Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 124
We're winningPage 3 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Ah. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll be more clear. Post 9/11, there was a unified front in the American populace, the two political parties, and many, many countries. The Bush Admin pissed it away, mainly through its creative interpretation of the Constitution and taking advantage of said solidarity to fulfill the neocons' private agenda of toppling the Iraqi government.
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 127
We're winning
Posted: 11/14/2007 10:53:44 PM

Post 9/11, there was a unified front in the American populace, the two political parties, and many, many countries. The Bush Admin pissed it away, mainly through its creative interpretation of the Constitution and taking advantage of said solidarity to fulfill the neocons' private agenda of toppling the Iraqi government.

Yes. That is where we lost big time. By furthering a climate of fear and a fostering a desire for revenge, we reduced the scope of our moral awareness and as a consequence lost our moral leadership. We will never get that back through geopolitics. Even if we do manage to stabilize our hold over Iraq, it will still be a losing proposition.
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 129
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/15/2007 7:22:27 AM

Truth be told there isn't a nickels worth of difference between any of the political parties, and anyone who is delusional enough to believe that there is needs to reexamine history.

I agree .
Everyone has lost in this war , other than those who pull the strings.
It serves no purpose to argue democrat vs. republican ( neo con )
People should put aside their differences and try to get to the bottom of things.
The only good that could come from this war or any past war is to understand real politics better in order to prevent future wars by figuring out who is pulling the strings.
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 135
We're winning
Posted: 11/17/2007 6:18:03 AM
Montreal Guy ~~ Think I'm in love, lol! Someone who knows how to use tinyurl, and is considerate enough of fellow posters not to blow the borders of a thread! ♥
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 136
We're winning
Posted: 11/17/2007 11:16:38 AM
Msg #200:

how many people here truly want us to WIN in iraq, and how many have it on their agenda for us to LOSE?

Oh... sorry. Must have nodded off there. Tired neocon sophistry does that to me. Here's a question for you: do you truly want to stop beating your wife, or is it on your agenda to continue beating your wife? It's a simple decision! Do you or don't you want to continue beating your wife?!

To put it in more tangible terms: it's not a question of winning or losing. It's a question of good and bad strategy and diplomacy. It's a question of cutting one's losses or continuing to hemorrhage. If we choose to hemorrhage indefinitely, then "the terrorists have already won." There are umpteen ways to play that catchy phrase...

Or how about this: we put it to a vote in the Iraqi populace if the US stays or goes. Sounds fair enough to me. Democracy in action!
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 137
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/17/2007 11:40:40 AM
you're winning?

there is no winning,...

there never was,'s a myth

how long has Canada been a Country as it is today,....
and how long have the French declaired they aren't and don't want to be part of it?

No matter how many conscessions are made,...and how many french english signs there are,...or how many people learn french,....

How long have Ireland and scottland and england been considered one Britan?

By the rest of the world perhaps someone can say but ask a Scott,...or an Irishman

You can restrain people,...
you can force them to behave a certain way,...speak a certain language even go to a certain church,..ask any Russan,...but you can't force them to believe or to feel changed at the point of a gun,....(sadly though I think it's our nature to start wars and conflicts)

that is something that can only be done by setting an example,.....other's want to follow,....there are examples in virtually every part of the world to back me up,...

so WON????,....

Ask yourself how you define that,...but as I define it,....

no one is,...or indeed will ever win this or any war,.....
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 139
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/17/2007 3:03:14 PM
world war two was called such because of the severrity of the situation at that time and because the world was involved as a whole,....

as for winner's and looser's,....why go that far back,... try Pol Pot and the millions he killed,...oh yes that one was lost,...yet same outcome,...

dead children are still dead children and the survivors are just that in both cases,...

no different,....

as for ,...The War On Terror,...where exactly is that country,...what are the rules of engagement,....does it matter if you kill and torture the innocent or the guilty as long as you get some guilty?,....

and does it matter if you act like terrorists by proxie and only when no one knows or do you actually stand for a principal that you will not behave as your enemy to combat him?

I believe in principals not a flag,.... I don't believe in looking the other way if it's the only way to get the results,.... I don't believe in guilty until proven innocent,....

and I don't believe you gain global respect by disrespecting those over which you have power, and can have fun with, on the night shift by making them wear your shit while running around naked with dogs biting their naked bodies,....

