I guess where we disagree is with the contention that Dems (or Republicans for that matter, of whom there are many who are now calling for a phased withdrawl) who voted in the early days were not voting for a war. They were voting to take Saddam out. No one was voting for what it turned into. I don't think Dems and Republicans who favour withdrawl have 'suddenly found religion'; I think there has been a gradual realization that the 'mission' has turned into something they never voted for. I have always objected to the military intervention in Iraq being characterized as a 'war'. It is in fact not a war at all, in the commonly accepted sense of the word. As far as I understand it, part of the current mess stems from the fact that Greenspan made money so cheap. I am also looking into the possibility that under the Clinton administration, there was legislation which forced banks to lend to minority and low-income individuals. I heard this on here and I haven't been able to confirm it. If this is true it will be a nasty surprise for me. If you feel it's spending that needs to come under control, then surely a part of the reason for that need is that 1 trillion was spent on this 'war'.
You're probably right about the opposition. I don't trust one of those guys as far as I can throw him. These countries are not struggling with a corruption problem, they are built upon the foundation of total corruption. Those who try to institute change get a bullet in the head. Those who placate the special interest groups and let the power mongering religious leaders have their head get rich and get houses in Mayfair. They can do the job? Let them do it? Why in the hell would they do anything? The Muslim leaders in Pakistan are hardly anti-Al Qaeda. I don't advocate an Iraqi-type military incursion into Pakistan, but then U.S. anti-terror activities in Pakistan wouldn't look anything like the activities in Iraq. They would look more like the USSR's ill-fated activities in Afghanistan... and we all know how that turned out.
Nik, as best as I can guess, this may refer to the Community Reinvestment Act. From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act "The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions." It was passed in 1977 and was not really enforced until 1995. That's probably why some are blaming Clinton now. However, Bush re-regulated this (ie, changed the rules) in 2005. Whatever Bush changed, apparently it didn't avert the crisis.
Selected democrats in the senate were forced to vote for the "Authorization to use force in Iraq" for pragmatic reasons. They knew the thing would pass anyway and the popular opinion was firmly with king george. If they did not act "mushroom clouds" would be all over as condi said. It was done before the 2002 congressional elections... The war in Iraq was sold on the basis of WMDs. They never were there and were not found. The basis for the war was a SHAM. Now what are we doing there right now? Then the rationale for the war was conveniently changed to spreading freedom and fighting terrorists. Anybody remember Al Zarqawi? From the descriptions it seemed nobody takes a piss in Iraq without his approval. Almost everything bad in Iraq was blamed on him. Then it turned he was a fat moron who could not fire a machine gun. After that video surfaced I knew his "bogeyman value" was diminished and there was no need for him anymore which is exactly what happened. The "surge" is like plugging a leaking boat with a hand. After 2006 elections W knew that he had to change the strategy but could not do what the democrats wanted so he created an artificial change simply to steal democrats thunder and destroy any sense of enthusiasm for them from 2006 elections. Using Iraq Study group as a cover a fake strategy was implemented. A new figurehead was introduced to act as a more attractive mouthpiece for the bush administration. A careerist by the name of David Petraeus. Btw David Petraeus married daughter of then superintendent of US Military Academy at West Point(4 star general William A. Knowlton) 2 months after graduation from the aforementioned academy... Why did the "Surge" "work" Very simple. Selected sunni tribal leaders in the sunni triangle were simply bribed and many sunnis got a job in the "awakening councils" which gave them a steady income and a job. The official explanation was that Sunnis rallied against Al-Qaeda which is laughable since somebody putting a roadside bomb in is already a terrorist and for him/her to be afraid of other terrorists is a bit silly. Now I am against using the term "victory" in conjunction with Iraq. After squandering 4000 lives, tens of thousands wounded and traumatized, hundreds of billions wasted (and when all is said and done trillions) and 130000+ troops stationed in Iraq stationed so it does not degenerate into chaos that is not a victory nor will it ever be.
Did it ever occur to you that McCain is more honest than Obama? I'll give you an example. When will Obama get us "out" of Iraq? Not mostly out of Iraq but TOTALLY out of Iraq? He doesn't say does he? He talks about a "conditions based" withdrawl and " a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal." In other words we could have 30,000 troops in Iraq for a hundred years as far as you know. Iran is a similar situation. Guess what? If Iran develops a bona fide nuke they're going to see American bombers over Tehran no matter who is President. There's no sense sugar coating or denying it. Obama is up the ass with big-money Jewish contributions and lionized Jew media support. If you think pacifists on Israel-Mideast relations are rewarded by the Jewish community then you might want to speak with Dennis Kucinich. Obama is no more or less a schil for AIPAC than McCain. Listen carefully to your youtube clip and read in between the lines of the great Patrick J. Buchanan. He detests the same fucks I do.
you're a fucking numb nut who has absolutely zero credibility. with imbeciles like you running things, is it any wonder the shit is all over the place fuck off <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
While your take on the war itself is somewhat accurate if not overly simplistic, I know the political situation leading up the vote a bit better than you. 'WMD's" were the cover story for the American people. Congress supported the removal of Saddam on behalf of Israel. Google these words without quotations. Saddam Hamas suicide. See the top stories on those 995,000 hits? Click the first few from CBS, BBC and Fox. Notice the dates. Palestinians Get Saddam Charity Checks Family Of Suicide Bomber Among Those Given $10,000 By His Charity http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml March 13, 2003 (CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber. In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: "The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein." Not kosher. Especially after one signs a U.N. peace treaty (UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991) that states: Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Now why didn't the U.N. enforce something beyond sanctions after Saddam generously supported Hamas? Well for starters in 2002 Syria became a member of the U.N. Security Council. "Syria refuses to apply a terrorist label to Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based group that once held Americans hostage and continues to attack Israeli forces on the Lebanese border. And it gives Palestinian terrorist groups a haven. " http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/election/2002/syria.htm Against this backdrop one could agree-and obviously both Congress and Parliament did-the removal of Saddam was warranted by his gross violation of his surrender pact. He ultimately lost a game of chicken and got what he deserved. It wasn't worth the cost to America though.....
YOU LIVE IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. YOU ARE NOT AMERICAN. I WILL NOT REPLY TO AUSTRALIANS. IS THAT CLEAR?
You support John McCain I don't think you know anything really. Is it one of the "jews run america" posts? Well Bill Clinton had a Jewish secretary of state (albright), jewish secretary of treasury (rubin), jewish secretary of defense (cohen) and he STILL did not go and overthrow Saddam. It is not about Jews at all. Remember Paul Wellstone? I do. Al Gore would not have overthrown Saddam despite what he may or may not have said in the early nineties. Saddam was not a threat to any country. Israel took out his reactors when he was building them his military capability was destroyed by the Gulf War and the sanctions and no country feared him. Turkey did not allow US to use its territory as a staging ground for the invasion which proves it was not concerned about the "threat" posed by Saddam.