Democrats will go after osama the same way they did during the 90's.  These are people that constantly complain that we don't "respect" other countries, and that we "make people mad" by our actions, but now these people (on here also) try to tell us how Bush has failed and try to hint that we should take military action against Pakistan.  Unbelievable.

how Bush has failed and try to hint that we should take military action against Pakistan. Unbelievable.

Quite believable.  The latest is Pakistan.  But we have heard their drum beat of Darfur for years, even while they are preparing articles of impeachment over Iraq.  They damn Bush for doing, and damn him for not doing. And stay eerily silent when their own had a chance to do, and did not.  They neither condemn him for doing nothing, or condemn him for bombing aspirin factories.

Their words speak volumes, even while their actions speak louder.  There is no solution to their desire to bash any solution - other than a no-solution that a democrat would propose.

If you are saying Democrats have it wrong because their solution to the problem in Iraq is to leave I think you have it wrong.

I've been on board with that solution for the last year and a half. A lot of Americans, when they wager the rewards of staying in Iraq vs what it is costing us and will cost us if we leave...

Rewards
-Slow steady progress towards a more unified state, that will fall apart when we leave if we leave, ever
-Second Democracy in Middle East
-More stable fuel markets worldwide

Costs
-$400+ Billion thus far
-3,500 dead Americans 25,000 wounded Americans, many with serious, critical even, debilitating life long injuries,
-No sure date we can ever leave
-No economic benefit to remaining in the country
-No incentive for Iraqis to fix their own problems, AQ, sunnies, Shiites, Kurds, local militias vs federal army, corrupt police officers, corrupt government officials.

Our battle with Islamic extremism does not live or die in Iraq, it is not over when Iraq is done, it sure won't be the only place we ever have to go so why are we putting all the chips in this battle? We are racking up debt, wasting our resources fighting this war and for what progress?

Daily car bombs killing scores, dozens hundreds, a society of refugees sick of war, too poor and un-trusting of their leadership or us to fix the problems. Sure there is progress but it can be accelerated if and when we leave, burdening the Iraqis with their responsibilities and not leaving that to the Americans, soldiers fighting political battles on the streets of the capitol.

Certainly keeping people free in Iraq and their elected government in power doesn't benefit us any, we aren't seeing record low fuel prices like after the Gulf War, we aren't seeing a growing peace movement in the middleeast because we have setup shop on the ground "over there".
Since we are not denying terrorists a haven to perform operations in Iraq anymore then we are stopping the sun from shining there, it's time to leave and let the Iraqis live of die by their own values. If they choose to give in to the terrorists fine, they will have to suffer the consequences, if they choose to stand up and fight for themselves, then AQ will eventually be defeated.

Yeah they may not have a great plan, but there's cost both a hell of a lot less in money and lives of our soldiers, it also exits us from this nightmare that a lack of planning got us into in the first place. Lets leave today, and give Iraqi's a head start on their future, a future of their choosing not ours.

I see you missed the point of the article. Then what can I expect, it was you who I was talking about I guess. I didn't actually expect Democrats to come in and say "You're right Charles".

And no, I don't think I have it wrong. We have many if not all of the Democratic Presidential candidates wanting to bring the troops home (considering that at the same time they want actions to be taken in Pakistan, I don't know how we can do both at the same time), half of them want them home before the end of this year. Unless the average American is stupid, they should all realize and know that that approach is ridiculous irresponsible. Not all Americans want us to just walk away from Iraq and leave it as is, they want us to finish up, to get this war over with, to get the job done and get our soldiers home. That is what people want. To walk away now would put the blood of countless of Iraqi people in our hands for being irresponsible, inconsiderate, inhumane, careless and worst of all unable to finish what we started. We would be throwing out the window everything this country stands for. It would be the most shameful move ever by us. That is why the Democrats are wrong and that is why you are wrong. This is not about the mistake of going into Iraq, this is about taking care of the what we started. If we can't finish what we started then we should just stay home, STFU and let the rest of the world do what the hell they want regardless how many innocent people are dying out there.

I have a simple solution that would end the terrorist problem forever, everywhere, We have a stockpile of close to 2000 almost obsolete nukes, I say we use them, start with pakistan and work our way west, just do all the Muslim countries except for Iraq.