I believe in standing up for your mistakes, making reperation, appologizing, and making sure it NEVER happens again,....

that sir is how you become respected as a country,.....
and that sir not arguing in front of a watchfull world about whether only somewhat drowning someone is in fact torture,...and can you be held reponsible for what you pay another country to do in your stead,...

I remember the kennedy years well,...I lived through enough and their aftermath to know what you have lost as a country over the years, you?

Let me just ask you this,....where islamic nations calling for your death back then?

why not? there is no such thing as war on terror,...because terror is an action and an ideal,...not a nation, or a people, can only protect yourself against terror by changing yourselves or hiding,....but that's not a war,.....

you don't win peace by trying to change anyone or anything, by force, do it by making it so no one will need or want to fight you,....because nothing will be gained by them,...

by actually living according to the principals you say you believe in.

Because those principals were and always will be admirable,....

and that's coming from a geman immigrant who served in her new country,..her husband served as do her son's,....but we all serve(d) to further the cause of PEACE,...

just FYI,....stratdiggerr,....BTW,...We love you soldiers??????????

of course you love them,...gee wizz,...they are your son's and daughter's,...and we all love them,....but so do the parents of your enemy, their's I mean,....

that much is a given,.....but,....
do you love where your leader's are taking them and why???????????,...

that's the question,....
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 142
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/17/2007 3:34:56 PM

Sorry Marita, I do understand the things you wish to believe in, and I wish the world were such as you see it, however, the reality is that you earn respect as a country with strength.

you sound like my father,...that's how he raised me,...

turns out he was wrong, too,.......and I still don't respect him,....

I feared him, got that part right,...,...but respect????,...nopers,...
and,....I don't admire him either,...
he is now just a sad old man living all alone,.....

I never visit him,...or call him on the phone,...and if that's what you want,...
to be left alone,...your on the right track,....

PS, your history,....America may feel like it won the world war 2 singlehandedly,....but you didn't even join in untill it actually affected you some half way through,....the Canadians had been there for a couple of years by then, were many other nations,....soo as for your ,... America did not ask for spoils at the end of world war two,

you might want to keep your entitlement issues to yourself for now,....
just a suggestion,...

and you asked for the right to maintain global piece, did you?,.....

I must have missed that when they were carving up all that entitlement,....

so what did Canada get again?
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 149
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/17/2007 6:13:22 PM
the one thing I just recently remembered from the 60's and 70's are the men I met who went to vietnam,....

I have seen post traumatic stress up close and personal,....
There were many who suffered greatly after that and now that this has just somewhat subsided,...a new crop of men and now women will have to come to grips with this for the next 20 or 30 years,....start building your prison's, shelters and hospitals now,...

you'll be needing them,.....

even if your officially declaired winner's and all your troops come home by Christmas
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 151
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/17/2007 10:11:18 PM

which is what Saddam was eventually after

Got evidence of that? It just doesn't seem his style. Khameini wants a theocracy, Saddam didn't, which is your implication.

idolizing Nebechnezzer! Bet liberals don't know that name

If you mean "Nebuchadnezzar", then apparently you don't know the name either, nor anything much about him.

I hope the day comes when we can pull out and not have to worry about our land being attacked.

Iraq never attacked the US.

notice though how he's kept this country free from attacks since 911

Given that it was attacked ONCE; not very successfully, before he took office, it's rather hard to say he has any responsibility for preventing anything. You CAN be fairly sure that he's added to the number of people who will try in the future though.

Remember the Pentagon? I can only imagine what other plans the enemy had for us

I doubt the Pentagon was a major concern, at least not by itself. Be that as it may, imagination isn't much required. 9/11 was more or less predicted. Most terrorist acts are, and by US government agencies no less.

I agree with your sentiments - just not the rationale used to support them. The soldiers generally do the job asked of them; to the best of their ability, and make a great difference. The question is whether government policies might undermine anything the men on the ground strive to achieve.
Joined: 4/23/2006
Msg: 152
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/18/2007 12:36:07 AM

Say what you will about Bush, notice though how he's kept this country free from attacks since 911. If the Democrats get into office, I pray they can do the same.

You need to do some serious fact checking. The democrats were the ones who were concerned about terrorism when Bush first took office. Bush was more concerned with missle defence. When the FBI definitivley pinned Al-Queda to the Cole bombing, it was Feburary 2001, Bush was president. What did he do we he was told? Absolutley nothing. Look up Richard Clarke, he kept trying to warn the Bush administration, and get high level meetings on Al-Queda.
So, yeah, there hasn't been any attacks on the US recently. But your hero Bush, did not do a goddam thing until Sept. 12 2001.
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 155
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/19/2007 8:31:06 AM
Of course we are winning, we have been since day 1.

