Mike Gravel offers...

ledvedderman

macgyver06 wrote:

we did not fuck their country up.

Really? That is news to me. All I know is that before March 2003 the whole country had running water, schools, power, and a (somewhat) stable gov.

Now? Not so much.

macgyver06

ledvedderman wrote:

Really? That is news to me. All I know is that before March 2003 the whole country had running water, schools, power, and a (somewhat) stable gov.

Now? Not so much.

i was told before that time that.. their government was ran by a brutal dictator... is that not the case now that it is 2008?

ledvedderman

macgyver06 wrote:

what happened to... if we cut the funding off.. they will be forcced to bring the troops home led?

I've never been in favor of cutting the funding. I think we owe it to our military to not use that option. It's not their fault they got sent into a bullshit war. It's not their fault this administration didn't give them the proper body armour, while at the same time slashing their benefits each year in the budget for the last five years.

macgyver06

ledvedderman wrote:

I've never been in favor of cutting the funding. I think we owe it to our military to not use that option. It's not their fault they got sent into a bullshit war. It's not their fault this administration didn't give them the proper body armour, while at the same time slashing their benefits each year in the budget for the last five years.

another thing they did was release Halliburton as its main monopolized supplier.. opening the market of armor and necessities to a competitive market in a way to lower the prices... however, this is an economic tactic... other companies in a competitve market for instance..... sony vs. generic

so if sony is supplying all the homes in this country with tvs and all of a sudden the generic brand gets the deal... will you be watching the best tv


see what im getting at...


so saying a phased withdrawal is the way to go has an open ended result... have you thought about the future and what could possibly happen if a phased withdrawal should happen?

ledvedderman

macgyver06 wrote:

i was told before that time that.. their government was ran by a brutal dictator... is that not the case now that it is 2008?

I was told the same thing. Was Sadaam a bad guy? Yes. However, there was no reason to go after him. No reason. The 9/11-Iraq angle was clearly bullshit. The WMD's sold a lot of the population, but still bullshit.

ledvedderman

macgyver06 wrote:

another thing they did was release Halliburton as its main monopolized supplier.. opening the market of armor and necessities to a competitive market in a way to lower the prices... however, this is an economic tactic... other companies in a competitve market for instance..... sony vs. generic

so if sony is supplying all the homes in this country with tvs and all of a sudden the generic brand gets the deal... will you be watching the best tv


see what im getting at...


so saying a phased withdrawal is the way to go has an open ended result... have you thought about the future and what could possibly happen if a phased withdrawal should happen?

Mac- I'm right there with you with the war profiteering. It really makes me sick. We don't disagree on anything except how to get out.

I think there are many risks and benefits to both methods (leaving tomorrow and phased withdrawl). From what I've determined, the risks are far less with a careful, strategic exit than just pulling out immediatley.

That's where we differ.

macgyver06

ledvedderman wrote:

I was told the same thing. Was Sadaam a bad guy? Yes. However, there was no reason to go after him. No reason. The 9/11-Iraq angle was clearly bullshit. The WMD's sold a lot of the population, but still bullshit.

you can believe this or not.. but the people who are telling you that a phased withdrawal is the smart thing to do are actually going to support the war when they get elected... you can stop them now... or vote for them and be one of those fooled citizens again.


and if you don't believe me i will give you more evidence:

if you are defending your country and you realize the enemy is getting smaller in numbers seemingly in set timetable... 2000 a week... would you keep attacking your enemy???

please dont ignore that paragraph... because you yourself sai d you are worried about genocide.

ledvedderman

macgyver06 wrote:

you can believe this or not.. but the people who are telling you that a phased withdrawal is the smart thing to do are actually going to support the war when they get elected... you can stop them now... or vote for them and be one of those fooled citizens again.


and if you don't believe me i will give you more evidence:

if you are defending your country and you realize the enemy is getting smaller in numbers seemingly in set timetable... 2000 a week... would you keep attacking your enemy???

please dont ignore that paragraph... because you yourself sai d you are worried about genocide.

I don't think voting for Senator Obama will lead to me getting hoodwinked.

I think you make a valid point. I wish I had the military mind to debate HOW we debate strategically, because I don't really know. However, I think it would make sense to pull out the troops that right now are in the parts of the country where they are not under constant attack first. Once again, I'm not military strategist but I think that's where you start and make decisions from there as to where to pull troops out from next.

macgyver06

ledvedderman wrote:

I don't think voting for Senator Obama will lead to me getting hoodwinked.