The problem with the war on terror as of now, is we are just too soft, and I fear the only thing that will change that is a major (WMD) attack on the U.S.  Take a look at some of the politicians and groups today, they worry more about how terrorists think of us than actually coming up with plans to fight them.  The democrat controlled Congress, what have they done to fight terrorism? 

at least gene didn't say, that the vast majority of americans want this or that, this time.

Why except Iraq? I say nuke them too if we gonna do it.



Agreed, if I have said it once I have said it thousands of times, we want to defeat an enemy with rubber bullets while they use any destructive device they can get their hands on. We already look bad in the eyes of the world (which I think it's nothing new, the rest of the world never really liked us), we may as well get the job done swiftly and we sort out the mistakes later.

That's because he hasn't had a chances yet. Besides he seems to stick to his own articles most of the time. He barely every wonders off onto other articles, he knows he'll get mulled.

sorry i got him and greene mixed up

if you were to take time to skim over the recent history of afghanistan, you might possibly begin to realize why and how it became the perfect haven for bin laden.

here's a clue: after a decade of utilizing their homeland as our proxy in a brutal war against the ussr, afghanistan--already one of the world's most impoverished nations--had become a virtual wasteland with a terminally damaged infrastructure.

here's another: instead of stepping up to rebuild the place immediately afterward (or even do much in the way of helping its citizens remove the millions of mines waiting to blow off their legs and arms) as a thank-you for all the blood they shed to bring down the soviet union (if you believe reagan really scared gorbachev by ordering him to tear down the berlin wall, you can stop reading right here), we crawled from the wreckage and went on home.

bin laden stayed there, spent money and built things like hospitals in addition to terrorist training camps. as the country spiraled into even greater chaos, the taliban stepped in and began killing bandits. sure they were brutal religious fanatics, but they did establish order of a sort.

a month after 911, we invaded afghanistan, drove out the taliban and allowed bin laden to escape into the nw tribal regions of pakistan. we could have--and should have--cleansed afghanistan of the taliban then. we could have--and should have--made a really significant effort to rebuild afghanistan, to heal the wounds it suffered while acting as our agent. we had strong support and a true coalition force.** after things calmed down a bit, the afghanis brought themselves together to form their first real government in decades.

do you remember all of bush's bluster about not resting til bin laden was captured? you think he ain't resting peacefully most nights? until a couple weeks ago, i'm willing to bet oj spent more time tracking down whatshername's killer.

at the point where we could have helped turn afghanistan into a real ally--unlike pakistan- bush, cheney, rumsfeld and their associates did what far too many people do when they believe themselves to have absolute authority. moving all but 20,000 troops out of afghanistan was & remains an act of criminal stupidity.

now either bush is a puppet who's parroting something someone else told him to say about the danger of failed states--or he's so stupid he forgot his own admonition.

here's a third possibility: he really don't give a fuck and never has because he's never had to take any responsibility for anything in his entire life..

personally, i'm favoring the last of those.

and when the revitalized al quaeda attacks again, yall can try to blame it on whomever you want. fact is, we've had nearly 6 years to conduct a real war on al quaeda and to capture bin laden. clocks been tickin the whole time while bush and his buddies played war president.

you have a lotta fuckin nerve calling american citizens ignorant cowards because they're finally beginning to speak out against bush's disastrous expedition in iraq.

you remind me of a passerby happening upon an accident who--lacking formal training in any of the sciences which might qualify one to deduce from the scene some likely cause for the wreck, not to mention being totally uninteresed in reports from those who happened to actually witness the event--looks things over for a few moments before loudly ensuring everyone within earshot is forced to conclude he's an ignoramus of the first degree.

**i'm sure you've never stopped to consider this but there is no such thing as a coalition of the unwilling. coalition of the willing is a perfect example of the only thing at which the bush machine is truly successful: coining cynical bullshit doublespeak.

the soviet union collapsed because of a supermarket.

The Democrats have changed their position of opposition to the war in Iraq from one of being a rush to war, then an unjust and wrong war to be fighting, now it's end the war that cannot be won.

Clearly at this stage, there isn't a military solution to the situation or it would have been reached already? Five years of Iraq under occupation has accomplished a lot of the goals we were sold on in order to get us in there,

Get Saddam,
Get the WMD,
Setup a democracy

Step 4 is leaving. For the people who say or use the argument, stay until the job is done, A. Whats the job we are trying to do? B. What if that job requires us to make Iraq the 51st state, where we never leave?