It is those pesky liberals who wants us to fail. Kind of makes you wonder why?

The why is that see a POLITICAL victory in the defeat of America run by a GOP President. How is that for mixed up values.

The anti-war movement has only brought down one president during wartime. LBJ, a democrat and then the dems embrace the anti-war movement. Sounds sick to me.
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 156
We're winning
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:37:20 PM

No one wrote back on the topic because it was the quiet truth.

Most people don't take the trouble to stop their vehicle, get out, and beat a dead horse. They would rather just keep on driving.

mfrotyl, keen observations.

Hmmm... great minds think alike? The satire is thick here.

Please, send money to wherever money is sent to educate people. Information, facts, insight, a good BS meter, and a balanced rational mind are terrible things to waste.
Joined: 11/10/2007
Msg: 157
We're winning
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:39:08 PM

No one ever wants to talk about that we took out Saddam Insane, err, Hussein who killed a MILLION of his own people via biological (yes, WMDs!) agents in a genocidal manner.

Quack Quack Quack, You mean the ones we gave him to use against Iran? dammit he used them on the wrong people! lot of that quiet truth you mentioned going around eh?
Joined: 4/23/2006
Msg: 159
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:51:00 PM

Pages ago I tried to bring it up as the definition for success in this war. We stopped a guy who was well on his way to becoming the next Hitler in all likelihood. No one wrote back on the topic because it was the quiet truth.

So....We took out a ruthless dictator, destablized the largest seccular nation in the middeast, and created the largest terrorist training ground ever, with more people than ever joining their cause because of the occupation. And that's success? And also... Just how was Saddam going to become the next Hitler? He barley had a standing army, absolutley no air-force, and was heavily sanctioned. But somehow you think he was going to take over the middle-east, and then half the world. Get real. Turn off Faux News, Sean Hannity, Rush,etc.
P.S. They never caught the guy who was doing the anthrax attacks. Maybe you should wrap your house in plastic.
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 160
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:55:50 PM
No one ever wants to talk about that we took out Saddam Insane, err, Hussein who killed a MILLION of his own people via biological (yes, WMDs!) agents in a genocidal manner.

Oh my GOD! can it realy be that this old chestnut is being resurected again?
chances are the people who have ignored the actual facts will continue to work these absurd grounds to go to war,... into a reasonable excuse for this war,.....
but I'm going to try one more time,....

Did Saddam Gas the Kurds?
By Juan Cole
Mr. Cole is Professor of Modern Middle Eastern and South Asian History at the University of Michigan. His website is

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Stephen Pelletiere argued that the March, 1988, gassing of Kurds during the waning months of the Iran-Iraq war may have been perpetrated by Iran, not Iraq. This issue has taken on importance because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds is often given as one ground for the U.S. to go to war to effect regime change. As it happens, Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst, is just plain wrong and appears not to have kept up with documentation made available during the past decade.

As a result of the successful bid for autonomy of Kurds in northern Iraq under the U.S. no-fly zone, tens of thousands of documents from the Iraqi secret police and military were captured by Kurdish rebels from 1991 forward. These were turned over to the U.S. government. Some ten thousand of them have been posted to the World Wide Web at the Iraq Research and Documentation Program at the Center for Middle East Studies of Harvard University:

The captured documents explicitly refer to Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Kurds, called "Anfal" (spoils) operations. Some documents were reviewed by Human Rights Watch in the early 1990s, which issued a report, entitled "Genocide in Iraq." Robert Rabil, a researcher with the IRD Program, has also published an analysis of the documents, in the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

The documents under review never mention Iraqi authorities taking precautions against Iranian uses of chemical weapons, and there is no good evidence that Iran did so. Since Iran and the Kurds were allies, Iran in any case had no motive to gas thousands of Kurds. The Baath documents do frequently mention the Anfal campaign of February-September 1988, when high Baath officials in the north were authorized to gas the Kurds.

The Kurdish minority of northern Iraq speaks an Indo-European language very different from the Semitic language of Arabic, and has long sought greater autonomy from Baghdad. Largely farmers and pastoralists, they practice a mystical, Sufi form of Islam that is distinctive in modern Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, which Saddam Hussein launched against his neighbor, the Kurds sought Iranian support for their insurgency. The Baath regime, threatened, responded by destroying Kurdish villages in strategic zones, resorting to ethnic cleansing.

