ2kyRwA

7/7/2008 7:34:39 PM

joe

Quote :

"no one ... not politicians, military strategist, CNN-analysts or T-Dub liberal moonbats ... no one ever said the surge wasn't going to have the short-term effect of reducing sectarian violence in whatever area troop presence was increased. eyedrb or anyone else who says otherwise, is either a liar or a retard. "

Obama on meet the press:

"Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now."

7/7/2008 10:25:48 PM

I find it that the people who support Obama either a) are easily led by others, b) believe they know the facts when they don't know what they are talking about, c) very active on myspace, facebook, or any other social networking internet sites, or d) are delusional and live in fantasy land. They spin the facts to believe what they want to believe and don't listen to reason.

7/7/2008 10:45:58 PM

^^ linky mclinkerson?



^ So you're an Obama supporter???

[Edited on July 7, 2008 at 10:48 PM. Reason : ?]

7/7/2008 10:47:52 PM

you left out e) feel they are entitled to other people's money and f) believe in a culture of deferred adulthood.

7/7/2008 10:50:19 PM

^ you left out g) have a higher level of education http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080501GeneralGraph3_jaoir03j22dnj.gif

7/7/2008 10:59:05 PM

I don't think .9 posts a day since 2001 is very active.

^^Yep forgot about those haha

^ See f from above post

[Edited on July 7, 2008 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2008 10:59:27 PM

Oh know, you skipped b my friend, thats you pegged.

7/7/2008 11:05:52 PM

What facts are you talking about and I'll be happy to explain.

7/7/2008 11:09:55 PM

Its just a little bit of everything. I see you making a lot of the same anti-obama anti-liberal statements over and over again, in many if not most cases nearly fact free.

7/7/2008 11:22:25 PM

McCain just needs to fire his whole campaign

stop reading teleprompter speeches

and stop acting like someone other than himself

its all forced and awkward and can't compete with Obama's "IT" factor

7/7/2008 11:26:10 PM

I'm really eager to see these debates. I think he could get mauled.

7/7/2008 11:28:03 PM

Quote :

"stop reading teleprompter speeches "

You do realize that Obama is the one that leans heavily on teleprompter speeches. Theres no question that Obama is the better speaker but the planned speeches are his thing. Thats his main forum and the reason why he didn't do the townhall debates with McCain. Thats the reason why when Obama is asked a question the mic is immediately taken away from the person asking the question because he doesn't want the person to respond to what he has just said. Because he spins the answer and doesn't answer it directly.

[Edited on July 7, 2008 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2008 11:29:38 PM

fact free

7/7/2008 11:32:27 PM

Quote :

"McCain just needs to fire his whole campaign stop reading teleprompter speeches and stop acting like someone other than himself its all forced and awkward and can't compete with Obama's "IT" factor "

I agree in general, but its sad you have to compete with Obama's "it" factor. aka Obama's "bullsIT" factor. The electorate should look at issues not presentations. There is a reason why they spend so much money on tv ads, bc they work. People actually make up thier mind off of tv ads. god help us. Oh and obama has already started running ads here. So I have 5 months of this shit to watch?

7/7/2008 11:32:45 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that Obama is the one that leans heavily on teleprompter speeches. Theres no question that Obama is the better speaker but the planned speeches are his thing. Thats his main forum and the reason why he didn't do the townhall debates with McCain. Thats the reason why when Obama is asked a question the mic is immediately taken away from the person asking the question because he doesn't want the person to respond to what he has just said. Because he spins the answer and doesn't answer it directly."

McCain doesn't read the teleprompter speeches well, he's very stiff. once he won the nomination and started reading from the teleprompter i knew it would be a problem. that was months ago...and just tonight cnn was talking about how awkward his reading from the teleprompter is.

he does a lot better talking off the cuff, walking around with a microphone in his hand and just simply talking to people.

i just don't understand why his campaign is putting him in situations that make him seem so overtly awkward.

[Edited on July 7, 2008 at 11:53 PM. Reason : asdfghj]

7/7/2008 11:50:47 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that Obama is the one that leans heavily on teleprompter speeches. Theres no question that Obama is the better speaker but the planned speeches are his thing. Thats his main forum and the reason why he didn't do the townhall debates with McCain. Thats the reason why when Obama is asked a question the mic is immediately taken away from the person asking the question because he doesn't want the person to respond to what he has just said. Because he spins the answer and doesn't answer it directly. "

Obama's speeches have nothing to do with the Town Hall debates. If you look at obama during the dem. debates (I know how much you hate reality though), he's one of the more dynamic candidates. In a debate on neutral territory (which the Town Halls are not), Obama would most likely devastate McCain.

7/7/2008 11:54:32 PM

But he says "uh" a lot which means he's an idiot

7/8/2008 12:37:41 AM

Quote :

"bigun20: They don't think logically and fail to realize that Iraq could then become a terrorist state again..."

Quote :

"bigun20: ...then have the terrorists take over the country again."

By saying again you imply that they were a terrorist state at some point in the past and that they were "taken over by terrorists". Would that be the same time the Reagan administration was supplying "them" (Iraq) with arms, equipment and chemical weapons?

Good 'ol Rummy.

7/8/2008 1:11:32 AM

7/8/2008 3:03:13 AM

Quote :

"So you're for committing our troops AND money for multiple decades? "

lol

7/8/2008 8:33:51 AM

Troops aren't dying in Korea, they're only getting the clap.