If the goal is to get Iraq on their feet, they are on their feet, they have a government, a military, a police force, they have those things what they need now is something we can't give them, which is a belief in freedom over fear. They can't achieve that without looking to death of the path of terrorism straight in the eye, experiencing it themselves and choosing to fight it, rather then buy it off and make it someone else's' burden.

I'm sorry you feel like us leaving is means the instant loss of freedom and total collapse of Iraqi society. It surely does not, but our continued presence makes their country a target for anyone who wants to import terror, and fight agains the USA for whatever reason, on a battlefield of chaos. You can't argue with me, because its fact, the death of tens of thousands of civilians since we have been there, has occurred. Not on our hands but because of our choice to invade and occupy rather then invade, accomplish a mission, and leave.

You also can't argue that at any point in this entire operation that this military was prepared to do this job at all, because the military commanders have admitted to congress it is so.

Just because you start a job, take on a task, doesn't mean you finish it if finishing it is beyond your capability. Which clearly, assuring long term peace and stability in Iraq, is not.

Kingbee:

I see you finally decided to put that brain of yours to work and are finally giving some decent debate around here again. Thank you for leaving those childish insults behind. The site has gotten a bit better lately and we could use some more interesting debating around here. With that said:

if you were to take time to skim over the recent history of afghanistan, you might possibly begin to realize why and how it became the perfect haven for bin laden. here's a clue: after a decade of utilizing their homeland as our proxy in a brutal war against the ussr, afghanistan--already one of the world's most impoverished nations--had become a virtual wasteland with a terminally damaged infrastructure. here's another: instead of stepping up to rebuild the place immediately afterward (or even do much in the way of helping its citizens remove the millions of mines waiting to blow off their legs and arms) as a thank-you for all the blood they shed to bring down the soviet union (if you believe reagan really scared gorbachev by ordering him to tear down the berlin wall, you can stop reading right here), we crawled from the wreckage and went on home. bin laden stayed there, spent money and built things like hospitals in addition to terrorist training camps. as the country spiraled into even greater chaos, the taliban stepped in and began killing bandits. sure they were brutal religious fanatics, but they did establish order of a sort. a month after 911, we invaded afghanistan, drove out the taliban and allowed bin laden to escape into the nw tribal regions of pakistan. we could have--and should have--cleansed afghanistan of the taliban then. we could have--and should have--made a really significant effort to rebuild afghanistan, to heal the wounds it suffered while acting as our agent. we had strong support and a true coalition force.** after things calmed down a bit, the afghanis brought themselves together to form their first real government in decades. do you remember all of bush's bluster about not resting til bin laden was captured? you think he ain't resting peacefully most nights? until a couple weeks ago, i'm willing to bet oj spent more time tracking down whatshername's killer. at the point where we could have helped turn afghanistan into a real ally--unlike pakistan- bush, cheney, rumsfeld and their associates did what far too many people do when they believe themselves to have absolute authority. moving all but 20,000 troops out of afghanistan was & remains an act of criminal stupidity. now either bush is a puppet who's parroting something someone else told him to say about the danger of failed states--or he's so stupid he forgot his own admonition.

I've never denied being ignorant to history, especially anything outside the US. I agree we could have done a lot of things better back in the days. We are not exactly innocent to many of the problems of the world. We were either too stupid to follow thru on something that could have been beneficial in the future (allies, cheaper products, better intelligence) or we waltz around showing off how big our guns are and we just didn't really care since we had already gotten what we wanted. In this day in age we are not too far off of being this way still. We still go around showing how much bigger our guns are and we tend to act as if we really care about other nations and throw money at them in the hopes to make the lie even better (and I'm talking about the Gov't in general, not just GWB).

Just like anyone else with enough brains and enough money, Bin Laden took advantage of the situation in Afghanistan to brainwash a large group of people into aiding him by convincing them that he was their best friend, that he did what the US did not. The Taliban also took advantage of the situation to control the people in Afghanistan by offering some kind of order thru harsh punishments and strict laws. Living in the sad conditions they did they jumped at the chance of having a better, safer life. I'm sure that many, but not all, had they known back then what they know today would probably not have gone for it, but we don't really know that now do we?