These brutal conventional measures failed to achieve their objective, and for that reason the Baath regime initiated its chemical warfare on the Kurds in 1988. The operation was headed up by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hasan al-Majid, the Secretary-General of the Northern Bureau of the Ba'th Organization. For this reason, Iraqis call him "Chemical Ali."

The Baath regime launched 39 separate gas attacks against the Kurds, many of them targeting villages far from the Iran-Iraq border. Beginning at night on Thursday, March 16, and extending into Friday, March 17, 1988, the city of Halabja (population 70,000), was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs. Photographs show dead children in the street with lunch pails. An estimated 5,000 persons died. Although some analysts say the gas used was hydrogen cyanide (not in Iraq's arsenal), others have suggested it might have been sarin, VX, and tabun. Iraq is known to have these agents. (Iran is not known to have hydrogen cyanide, in any case

Beginning at night on Thursday, March 16, and extending into Friday, March 17, 1988, the city of Halabja (population 70,000), was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs. Photographs show dead children in the street with lunch pails. An estimated 5,000 persons died.

not millions,...but about 5,000 men women and children died in the 38 seperate gassing incidents,...which incidentially is STILL AWFULL,..
but stating it was millions sounds so much better now, doesn't it?

but you do NOT go to war, some 20 years after the fact and use it as an excuse,....
how even one person thought this was a reasonable explanation is completely beyond any rhyme or reason to me,....and never will be,....

If you can be gotten to swallow that load of horsepuckey you can be made to believe anything,....and time seems to bear this assumption out,...


"Saddam Hussein is a man who is willing to gas his own people, willing to use weapons of mass destruction against Iraq citizens. "--President Bush, March 22, 2002

"As he said, any person that would gas his own people is a threat to the world."--Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, May 31, 2002

Over the past six months President Bush has repeatedly reminded the public that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. What he has neglected to mention is that at the time Saddam did so the United States did nothing to stop him. Indeed, as Samantha Power makes clear in an account in her new book, A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, the United States refused even to condemn the killing of civilians.

The infamous gas attack took place in mid-March 1988 in the Kurdish town of Halabja, the crossroads of an ongoing battle waged between a joint Kurdish-Iranian force and the Iraqi army. Caught in the middle were innocent civilians, including women and children.

From Power's account:

"It was different from the other bombs," one witness remembered. "There was a huge sound, a huge flame and it had very destructive ability. If you touched one part of your body that had been burned, your hand burned also. It caused things to catch fire." The planes flew low enough for the petrified Kurds to take note of the markings, which were those of the Iraqi air force. Many families tumbled into primitive air-raid shelters they had built outside their homes. When the gasses seeped through the cracks, they poured out into the streets in a panic. There they found friends and family frozen in time like a modern version of Pompeii: slumped a few yards behind a baby carriage, caught permanently holding the hand of a loved one or shielding a child from the poisoned air, or calmly collapsed behind a car steering wheel.

Halabja was the "most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against the Kurds," killing 5,000 civilians. But as Power notes, it was just one of some forty chemical assaults staged by Iraq against the Kurdish people.

The official U.S. government reaction to Halabja? At first the government downplayed the reports, which were coming from Iranian sources. Once the media had confirmed the story and pictures of the dead villagers had been shown on television, the U.S. denounced the use of gas. Marlin Fitzwater told reporters, "Everyone in the administration saw the same reports you saw last night. They were horrible, outrageous, disgusting and should serve as a reminder to all countries of why chemical warfare should be banned." But as Power observes, "The United States issued no threats or demands." The government's objection was that Saddam had used gas to kill his own citizens, not that he had killed them. Indeed, subsequently State Department officials indicated that both sides--Iraq and Iran--were responsible perhaps for the gassing of civilian Kurds.

On August 20, 1988 Iran and Iraq ended their war. Within days Iraq again gassed the Kurds. A front-page story in the New York Times summed up the purpose of the latest assault: "Iraq has begun a major offensive [meant to] crush the 40-year-long insurgency once and for all." After a delay of weeks Secretary of State George Shultz condemned the assaults. But the United States again failed to act, even as hundreds of thousands of Kurds were being uprooted from their homes and forced into the mountains, tens of thousands killed. By 1989, says Powers, 4,049 Kurdish villages had been destroyed.