Please try to make relevant references next time, the two aren't even remotely similar.

7/8/2008 8:35:22 AM

^^^ If you weren't such a complete retard you would know that the terrorists took over many cities in Iraq in the first years of the Iraq war. We had to go in and overtake the terrorist strong holds in these cities.

^^^^^ He was debating flawed logic against fellow democrats who had the same flawed logic. You can't debate leaving the Iraq war with sombody who believes the same thing (Clinton). DUring the democratic debates, Obama got a free pass on his policies and never really had to back them up. Anybody knows this.

7/8/2008 8:40:14 AM

^^ other than wars were fought there and we have troops there post-war I suppose... they're on opposite ends of the continent, that's pretty remote.

7/8/2008 8:43:51 AM

Are you that dense? We didn't topple a standing government in South Korea, we assisted the pro-democracy (kinda) government there in fighting the communists. When borders were settled our troops were in peaceful territory of a supportive government and people.

I know you're trying to cling onto your point, but the fact that you can't even acknowledge that the situations are vastly different shows what a mental lightweight you are and that you don't even have the capacity to talk about this in a serious manner.

7/8/2008 8:47:22 AM

I really don't have the capacity to write four sentences trying to say something that could have been said in one.

7/8/2008 8:56:03 AM

Oh okay, let me phrase it so you might understand it then:

OMG AMERICA WAS FIGHTING THE CHINESE COMMIES IN KOREA (LIKE JAPAN BUT WITH ROTTING VEGETABLES FOR FOOD EW GROSS). EVERYONE HATES COMMIES SO AFTER WE KILLED THEM ALL WE HAVE PEACE AND WE'RE STANDING ON THE BORDER SO tHE COMMIES DONT COME DOWN AND IMPOSE SOCIALISM ON EVERYONE (SOCIALISM BAD, CAPITALISM GOOD). 9/11

7/8/2008 9:00:08 AM

Your initial argument was that the main difference between the two scenarios was that US soldiers were dying. Despite the fact that Korea had about 10 times the number of casualties during fighting alone than the Iraq war has had so far, you don't think some rogue communist North Koreans mounted attacks on U.S. troops after the Armistace. Just because it wasen't flaunted over a television station and the internet like it is now when it happens doesn't mean it never did there. Though it's highly unlikely, especially since there are so many religious sects in Iraq. My main point was that alot more money and troops have been sacrificed at the expense of an ally far less valuable as far as trading goods and other things, and we ended up okay in the long run... barring Kim Jong-Il doesn't launch anything at us.

See I don't have to call names. You are cool and have lots of valuable input.

7/8/2008 9:13:32 AM

Quote :

"Your initial argument was that the main difference between the two scenarios was that US soldiers were dying"

That's part of the argument, but not the complete argument. The US was fighting against a coherent force - China and North Korea, we were fighting a traditional army.

Quote :

"you don't think some rogue communist North Koreans mounted attacks on U.S. troops after the Armistace"

I can't find any evidence of this after a quick search so I don't think it was very common, if it occurred at all. I do know there were a few incidents at the DMZ after the armistice but those casualty numbers are extremely low (10ish) over the 40-50 year period we're talking about.

Quote :

"Just because it wasen't flaunted over a television station and the internet like it is now when it happens doesn't mean it never did there."

Except actions by N. Korean forces would be published and would very likely cause a resumption of a war that has never ended officially. The instances that I reference above nearly caused the war to resume on many occasions.

Quote :

"an ally far less valuable as far as trading goods and other things"

Last year we exported 34 billion dollars worth of goods to South Korea and imported 47 billion.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5800.html#2007


In 2007 we exported 1.5 billion dollars in goods to Iraq, imported 11. This is the most amount of trade we have done with Iraq that I can find on the census bureau's website for Iraq.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5050.html#1992

Quote :

"See I don't have to call names. You are cool and have lots of valuable input."

Thank you for putting your ideas out here this time. It's much more fun and productive this way.

7/8/2008 9:25:52 AM

I guess my focus was on oil for Iraq and I didn't really take into account the population difference between the two. I feel like if we'd had more support going into Iraq it wouldn't be the problem that it is now. Also there has got to be hidden agenda about going there in the first place. There were no weapons found, and I have alot more faith in our CIA than that. Why were we so adament about this when there were more imminent threats like N. Korea and Iran.

7/8/2008 9:33:51 AM

7/8/2008 9:37:01 AM

The population isn't that different.

Population: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.) Iraq
Population: 49,044,790 (July 2007 est.) South Korea

20 Million seems like a lot, and it is, but double that money for Iraq and you still have South Korea as a stronger country economically.

Quote :

"I feel like if we'd had more support going into Iraq it wouldn't be the problem that it is now."

Huh? Support for the war was very strong in the beginning. The government and people gave it a strong push, it was planning that was lacking, not support.

Quote :

"Also there has got to be hidden agenda about going there in the first place."

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

7/8/2008 9:41:38 AM

support from the UN and other European countries, not from our government.

Also if there is some agenda from the Bush family somewhere in the oil business that would benefit from invading Iraq, would McCain continue the same practices if he had less to stake in it? Granted that's a big accusation with no real evidence to back it up, but if it were true, I think McCain would make bigger strides as far as establishing a lasting government there if he wasen't worried about his oil stock going down.

7/8/2008 9:54:23 AM