Anyways, while I agree that we are partially responsible for Bin Laden's success in keeping Al-qaeda alive in between Afghanistan and Pakistan, this should not be about the mistakes in the past. This should be about the actions we take today to deal with Osama and Al-qaeda. If we were to base our actions today on our history, we may as well go back home with our tails between our legs and never show our faces in shame since this country itself went thru a terrible era of human abuse, poverty, careless leadership, death and destruction and lots and lots of hatred that can still be seen today from generations that don't really understand the hatred they have inside, they are just following what has been passed down to them. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it, but we should also look towards the future and not wallow in past mistakes. We should learn from it, not use it as a weapon against ourselves.

here's a third possibility: he really don't give a fuck and never has because he's never had to take any responsibility for anything in his entire life.. personally, i'm favoring the last of those. and when the revitalized al quaeda attacks again, yall can try to blame it on whomever you want. fact is, we've had nearly 6 years to conduct a real war on al quaeda and to capture bin laden. clocks been tickin the whole time while bush and his buddies played war president.

Well I couldn't possible expect you to favor anything else considering the administration today is not what you wanted, a Democratic one. I can tell you this though, it is my belief (mine, not the news or everyone else on this site) that had there been a Democrat in the White House, Osama would have been doing much better than he is now, Saddam would still be giving the UN the run around, the Oil for Food program would still be paying off those who abused it and the economy would probably be in worse shape. But that's just my opinion. I figure if Democrats today have a lot of fingers to point but no solutions to back those fingers, I see no reason to believe they had them before Bush got elected (or stole the elections, what ever tickles your fancy).

you have a lotta fuckin nerve calling american citizens ignorant cowards because they're finally beginning to speak out against bush's disastrous expedition in iraq.

I do? Great, in a place like this nerve is something that is a must to survive the constant attacks and insults. But what's interesting is that I was not necessarily calling Americans cowards due for finally standing up to Bush. We are cowards for not standing up at all, for allowing this Administration and every other Administration before it to do as it pleased, to let our Congressmen get away with not doing the will of the people, to allow our politicians to make elections a beauty and popularity contest, to lie in our faces just so they can get re-elected and continue to make money while calling Big Business and Big Oil abusers of the poor. But I see you can't see past your obsession with wanting your party to win that in every argument you will use Iraq as your main and probably only weapon to fight down any argument. Well guess what kingbee, it ain't gonna work here. The only real mistake Bush make in Iraq was to trust in the Iraqi people to stand up and fight for their country. The true screw ups of this disaster in Iraq are the Iraqis themselves for worrying more about the other factions while Al-qaeda waltzed in and began to kill them left and right. For not trying to find a solution to stabilizing Iraq instead of trying to find ways to kill each other. But there is still hope since some of the leaders thru out Iraq are beginning to point their fighting efforts towards Al-qaeda and this could be the beginning to heading in the right direction. But we would probably have never known we could not count on them at first had we never tried; leave it to the Democrats to refuse to try anything that has even a small chance of failure and makes them look bad in the process.

you remind me of a passerby happening upon an accident who--lacking formal training in any of the sciences which might qualify one to deduce from the scene some likely cause for the wreck, not to mention being totally uninteresed in reports from those who happened to actually witness the event--looks things over for a few moments before loudly ensuring everyone within earshot is forced to conclude he's an ignoramus of the first degree.

I guess I'm happy to bring back bad memories? I'm always curious why people have this idea that those who don't agree with them either ignore "facts" or are uninterested in them. How come it's never "you may see it differently" or " you may not interpret the facts the same way" or even "well if that's how you see it fine with me". I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they just may not interpret it the same way as I do, but sometimes there is no other way to see it, when 2+2=4 that's absolute. BTW if you thought that insulting me would get you somewhere you are sadly mistaken. Been there, done that. You're gonna have to try harder.

**i'm sure you've never stopped to consider this but there is no such thing as a coalition of the unwilling. coalition of the willing is a perfect example of the only thing at which the bush machine is truly successful: coining cynical bullshit doublespeak.

Well that and proving he is the Decider. Even with full control of Congress and almost control of the Senate, Democrats proved they were full of nothing bush crap and hot air. The 2006 elections made as much impact here in the US as Bush did in Iraq. I guess you can say Bush and the Democrats have one thing in common, they both suck at leadership.

Oops, double post. I guess I was much more passionate about this than I thought.