Why had the United States not acted? That was what William Safire and a few other columnists in the media wanted to know. Years later James Baker explained:

Diplomacy--as well as the American psyche--is fundamentally biased toward "improving relations." Shifting a policy away from cooperation toward confrontation is always a more difficult proposition--particularly when support for existing policy is as firmly embedded among various constituencies and bureaucratic interests as was the policy toward Iraq."

Domestic special interests had a stake in the survival of Saddam. Exports to Iraq of American agricultural products were large: 23 percent of U.S. rice exports went to Iraq; a million tons of wheat. When members of Congress threatened to pass a sanctions bill against Iraq, the White House opposed the measure.


let me repeat this one thing,......

On August 20, 1988 Iran and Iraq ended their war. Within days Iraq again gassed the Kurds. A front-page story in the New York Times summed up the purpose of the latest assault: "Iraq has begun a major offensive [meant to] crush the 40-year-long insurgency once and for all." After a delay of weeks Secretary of State George Shultz condemned the assaults. But the United States again failed to act, even as hundreds of thousands of Kurds were being uprooted from their homes and forced into the mountains, tens of thousands killed. By 1989, says Powers, 4,049 Kurdish villages had been destroyed.


In 1989 President George Herbert Walker Bush took power and ordered a review of United States policy toward Iraq. According to Power:

The study ... deemed Iraq a potentially helpful ally in containing Iran and nudging the Middle East peace process ahead. The "Guidelines for U.S.-Iraq Policy" swiped at proponents of sanctions on Capital Hill and a few human rights advocates who had begun lobbying within the State Department. The guidelines noted that despite support from the Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and State Departments for a profitable, stable U.S.-Iraq relationship, "parts of Congress and the Department would scuttle even the most benign and beneficial areas of the relationship, such as agricultural exports." The Bush administration would not shift to a policy of dual containment of both Iraq and Iran. Vocal American businesses were adamant that Iraq was a source of opportunity, not enmity. The White House did all it could to create an opening for these companies"Had we attempted to isolate Iraq," Secretary of State James Baker wrote later, "we would have also isolated American businesses, particularly agricultural interests, from significant commercial opportunities."

Powers mordantly comments: "Hussein locked up another $1 billion in agricultural credits. Iraq became the ninth largest purchaser of U.S. farm products.... As Baker put it gently in his memoirs, 'Our administration's review of the previous Iraq policy was not immune from domestic economic considerations.'"

so can we finally put this rediculous pretext to bed,...once and for all,....

KURDS being gassed had ZERO to do with this fiasco,.....

take the rose coloured glasses of now,...
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 162
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/20/2007 2:06:26 AM
Truth be told there isn't a nickels worth of difference between any of the political parties, and anyone who is delusional enough to believe that there is needs to reexamine history.
I agree .
Everyone has lost in this war , other than those who pull the strings.
It serves no purpose to argue democrat vs. republican ( neo con )
People should put aside their differences and try to get to the bottom of things.
The only good that could come from this war or any past war is for people to understand real politics better in order to prevent future wars by figuring out who is pulling the strings.

Address by Mayor Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson on October 27, 2007
Salt Lake City, Utah --

Today, as we come together once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah’s entire congressional delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: “You have failed us miserably and we won’t take it any more.”

“While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss.”

“You have breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law.”

“You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of the sort never before countenanced in our nation’s history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder.”

“We are here to tell you: We won’t take it any more!”

“You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as Americans who love our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our nation’s treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”

“Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false ‘patriotism,’ our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before.

It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense – when what you have done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling – and disgraceful. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you not understand? What part of the “Golden rule” do you not understand? What part of “be honest,” “be responsible,” and “be accountable” don’t you understand? What part of “Blessed are the peacekeepers” do you not understand?

Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and sisters around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, ‘We won’t take it any more!’ ”

“As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon you to step aside and allow other men and women who are competent, true to our nation’s values, and with high moral principles to stand in your places – for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the good of our world.”

In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic accountability.

It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal, tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing human beings.

In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress’s sole prerogative to declare war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country – and the world. They were enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people – 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks – a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by a government for which we need to take responsibility.

As loyal Americans, without regard to political partisanship -- as veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins, sexual orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and to the mainstream media: “You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our democracy, spat upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented proportions.”

