Mike Gravel offers...

13

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    ledvedderman wrote:
    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.


    Republicans sold war as practical, too. Just sayin'...
    Everybody wants to believe their side is doing it for good reasons.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    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. 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.


    Well said.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    brandon10 wrote:
    Well said.


    how is it more practical?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    since you dont read all the posts i will post this again



    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.
    __________________
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    macgyver06 wrote:
    how is it more practical?


    I especially like the idea of giving the Iraqis a date. Letting them know how long they have to get their shit in order.

    Honestly, I don't mind the idea of a complete withdrawal immediately either. But maybe we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.
  • sweetpotato
    sweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    macgyver06 wrote:
    since you dont read all the posts i will post this again



    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 see how you can be so sure in that belief. isn't it possible that they want to get us out but also want to avoid utter, irreversible chaos?
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    sweetpotato wrote:
    i don't see how you can be so sure in that belief. isn't it possible that they want to get us out but also want to avoid utter, irreversible chaos?


    Isn't it possible that this 'chaos' line is straight outta some think tank's marketing campaign to sell support for a continued occupation? History says it very well could be and has worked brilliantly in the past.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    macgyver06 wrote:
    wherever you get your news.. and whomever you get your news from .. im hoping you remember how much they knew about this region before the war started and why everyone was in awe when the tanks moved through the deserts unopposed.


    they get their information on the fly

    so coming to an argument with opinions on top of opinions i think is foolish when you look at the regions history and stability over thousands of years.

    so who do you get your news from?
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    sweetpotato wrote:
    i don't see how you can be so sure in that belief. isn't it possible that they want to get us out but also want to avoid utter, irreversible chaos?



    how come you dont question the other part of my statement??
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    brandon10 wrote:
    I especially like the idea of giving the Iraqis a date. Letting them know how long they have to get their shit in order.

    Honestly, I don't mind the idea of a complete withdrawal immediately either. But maybe we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.



    thats an obama quote.. you should give him credit for it... these arent your thoughts
  • kenny olav
    kenny olav Posts: 3,319
    if the Sunni and Shias are going to fight either other, there's nothing we can do about it. americans have no history in that country, and are not going to understand this conflict. they shouldn't be put in the middle of it. we should pay restitution to the Iraqis, which would be a lot cheaper than what our government has been paying Halliburton and the like to use our military as a high-powered security force to protect their interests.

    seems pretty fucking simple to me.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Kenny Olav wrote:
    if the Sunni and Shias are going to fight either other, there's nothing we can do about it. americans have no history in that country, and are not going to understand this conflict. they shouldn't be put in the middle of it. we should pay restitution to the Iraqis, which would be a lot cheaper than what our government has been paying Halliburton and the like to use our military as a high-powered security force to protect their interests.

    seems pretty fucking simple to me.



    i like this idea.
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    We should pay the UN to take Iraq off our hands.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Kenny Olav wrote:
    if the Sunni and Shias are going to fight either other, there's nothing we can do about it. americans have no history in that country, and are not going to understand this conflict. they shouldn't be put in the middle of it. we should pay restitution to the Iraqis, which would be a lot cheaper than what our government has been paying Halliburton and the like to use our military as a high-powered security force to protect their interests.

    seems pretty fucking simple to me.


    Exactly!
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Gremmie95
    Gremmie95 Posts: 749
    SundaySilence wrote:
    We should pay the UN to take Iraq off our hands.

    That would require the UN to actually do something....I don't think they want that!
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    Gremmie95 wrote:
    That would require the UN to actually do something....I don't think they want that!

    I wouldn't expect it to be cheap.
  • sweetpotato
    sweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    macgyver06 wrote:
    how come you dont question the other part of my statement??

    because none of what you say is "evidence", just your opinion. and i think i can make my own decisions about what i question and what i choose to ignore, thanks.

    so, i don't think you answered my question- HOW can you be so sure that either clinton or obama would suddenly be "for the war" if they talk about a gradual withdrawl now?
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • sweetpotato
    sweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Isn't it possible that this 'chaos' line is straight outta some think tank's marketing campaign to sell support for a continued occupation? History says it very well could be and has worked brilliantly in the past.

    sure, anything's possible. but i don't believe that EVERYTHING that EVERYONE (other than ralph nader) says is riddled with conspiracy and bullshit. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    what do you envision our sudden withdrawl would leave in its wake?
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    sweetpotato wrote:
    because none of what you say is "evidence", just your opinion. and i think i can make my own decisions about what i question and what i choose to ignore, thanks.

    so, i don't think you answered my question- HOW can you be so sure that either clinton or obama would suddenly be "for the war" if they talk about a gradual withdrawl now?


    they are for the continuation of the war... this is not an opinion..

    A. Obama talks of a withdrawal and re deployment of troops
    B. Hillary has said... nothing is out of the question in regards to Iran.


    comon.. iM NOT TRYING TO TRICK YOU SWEETPOTATO

    and you cant tell me... A phased withdrawal is a good thing... its ridiculous... thats why i simply wrote... what would you do if your enemy was leaving on a timetable.. YOU WOULDNT ATTACK THEM ANYMORE AND YOU WOULD PEACEFUL TILL THEY ARE ALL GONE


    the whole idea is fradulent and its a shame you are buying into it... and if you throw your vote away come november thinking you are making a step to stop the killing than you will get whats coming to you..


    MORE WAR
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    sweetpotato wrote:
    sure, anything's possible. but i don't believe that EVERYTHING that EVERYONE (other than ralph nader) says is riddled with conspiracy and bullshit. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    what do you envision our sudden withdrawl would leave in its wake?



    a sudden withdrawal would save our soldiers lives and allow us to rebuild from the mistakes and debt we have created.

    a phased withdrawal will cost more lives.. a longer continuation of nothing and more money lost...

Categories