I think you make a valid point. I wish I had the military mind to debate HOW we debate strategically, because I don't really know. However, I think it would make sense to pull out the troops that right now are in the parts of the country where they are not under constant attack first. Once again, I'm not military strategist but I think that's where you start and make decisions from there as to where to pull troops out from next.

and Mike Gravel offers something different. The war and our problems because of it economically will be resolved and can return to progress come February. The process could start tomorrow, but the senate doesn't want it.

theroachman

This is a list of the known groups in Iraq put together by a friend who is an expert on the Middle East. There are most likly others who have not shown up in an press yet.


The Mahdi Army
The Badr Brigades
The Iraqi Army
The Coalition
Al-Qaeda
The Sunni Insurgents
The Anbar Awakening
The PKK
Turkey
Erratic Iranian patrol vessels
Random street thugs

macgyver06

theroachman wrote:

This is a list of the known groups in Iraq put together by a friend who is an expert on the Middle East. There are most likly others who have not shown up in an press yet.


The Mahdi Army
The Badr Brigades
The Iraqi Army
The Coalition
Al-Qaeda
The Sunni Insurgents
The Anbar Awakening
The PKK
Turkey
Erratic Iranian patrol vessels
Random street thugs

roaming death squads also

ledvedderman

Sorry man. You've done a good job trying to convince me on a immediate withdrawl/vote for Gravel, but I'm sold on Obama.

Doesn't make me a media sheep or a neo-con. I have had the belief in this guy for about six years now, and while I won't agree with 100% of his decisions I will know that he has put a lot of care and thought into it.

macgyver06

ledvedderman wrote:

Sorry man. You've done a good job trying to convince me on a immediate withdrawl/vote for Gravel, but I'm sold on Obama.

Doesn't make me a media sheep or a neo-con. I have had the belief in this guy for about six years now, and while I won't agree with 100% of his decisions I will know that he has put a lot of care and thought into it.

he is a thinker.... i cant argue with that..

theroachman

IMO till this Democratic Campaing is settled on a canidate we really do not know what to beleive Senator Obama is going to push for Iraq.

If he picks Wes Clark or Edwards vs say Senator Clinton as his running mate it will be pretty clear what his position will be. But IMO it is still wait and see at this point. And that really sucks because it is only giving Senator McCain time off from having to actaully raise money for his campaign by actually talking about real issues with real ideas of what he will do if (god forbid) he should become the next POTUS.

macgyver06

theroachman wrote:

IMO till this Democratic Campaing is settled on a canidate we really do not know what to beleive Senator Obama is going to push for Iraq.

If he picks Wes Clark or Edwards vs say Senator Clinton as his running mate it will be pretty clear what his position will be. But IMO it is still wait and see at this point. And that really sucks because it is only giving Senator McCain time off from having to actaully raise money for his campaign by actually talking about real issues with real ideas of what he will do if (god forbid) he should become the next POTUS.

if he picked clark..i would have to reconsider weverything

sweetpotato

macgyver06 wrote:

an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

EVERY SINGLE TROOP

gravel was my first choice, for many reasons, this being one of them.

sweetpotato

ledvedderman wrote:

You have the thought in your head that anyone who wants a phased withdrawl is on the same page as the neo-cons and only cares about making money in Iraq.

That isn't the case at all. I feel this way because we owe it to the Iraqi (not the corps making profits) people to see this through and ensure that there is at least some security in their country that we fucked up royally.

tho, i do see the wisdom in a phased-out withdrawl as well. but it can't take YEARS. months, 18 of them at most. imho. that doesn't make me a repugnican, right???

macgyver06

sweetpotato wrote:

tho, i do see the wisdom in a phased-out withdrawl as well. but it can't take YEARS. months, 18 of them at most. imho. that doesn't make me a repugnican, right???

why do you think a phased wthdrawal is good? just curious..i still havent gotten any answers..

sweetpotato

i don't think it's "good". none of this is good. it's all shit. but i think it may be more practical. i think if we do it immediately and totally, we will leave a dangerous power vacuum and whoever is the biggest bully there will take over and we'll be back at square one. in that case, who says saddam's replacement won't be as bad or worse than he was?

i think the iraqis need to be given a definite date when we're leaving the party. then they have to get their shit together, and if they don't, we leave anyway and brace ourselves for what results. but at least they will have been given fair warning. i think the way it is now, they assume we'll just be there forever, holding their hands.

all i know is that they're not getting MY son to fight in this bullshit war. he's only 13 now but 5 years go by pretty quickly, as well all well know.

ledvedderman

sweetpotato wrote:

i don't think it's "good". none of this is good. it's all shit. but i think it may be more practical.

EXACTLY! Thank you. I've been going back and forth for three pages with Mac trying to get the point across that it is more practical.