“But we will live up to our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the imperial bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it when we say ‘We won’t take it any more.’”

If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not the leaders – the leadership has to come from us. If we don’t insist, if we don’t persist, then we are not living up to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy – and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If we remain silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration – and to candidates running for office – and to the world – that we support the status quo.

Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what’s right and never letting down can we say we are doing our part.

Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was entirely fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States. Our government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction.

It all started five years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media. We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later.

How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years? Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses.

Why is this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness?

We should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising hell on our campuses. We should be making it clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don’t cut it when presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American men and women to attack and occupy Iraq.

Let’s awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us: “We won’t take it any more!”

I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking point is. How much will you put up with before you say “No more” and mean it?

I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name.

If we expect our nation’s elected officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted – that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership.

The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won’t let it go on one more day – that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our nation’s reputation in the world.

Let us be unified in drawing the line – in declaring that we do have a moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which our veterans gave so much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our government to a constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights.

In defense of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as Americans – and as moral human beings – we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture of people around the world.
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 167
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/28/2007 12:23:51 PM
KURDS being gassed had ZERO to do with this fiasco,...take off the rose colored glasses now,..

I don't necessarily agree with that I think the way in which Bush 1 left them hung out to dry.Gave junior a reason to go back to Iraq to get the repubs use anything remotely like this past stuff to glorify all thier misdeeds.I Think they should take off th crap colored glasses cause of where their heads are

If you think it's ok for one president 5, 10 or even 15 years after the fact to finish what they believed wasn't finished by a previous president,....even if they were related,..then you better look to see what Bill didn't finish before the missus gets into the big chair, fact you better look to see what every president left unresolved or unfinished,....even if that past president had declaired the issue done and closed, papa BUSH had declaired his war done

After all papa Bush did declaire his war over,....and left,...didn't he?

The implications in your traine of thought are beyond scarry,....because to your way of thinking,....the next president can bomb Cuba if he/she didn't like the way the Bay of Pigs ended, the fact that Kennedy backed off,.....

That is one scarry implication,....

and I stand behind my previous statement the Kurds being gassed 10 years before Baby Bush took office had ZIP,...ZERO,..ZILCJ,...BUPKAS to do with why he went to war in Iraq,....nor BTW did it have anything WHAT SO EVER, do with the architects of 911,....the fact that you can be convinced that it did,.....
is scarry beyond all reason,....if you can be convinced of the fact that it was,....means you can be convinced of ANYTHING,....
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 172
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 11/30/2007 9:31:35 AM

First thing, it's not a war, it's an occupation. Different mechanics, different rules of engagement

where did you get this from because as I understand it an occupation was the very thing they said going in they would never ever do,....

course they have said a lot of things over the years, many of which are equal bunk
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 179
We're winning
Posted: 12/3/2007 8:17:51 PM

Of course, many of the SEC people involved were closely related to the Bush family,

Care to prove that bookworm, or is this simply another case of a bunch of liberals piling on, without knowing the truth?
By the way, the SEC is mandated to investigate any allegation which even might be true - the threshold isn't particularly high.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 180
We're winning
Posted: 12/3/2007 8:25:27 PM

Ever hear the words "declare victory and go home" ?

You mean, like in 1945? Like that would have worked.
As it was, the US holding back from entering into Berlin was a mistake that, in large part, launched the cold war - it took what, nearly 50 years and Ronald Regan standing firm against the Soviets to correct that mistake.
Whoops, me bad - crediting a Republican president with a victory. It only took democrats twenty years to recognize it. Likely take that long, if Bush's gamble in the Middle East pans out, to get credit for going in in the first place.
History will judge...Regan was right and it won't surprise me if, one day, Bush is similarly lauded.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 181
We're winning
Posted: 12/3/2007 11:33:34 PM
You may find it difficult to believe, but if all of what you have cited is true, then I would agree with your opinion. Fact is, I believe that wrong is wrong, and I don't doubt that many here could cite similar transgressions about democratic businessmen cum politicians. There is a certain percentage of politicians who believe that they are above the rules - Bill Clinton comes immediately to mind here - but this particular disease isn't limited to red or blue.
It's another good reason for term limits.
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 182
We're winning
Posted: 12/3/2007 11:37:40 PM
This item is from the Charleston Daily Mail, November 24, 2007 - I suggest that you democrats here not read this, it will upset you greatly. The second last paragraph is of particular interest, given that I've said earlier that history will tell the tale.

THE New York Times devoted a huge hunk of its Page One on Tuesday to the good news of the return to more normal times in Iraq. The story was illustrated with a photo of a wedding scene on the streets of Baghdad.

Violence has been cut in half. And while the nation is far from the tranquil democracy that many of us hoped for in April 2003, it also is a far cry from the chaotic mess it was just six months ago.

We are winning in Iraq.

Will someone please inform the Democrats?

In April, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said: "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq."

Then there is Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the most hawklike among the eight Democrats running for president.

On June 1, Biden said: "The surge has not worked and will not work, because its basic premise — to give time for a strong central government to take hold — is fatally flawed."

Following an election rout by the Democrats a year ago, President Bush changed course in Iraq. He turned the war over to Gen. David Petraeus, hoping for a Gen. U.S. Grant or a Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman. Petraeus came up with the surge plan. Our soldiers would end the violence and give the Iraqis a chance to find their destiny.

The surge was pronounced a failure even before the plans were completed.

On Dec. 24, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., another presidential hopeful, said, "The proposal being considered by the administration to add between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers in a 'surge' of American troops will do nothing to address this issue."

Victory was never an option for Democrats.

But American troops arrived, and it quickly became apparent that Gen. Petraeus — not Gen. Reid — was right. On July 30, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, James Clyburn of South Carolina said a positive report by Gen. Petraeus in September, would be "a real big problem for us."

Which explains why the Democratic party's MoveOn organization took out its infamous Betray Us ad on the eve of the general's testimony to Congress. Democrats wanted to undermine his credibility.

Well, guess what? The Democrats have a real big problem.

Our troops have not acted alone in Iraq. Al-Qaida was chased out of town on a rail by the various tribes.

Bush changed course. Democrats have not. They have squandered their first year in control of Congress by voting 63 times on the war in Iraq — a war that was authorized by a Democratic Senate in 2002.

That works out to a vote on Iraq every five days.The federal budget languishes, still not approved nearly 60 days after the federal budget year began.

The Democrats are committed to defeat in Iraq.

Now Democrats are breaking a campaign pledge from last year not to mess with funding of the war. They want Bush to surrender in Iraq.

American soldiers are far more competent than our senators. The soldiers have met three of the four objectives in the war. First, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Thank God.

Next, the dictator whose executions were on the Idi Amin-level is gone. Hanged.

Third, a defeated al-Qaida also has retreated from Iraq, drained and in tatters. It also lost the public relations war by chopping off the forefingers of smokers. I doubt it will be back.

All that is left is establishing a democracy, which is out of the hands of our soldiers.

Pakistan has been struggling with it since independence 60 years ago. India took 40 years. South Korea, 20 years.The United States took eight years to get its Constitution, but it was another 131 years until women could vote.

It is up to the Iraqis to find their way, but they deserve our help. Democrats need to live up to their name and support democracy.
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 184
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 12/4/2007 12:15:55 AM
We are winning
Nov 2007 lowest amount of American deaths since the Invasion.

Iraqis feel safer and are taking over more of their country.

Al qaeda and other terrorist groups are on the run, they may plant the occasional IED, but have stopped shooting at American forces.

More Weapon caches found daily. Illegal weapons being seized.

Iraqi civilian deaths down.

Not a single attack on Industry, The terrorists prefer the "soft" targets of unarmed civilians.

My sources: Adopted soldier #1: SGT NG, 2 tours Iraq, 1 tour Afghanistan, 3 months Djibouti........worst deployment: New Orleans Sept 2005, too many bodies

Adopted Marine #2: Lance Corporal, On first tour Iraq, not a single causalty in Company

Adopted Soldier #3: Corporal Reserve, 1 tour Iraq, home now, 8 wounded in Company
Adopted Soldier
Joined: 10/20/2007
Msg: 186
view profile
We're winning
Posted: 12/4/2007 1:26:12 AM
If you think we are winning you are a fool. Iraq is the center of the war on terror. Bush's words, not mine. Violence is increasing in Afghanistan, remember this is wear Osama was based prior to 9-11, Pakistan is now considered the most dangerous place in the world. And what about the Kurdish problem along the Iraq/Turkish problem. The enemy in Iraq is not giving up, the battlefield is just moving and we may just be seeing a lull in the action in Iraq.

Also as far as them deciding things with elections, don't be so fast to make a judgement on that one.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >