Nine U.S. troops dead in Iraq in 14 hours

[Erika]

at www.icasualties.org What a waste of our young peoples lives. I hope Bush and Cheney will be brought up on charges.

[NuclearShadows]

That is sad and horrific. But not to worry, we got our revenge.

Thirty eight bombs in 10 minutes, 40,000 pounds of explosives, in Operation Phantom Phoenix... I wonder how many non combatants were maimed and mutilated in the name of guts and glory?

Surgical air strikes must refer to the surgery after it's over, attempting to sew body parts back on and stitch up torsos to keep organs from falling out. Wonder how many babies were spontaneously aborted? But that's okay cuzz that means less children to grow up and learn to use a gun against occupiers.

[Bruce McAuley]

That's what all the right-wingers say, anyway!
Last year we lost more soldiers than the year before.
How many will we lose this year?
And we don't even want to know how many dead Iraqis there have been.
1.2 million dead Iraqis can't be wrong.:eek:

Bruce

[NuclearShadows]

That's what all the right-wingers say, anyway!
Last year we lost more soldiers than the year before.
How many will we lose this year?
And we don't even want to know how many dead Iraqis there have been.
1.2 million dead Iraqis can't be wrong.:eek:

Bruce
And can we hope that the next president will really stop this? Even if it is a democrat it is doubtful. I have been given shit for calling Hillary and Obama warmongers. Well, here is Obama in his own words:

Obama on Pakistan August 2007

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,0,5330469.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed)

Well, it is perfectly clear to me, too bad others won't admit it.

[Bruce McAuley]

Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain and maybe even Huckabee will certainly continue the war. I'm not sure about Edwards.
Good for business, don't ya know?:mad:
Here MOST Americans are against the war, so who will we have as the next President?
Someone who continues the war.
Who decides the winners again?:eek:

Bruce

[NuclearShadows]

From Hillary Clinton web site:

...will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.... (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/)

Doesn't sound like an anti-war president to me... Does it to you??

[NuclearShadows]

Here' a quiz:
Who said this?

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

[lenny]

Ooh! Is it someone who keeps telling us they're going to "change" things? Someone who mentions the word change as much as Guliani mentions 911?

Is the answer all of the candidates except for the two nut-jobs?

[NuclearShadows]

Ooh! Is it someone who keeps telling us they're going to "change" things? Someone who mentions the word change as much as Guliani mentions 911?

Is the answer all of the candidates except for the two nut-jobs?

what are the odds that so many people would have the same middle name, "Change." amazing....

[Bruce McAuley]

Hillary made that statement above.
It coulda been made by Romney.:rolleyes:

Bruce

[McGyver]

From Hillary Clinton web site:

...will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.... (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/)

Doesn't sound like an anti-war president to me... Does it to you??

Who ever said Hillary Clinton was "ANTI-WAR?" NOT ME! I said she was Not A Warmonger!

But, I finally get where you're coming from! To YOU, there is ONLY "Anti-War" or Warmonger! Well sorry, but the world is not that black and white. There's a whole hell of a lot of gray out there. I certainly do not consider myself a Warmonger. I also do consider myself totally against THIS war. And while I truly believe that War should be an "absolute" last resort (which this one was not!), I also believe there have been times, and there will be times again in the future when war may be necessary.

You've just taught me a valuable lesson NS....Extremism is wrong no matter what. Some extremists who are anti abortion feel perfectly justified in bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors and patients and some extremist religious leaders believe that to be anything other than heterosexual is immoral and dooms a person to hell, and some Anti War Advocates feel perfectly justified in calling anyone NOT totally Anti-War a Warmonger.....In my opinion, they are all wrong.

[lenny]

Maybe it all comes down to prioritizing the issues? For example, I believe McGyver is "against the war" or "anti-war" (pick your label)...she doesn't approve of it at all...doesn't believe in it, but when push comes to shove, electing someone from the Democratic party is more important than putting an immediate end to the war. It's my opinion that at some point people who talk about being against the war should acknowledge their willingness to tolerate a continuation of war if it means that they get to have their candidate win an election. Also, I think there is a certain hollowness with regards to their rhetoric against policies of violence and war. As a society we don't put enough emphasis on the "but" these days, as in "I'm strongly against the war but not to the point where I'm willing to vote for someone committed to ending it now.

I personally believe that NS use of the word "warmonger" (http://www.onelook.com/?w=warmonger&ls=a) is accurate, and I also believe that McGyvers use of the word "extremist" (http://www.onelook.com/?w=extremist&ls=a) is probably fair as well. As far as the issue of today's wars, I'd totally embrace the extremist label with regards to my personal opposition to it. Hell, I voted for Nader in 04 because I couldn't bring myself to vote for a pro-war candidate (Kerry). The issue was too important to me, and I felt the election was a charade anyway. Sure that's probably an "extremist" thing to do, but I prefer to stick to my convictions and not dwell on the moral ambiguity of having voted for a phony anti-war candidate.

[Old Round Guy]

Lenny, I'm retired from the U.S. Navy, and I'm against the Iraq war. I have been since well before the first bomb was dropped and like several others on this board, I feel the American public was sold a "bill of goods" by the bush administration to get approval to wage this war. We can get into a long list of reasons why some members of Congress voted their approval and now regret that vote.

That being said, it's all a moot point now. We are engaged in bush's immoral war in Iraq.

To get us out one must weigh each of the proposals to get us out, which are, first of all, which is going to be the safest means of strategic withdrawl or redeployment for our troops on the ground.

Second, just how ready is Iraq to shoulder the responsibility for their own security when we do, and what will it cost the Iraqis in terms of humanitarian security when we do leave. Or does no one care about them? Shall we just throw them the wolves as a couple of people on this board would advocate?

I would make the point that though some would consider the Iraqi civilians who died, or were maimed in the same manner as so many of our American service people, or who were widowed or orphaned are nothing more than "collateral losses" they were given no choice in how, or even whether the war was waged.

Or, shall we continue the insanity of the war till there is no Iraq, or indeed, no Middle East left to fight over as others would advocate?

No matter how we got into the Iraq war, getting us out isn't just a matter of pulling our troops out and bringing them home.

[Notus Lotus]

I think with 80% of the Iraqi people wanting us gone, we are not a security force but an occupying force. We are not their rulers. It's time to come home now.

[Bruce McAuley]

You say, "No matter how we got into the Iraq war, getting us out isn't just a matter of pulling our troops out and bringing them home.".
The quickest way to stop the deaths on BOTH sides is to do just that: Pull the troops back to Kuwait and ship them home.
ALL of them. ASAP.
We will of course support humanitarian aid from the UN for Iraq, as well as aid from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Whatever it takes to stop the killing.
Any other decision prolongs the agony, like Nixon did between '70 and '74 in Vietnam.
No more war for oil.
Saddam is DEAD.

Bruce

[McGyver]

Maybe it all comes down to prioritizing the issues? For example, I believe McGyver is "against the war" or "anti-war" (pick your label)...she doesn't approve of it at all...doesn't believe in it, but when push comes to shove, electing someone from the Democratic party is more important than putting an immediate end to the war. It's my opinion that at some point people who talk about being against the war should acknowledge their willingness to tolerate a continuation of war if it means that they get to have their candidate win an election. Also, I think there is a certain hollowness with regards to their rhetoric against policies of violence and war. As a society we don't put enough emphasis on the "but" these days, as in "I'm strongly against the war but not to the point where I'm willing to vote for someone committed to ending it now.

You're absolutely correct lenney. When push to comes to shove, I will "absolutely" vote for a Democrat, instead of voting for a Third Party who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected. And I will vote for a Democrat for several reasons. First and Foremost, is that I DO NOT WANT another Far Right Supreme Court Justice appointed to the USSC, and the next President of the U.S. will appoint at Least TWO Supreme Court Justices! That would make the court heavily weighted Conservative, and that could have devastating effects on our country for decades to come.

As far as the issue of today's wars, I'd totally embrace the extremist label with regards to my personal opposition to it. Hell, I voted for Nader in 04 because I couldn't bring myself to vote for a pro-war candidate (Kerry).

And tell us lenny, how's that working out for you???? Did you really think George W. Bush was ANTI-WAR, and would make a better President than John Kerry? Because THAT's what you got for your vote! And you sure as hell had to know that Ralph Nader didn't have an ice cubes chance in hell of winning anything. And I'm sure George W. Bush sent you a personal Thank You note.

IMHO.....Sometimes you just have to do what's BEST for your country, and sometimes, it's not easy to do....and it's hardly EVER Perfect! So isn't it great that you get to sit around now and say "look at me, what a wonderful person I am, I stuck to my guns and wasted my vote, so that I wouldn't vote for a pro-war candidate"....But in turn, I GOT a Warmonger President, who appointed TWO FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST JUDGES to The USSC FOR LIFE!

The issue was too important to me, and I felt the election was a charade anyway. Sure that's probably an "extremist" thing to do, but I prefer to stick to my convictions and not dwell on the moral ambiguity of having voted for a phony anti-war candidate.

Well lenny we're all glad you got to "stick to your convictions." Of course, in return, we got STUCK with George W. Bush for four more years, and a Conservation Supreme Court for Decades.

[Erika]

They will soon know they are not above the will of the American people. They got appointed by flukes. No one thinks of them as anything but neocon GOP political hacks.

[lenny]

You're absolutely correct lenney. When push to comes to shove, I will "absolutely" vote for a Democrat, instead of voting for a Third Party who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected. And I will vote for a Democrat for several reasons. First and Foremost, is that I DO NOT WANT another Far Right Supreme Court Justice appointed to the USSC, and the next President of the U.S. will appoint at Least TWO Supreme Court Justices! That would make the court heavily weighted Conservative, and that could have devastating effects on our country for decades to come.

I'm glad you're willing to admit that ending the war isn't as important to you as other issues such as your example of the potential supreme court nominees. I think that's a big first step in a having a solid dialog about how there can be such a schism between people who often have very similar ideologies. But keep in mind that at this point in this election we aren't talking about 3rd parties yet. There is a candidate in each of the major parties with a platform of real change that I'd enthusiastically vote for.

So I'm probably right about the whole prioritizing the issues thing then. For me personally I can fully understand the importance of getting someone on the Supreme Court that could hopefully offset the recent shift, but my confidence and trust in corporate owned mainstream Dems to put someone in there that would put citizens interests over corporations is zero. They could have put up a huge fight against Bush's nominees, especially Scalito, and forced him to nominate someone more moderate. Had that happened they would have gained quite a bit of respect from the American public, but in order for that to have happened they'd have to be something other than a phony opposition party.

There are probably many reasons why I feel that it's far more important to vote for someone committed to immediately ending the war (as opposed to electing a T.V. anointed front runner who is committed to continuing or even expending the war) than it would be to vote for someone based on potential future supreme court nominees. I believe it was Madison who pointed out that a country in a continuous state of war cannot remain free. Well, I believe he's been proven correct. We've been "at war" for at least seven years running now, and with the current strategies it looks as though it will continue for decades to come. Simply put, that is fucking insanity. We've seen the executive branch transformed into something that at the very least leaves no doubt that the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers is being suspended. What exactly is the point of having a Congress and a Supreme Court if you live in a dictatorship?

Also, there is something to be said with regards to the policies of aggressive never-ending war and how destabilizing they can be to not just this country internally in the form of ending the reality of living in a free republic, but to the rest of the world as well. I see no reason to take any comfort in the relatively low death counts seven years of war has produced: 3,000+ Americans and 1,000,000 or so of those on the receiving end. As the U.S. continues its policies of global hegemony the likelihood of another World War continues to increase.

These are the types of things I'm thinking of when looking at a candidate worthy of my vote; as opposed to potential nominees to the Supreme Court several years from now. Just different priorities I suppose.


And tell us lenny, how's that working out for you???? Did you really think George W. Bush was ANTI-WAR, and would make a better President than John Kerry? Because THAT's what you got for your vote! And you sure as hell had to know that Ralph Nader didn't have an ice cubes chance in hell of winning anything. And I'm sure George W. Bush sent you a personal Thank You note.!

As I pointed out above, this is why it's great to have a dialog about these things. It's my opinion that people like you aren't accustomed to having to openly admit to your willingness to compromise on the issue of ending an illegal and morally repugnant war. You vote (give your approval) for it, and you get to hide behind empty anti-war rhetoric that goes unchallenged. Now you're the one who has to contemplate and try to rationalize the morality of your decisions. That's what this kind of dialog does. Just look at the emotional dishonesty and pointless silliness of what you've written above. What's going on here? Well, I'd say it seems to me that having to be honest and thorough about your true stance regarding the policies of the current wars is making you uncomfortable, and is causing an emotional reaction. What I'd do if I were in your position is take some time to think about these things and do a little self-reflecting.

Did you really believe it was just a coincidence that the two skull-n-bones mates were running against each other on platforms of continued war and hegemony? What's the claim to fame for the Corporate Dems? That they can run the Empire more efficiently? Of course I didn't think that Nader would win. That's not because he couldn't have if people weren't servile, easily manipulated, and incredibly un/mis-informed. Hell, if either of Gore or Kerry's handlers would have allowed them to adopt like 10% of Nader's platform then they would have easily won. People who adopt your line of reasoning need to get off your collective high-horses. You aren't part of the solution to much of anything, you are part of the problem. You represent a willingness to continue with the status quo...just because so many agree with you doesn't change that fact. Again, this is something that I think it would be much better if you'd openly admit. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton = corporate repub, corporate dem = continuation of the status quo. By voting for it you give your approval.

IMHO.....Sometimes you just have to do what's BEST for your country, and sometimes, it's not easy to do....and it's hardly EVER Perfect! So isn't it great that you get to sit around now and say "look at me, what a wonderful person I am, I stuck to my guns and wasted my vote, so that I wouldn't vote for a pro-war candidate"....But in turn, I GOT a Warmonger President, who appointed TWO FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST JUDGES to The USSC FOR LIFE!

Of course I haven't said anything about perfection, what I've been talking about is prioritizing issues, there's never been a candidate where I completely agree with their platform. But since one theme of this discussion seems to be about us all being honest with ourselves I think it's important to point out the obvious fact that following the heard does not in any way prove that you are 1) doing what's best for your country, or 2) that you are making a difficult decision. I'd say it's quite clear that the exact opposite is true.

And again, I think that your lame attempts at put-downs and antagonism are a result of being forced to grapple with your own insecurities and that as a result of doing so you are projecting them onto me. I'm happy to serve as an outlet for the frustration it might be causing you if that helps you to come to terms with your willingness to rationalize the continuation of war and violence perpetrated by your country. Just don't think I'll except your assertions and I'd honestly have to point out that It's probably more, or at least, just as likely that it's you who is sitting around saying "look at what a wonderful person I am. I stuck to my guns and wasted my vote again on another phony candidate who stood for a continuation of the status quo, because that's what the T.V. said was my only choice." Isn't the definition of insanity often referred to as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? You keep doing the same thing and look what it got you: a warmonger President and a corrupt supreme court. What makes you think that doing the same thing this time is going to produce a different outcome? That's insane.

Well lenny we're all glad you got to "stick to your convictions." Of course, in return, we got STUCK with George W. Bush for four more years, and a Conservation Supreme Court for Decades.

I appreciate your willingness to begin to take an honest look at what you stand for, although I think you are probably a long way from being able to grasp your passive complicity in allowing the country you profess to love wither into a creepy totalitarian state. But having to be honest about what you vote for can only lead to better things I believe.

[McGyver]

Lenny,

Thanks for the very thoughtful and “mostly” courteous response. The few jabs you did take, I probably deserved.

I’m sure it won’t come as a shock that I don’t agree with everything you say, but I must admit I do agree with a lot of what you say. IMHO, The only difference between us, is that I am more of a Realist and you are more of a dreamer….(NOT that there’s anything wrong with that! In my youth, I was probably much more like you!)

In 2004, I voted for John Kerry, because I thought he had a chance of winning, and I truly believed that George W. Bush was Toxic to our Country, (besides being a total freaking Idiot!) and that he should be removed from Power just as soon as physically possible. And while John Kerry was NOT MY Candidate of Choice, I truly believed that He would be a gross improvement over an Imbecile like George W. Bush.

You on the other hand voted for Ralph Nader, who everyone knew did not have an ice cubes chance in hell of winning.

So tell me this Lenny, Did YOU voting for Nader end the war any sooner than My voting for John Kerry? No, unfortunately it did not….BUT what Your voting for Nader DID do, was to allow George W. Bush 4 more years of Terror,
4 more years of dragging the US Constitution thru the mud and destroying our country's reputation around the world, and 2 Extreme Right Conservative Supreme Court Justices.

You say that I “admit that ending the war isn’t as important as other issues such as Supreme Court Nominees.” No, I don’t believe I do. What I admit, is that voting for Ralph Nader, would NOT have ended the War, AND it allowed George W. Bush FOUR MORE YEARS OF TERROR and Two more Conservative Extremists on the USSC. 2004 was a close election Lenny. Had John Kerry received all the votes that went to Nader, he could have beaten George W. Bush, and this War, if not ended, could have been a hell of a lot closer to be over than it is now. And we would have had a much more Liberal USSC.
That election as well as this election is extremely important with regard to the USSC, as at least 2 more Justices will be appointed during the next Administration.

You mention the “definition of insanity” being doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Well, that’s what I feel about people who continue to vote for Nader, knowing damn well he can’t win an election. That’s insane….He’s the Wrong Guy with The Right Message!

I’m flattered by your definition of my “passive complicity.” I’m saving your post to show all my friends who claim I am “borderline psychotic” when it comes to politics. I’ve been telling them for years, that I’m just “complacently passive.” :p

[lenny]

Lenny,

Thanks for the very thoughtful and “mostly” courteous response. The few jabs you did take, I probably deserved.

I’m sure it won’t come as a shock that I don’t agree with everything you say, but I must admit I do agree with a lot of what you say. IMHO, The only difference between us, is that I am more of a Realist and you are more of a dreamer….(NOT that there’s anything wrong with that! In my youth, I was probably much more like you!)

It's funny because I see it as being exactly the opposite (surprise). I see myself as being the realist and you as the dreamer. For example, I'm the one who is being realistic by believing that if Americans continue to elect the media anointed corporate Dems and Repubs then they can expect more of the same -- and by the same I mean everything that has happened in my lifetime (born in 76). I'm being a realist by recognizing that this country didn't become a hegemonic empire simply because GWB was selected in 2000. The problem probably goes back at least to the Kennedy assassination and quite possibly further.

To me you'd have to be a real dreamer to think that voting for any of these pre-selected candidates is going to change the course we've been on for so long now. I see it as being fantasy. In fact, they mostly don't even run on a platform that would suggest real change. In order for real change to happen --and again, by "real change" I mean an actual stoppage of hegemonic policy implementation-- we have to elect someone who is completely rejected by the establishment. These are the candidates who the T.V. will tell you are unelectable, or as you like to say, "don't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning." The idea that these people are unelectable is a lie that's been sold by the media (owned by the military/industrial complex) and bought by the American public. Paul and Kucinich are right on with the American public on the issues, but too many people have been tricked into buying the falsehood that these people are somehow unelectable. When you repeat this line of reasoning you are acquiescing to their efforts to control who you vote for, and it's never because it's in your best interest. Just think about how strange and illogical it sounds to say out loud that the candidates that stand with the American people on the issues could somehow never be elected. That's what the T.V. is selling, but they have their own agenda.


In 2004, I voted for John Kerry, because I thought he had a chance of winning, and I truly believed that George W. Bush was Toxic to our Country, (besides being a total freaking Idiot!) and that he should be removed from Power just as soon as physically possible. And while John Kerry was NOT MY Candidate of Choice, I truly believed that He would be a gross improvement over an Imbecile like George W. Bush.

I think this is where there is a strong disadvantage when it comes to party loyalty, and to me it's as if party loyalists wear "party blinders" that obscure the political landscape and hinder their ability to be completely rational when contemplating the complexity of American political policies, the lifestyle that it results in here at home, and the profound effect it has on the planet as a whole.

I personally believe that Kerry had no chance of winning the white house because I don't believe it was a real election. That's why I maid the skull and bones reference above. These people are just actors selected to play a part and Kerry was the pretend opposition candidate. He did his job which was pretty much to suck so bad that the election could be kept close enough so that ensuring the outcome would be much simpler. Hence totally laying down after what happened in Ohio among many other things. I'd recommend the book Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast for it's lengthy insight into the multifaceted world of voter fraud and election fraud.

You on the other hand voted for Ralph Nader, who everyone knew did not have an ice cubes chance in hell of winning.

So tell me this Lenny, Did YOU voting for Nader end the war any sooner than My voting for John Kerry? No, unfortunately it did not….BUT what Your voting for Nader DID do, was to allow George W. Bush 4 more years of Terror,
4 more years of dragging the US Constitution thru the mud and destroying our country's reputation around the world, and 2 Extreme Right Conservative Supreme Court Justices.

You say that I “admit that ending the war isn’t as important as other issues such as Supreme Court Nominees.” No, I don’t believe I do. What I admit, is that voting for Ralph Nader, would NOT have ended the War, AND it allowed George W. Bush FOUR MORE YEARS OF TERROR and Two more Conservative Extremists on the USSC. 2004 was a close election Lenny. Had John Kerry received all the votes that went to Nader, he could have beaten George W. Bush, and this War, if not ended, could have been a hell of a lot closer to be over than it is now. And we would have had a much more Liberal USSC.
That election as well as this election is extremely important with regard to the USSC, as at least 2 more Justices will be appointed during the next Administration.

You mention the “definition of insanity” being doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Well, that’s what I feel about people who continue to vote for Nader, knowing damn well he can’t win an election. That’s insane….He’s the Wrong Guy with The Right Message!

Again I see things completely opposite here. The problem isn't with the people who have learned that voting for a pre-selected establishment candidate will only result in more hegemonic empire, the problem is with all the people who keep voting for who the T.V. says they have to vote for. It's already been proven beyond any doubt over the last few decades what that results in: hegemonic covert and overt foreign policies that result in the death of many, the stifling of foreign democracies, the theft of other countries natural resources, an increased amount of hatred towards Americans including "blowback" in the form of violence directed as retaliation to our aggressive intervention into the affairs of other countries. We also get a continuation of the widening of the income gap, loss of personal freedom and as it's going constitutional rights...and just about anything else shitty that you can think of. The establishment wings of the Demacratic and Republican parties have over the last several decades collectively proven themselves to be the cause of these ills, not the cure. GWB is not the cause but just the latest, and of course, increasingly leathal symptom. He doesn't even run the country --it's the people behind the scence pulling the strings that your outrage should be directed towards-- he's just playing a role.

That's what I meant by my reference to the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. By "doing the same thing over and over" I'm specifically referring to the act of giving percieved legitimacy to these establishment Dems and Repubs by voting for them and pretending that taken individually they represent a form of significant and meaningful change. As a society we keep electing them, or in more recent cases, we allow them to at least appear to be elected. It's not about Ralph Nader per se, it's about establishment vs nonestablishment. He just happens to be a great American willing to stand up and pull the curtian aside. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are doing the same thing...they're telling the unabashed naked truth to the American people which is why everything they say is so sharply different than the soundbytes, slogans, and empty platitudes served up by the annointed. And just like Nader before, the media, owned and controlled by the military/industrial complex, is actively working to make sure that the only two who actually challenge their control and power are percieved as illigitimate by the general public.

I’m flattered by your definition of my “passive complicity.” I’m saving your post to show all my friends who claim I am “borderline psychotic” when it comes to politics. I’ve been telling them for years, that I’m just “complacently passive.” :p

You have friends? ...Just kidding. :p Anyway, as I see it the biggest difference we seem to have is in our willingness to have faith in a political party. As I think I've explained, I have no allegience to either (I used to be a Dem), and it's my opinion that removing the barrier of party loyalty makes it easier to see that the current state of the country and world is a result of both factions and the moneyed interests who control their platforms and what their policies can or cannot be.

[lenny]

I wasn't ignoring you...just ran short of time. I'd say Bruce's post pretty much sums up my view. Our military is completely capable of a swift and orderly withdrawl. Bring em home now, give em a huge thank you celebration for all their sacrifice, and make sure they get paid what they've been promised and all the medical treatment and attention necessary...for life. That is the only real way we can support the troops.

[Drivesme]

I wasn't ignoring you...just ran short of time. I'd say Bruce's post pretty much sums up my view. Our military is completely capable of a swift and orderly withdrawl. Bring em home now, give em a huge thank you celebration for all their sacrifice, and make sure they get paid what they've been promised and all the medical treatment and attention necessary...for life. That is the only real way we can support the troops.
I agree 100%!!
90 days at the most to get them out of Iraq.

[NuclearShadows]

Really great dialog lenny and Mac.
Thanks for the good read.
The type of warmonger that the neo-cons are I would actually describe as practicing jingoistic spread-eagleism. Much more insidious than the average person.
But anyone who even has war as an option on the table I still maintain is a warmonger.
Waging war is an archaic enterprise and I will steadfastly work to find and teach others optional strategies to avoid such conflicts. Unrealistic some say. But you can’t change reality by acquiescing to the same behavior over and over again.

I tend to agree with lenny’s position on much of this, but I really do understand Macs take on it all.
I voted for Kerry because of my desire to beat Bush and He seemed like the best bet available.
But this time I have decided to vote my conscious and get behind poor old Dennis Kucinich.

[Old Round Guy]

Okay, I kinda understand where you're coming from now.

The bush regime initiated it's unjust war which, in effect, makes the U.S. pretty much responsible for the conditions imposed on the Iraqi civilians, so now we throw them to the wolves and move on.

[Bruce McAuley]

Yup, we broke it.
Yup, they hate us.
Yup, our troops are an incentive to attack every time they drive by.
No, we should NOT wait any longer to leave, it kills more Iraqis and Americans.
Pull out the troops, send in the diplomats, it works better. That's what they're for.
I understand where you're coming from, ORG, but while I used to be where you are I've come to the realization it is useless to leave ANY troops there. Haven't we screwed them enough?
No more troops, there is no reason and there never was.
Let them decide for themselves.
Tell them and the Saudis to take their oil and sell it to China while we transition to renewable energy.
Gas was $1.45 a gallon before the "War on Terror", remember?
Who's winning now?
Smedley Butler was right: War is a Racket.
Let's get out as soon as we can.:cool:
If they're wolves we're throwing them to, at least they're IRAQI wolves, Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds.

Bruce

[NuclearShadows]

Unlike the State Department or the United Nations, Kucinich’s Department of Peace would not have war as an option in its plans. It would be a group of smart and innovative individuals with peace as the only agenda. The best minds with the best ideas.

And hopefully out of this group would emerge a charismatic, convincing and compelling leader who could change the dominate paradigm of war. Much like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. did for their causes.

Someone who would bring the world to the epiphany that we are all in this together and ultimately war is just a temporary solution to resolve our problems and differences. I know that people will ask how we change the minds of the radical Islamists who just want to see us converted or dead. There is a glimmer of hope in this. Awakening councils in Iraq, Kadafi, and Indonesia to name a few signs of hope. Islamic woman are finding their voices. Our biggest current boogey man, Iran, has a majority population of people under 30 who love the west and the old men who rule the country will soon be gone.

One paradigm that must change is the one where we don’t even talk or listen to our enemies. How can anyone deal with a problem when they don’t even understand what it is? Anyway, blah blah blah.

[NuclearShadows]

More evidence that Hillary embraces war….
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.
An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.
Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000…. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html)

More on this here (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=hillary+weapons+contractors+donations&btnG=Google+Search)

[GUS]

War crimes are 'encouraged.' Members of Iraq Veterans Against War charged that war crimes against civilians were encouraged by unit commanders.
"The killing of innocent civilians is policy. It's unit policy and it's Army policy. It's not official policy, but it's what's happens on the ground everyday. It's what unit commanders individually encourage," according to Mike Blake veteran.

Veteran Matt Howard concurred: "These decisions are coming from the top down," Howard said. "The tactics that we use, the policies that the military engages, will create situations, create dynamics, create -- ultimately -- atrocity." This year's Winter Soldier has Iraq War veterans speaking about war crimes they committed or witnessed.

'Collateral' deaths in Afghanistan surpassed Taliban killings in 2007
In July 2007, independent tallied show US and NATO troops were responsible for more civilian deaths in the first half of the year than the Taliban militants they were fighting.

The United Nations counted 314 civilian deaths at the hands of Western-led forces by the end of June of 2007, compared with 279 people killed by the Taliban and other militants.

The rate of Western-caused civilian deaths between January and June exceeded the same measure for all of 2006. Human Rights Watch found US and NATO troops killed 230 civilians in Afghanistan last year. In that same year, the group found at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed as a result of Taliban attacks.

Military leaders whined that the comparison is fundamentally unfair because civilian deaths caused by Western forces are supposedly inadvertent collateral damage whereas the Taliban militants deliberately target innocent people.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Antiwar_veterans_group_War_crimes_are_0121.html

[Drivesme]

More evidence that Hillary embraces war….
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.
An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.
Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000…. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html)

More on this here (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=hillary+weapons+contractors+donations&btnG=Google+Search)

It's more evidence that a Democrat is going to win the election and the republican party is near dead.

The smart money, goes to the winner and the defense company's know it.
In this case THEY picked Clinton, Clinton did not pick them.

It says nothing about anyone 'embracing war' but rather who will end up in the White House and who is giving that person money.

[GUS]

SPEAKING OF HILLARY: Hillary Clinton, the lead Presidential Democratic Party candidate is for banning all guns in America . She is considered by those who have dealt with her as a little more than just a little self-righteous.

At a recent rural elementary school meeting in north Florida she asked the kids audience for total quiet. Then, in the silence, she started to slowly clap her hands, once every few seconds. Holding the audience in total silence, she said into the microphone, 'Every time I clap my hands, a child in America dies from gun violence.'

A young voice with a proud southern accent (probably Johnny) from the front of the crowd pierced the quiet! 'Well, stop clappin, ya stupid bitch!

[lenny]

More evidence that Hillary embraces war….
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.
An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.
Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000…. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html)

More on this here (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=hillary+weapons+contractors+donations&btnG=Google+Search)


Best I can tell she will begin (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/) to bring some troops home within her first two months of office, and hope to have "most" (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=detail/issue=iraq/candidateA=clinton/candidateB=allDem) out by 2013. That's nice, you want 4 more years of war, vote for Hillary! :(

_________________________

[lenny]

It's more evidence that a Democrat is going to win the election and the republican party is near dead.

The smart money, goes to the winner and the defense company's know it.
In this case THEY picked Clinton, Clinton did not pick them.

It says nothing about anyone 'embracing war' but rather who will end up in the White House and who is giving that person money.

We all know that industry gives to both corporate parties (think Enron), just like we all know that both corporate parties return those favors after the election. It's been that way since before I was born and only gotten worse.

[NuclearShadows]

SPEAKING OF HILLARY: Hillary Clinton, the lead Presidential Democratic Party candidate is for banning all guns in America . She is considered by those who have dealt with her as a little more than just a little self-righteous.

At a recent rural elementary school meeting in north Florida she asked the kids audience for total quiet. Then, in the silence, she started to slowly clap her hands, once every few seconds. Holding the audience in total silence, she said into the microphone, 'Every time I clap my hands, a child in America dies from gun violence.'

A young voice with a proud southern accent (probably Johnny) from the front of the crowd pierced the quiet! 'Well, stop clappin, ya stupid bitch!
funny Gus...:)

But seriously drivesme, in regard to defense contractors and Hillary...
As I see it, accepting their money shows a willingness to continue the culture of war.

[gooddoggy]

I'm not a supporter of Obama, Nuclear S., but as for the quote you mentioned, I don't see anything essentially wrong with what he said. We ought to kill Islamic terrorists. I'll kill them if given the chance.

To suggest that a country can exist without any policy for war as Kucinich seems to think is just a ludicrous position. Do you really believe that?

[Drivesme]

We all know that industry gives to both corporate parties (think Enron), just like we all know that both corporate parties return those favors after the election. It's been that way since before I was born and only gotten worse.

Of course, which backs up my statement that the smart money goes to the winner.
THEY picked her, not the other way around, unless a candidate can make a person give them money.

[Drivesme]

funny Gus...:)

But seriously drivesme, in regard to defense contractors and Hillary...
As I see it, accepting their money shows a willingness to continue the culture of war.

Accepting their money means she has more to spend to win the election.
Will she or anyone else hand out favors for the money? Sure she will, just like everyone else would, but that does not mean she "embraces" war.

I'm not a Clinton fan, never have been but I do find it strange that someone that has always been as fair minded as you Nuc, is taking this rather JimV type cheap shot at someone.
I didn't think you would do something like that.

[lenny]

Of course, which backs up my statement that the smart money goes to the winner.
THEY picked her, not the other way around, unless a candidate can make a person give them money.

I think the smart money goes to all the potential winners and history shows that with the mainstream corporate candidates it does buy influence.

In the case of Hillary, since her stated policy is to continue with foreign wars, it's a safe bet for the defense industry to donate money to her campaign because they stand to benefit financially from her policies. Who picks who is a moot point.

[lenny]

funny Gus...:)

But seriously drivesme, in regard to defense contractors and Hillary...
As I see it, accepting their money shows a willingness to continue the culture of war.

To that I'd add that running on a policy of continuing the culture of war shows a willingness to continue the culture of war...unless we are to believe that continuing a war is not continuing a war? :confused:

[Drivesme]

I think the smart money goes to all the potential winners and history shows that with the mainstream corporate candidates it does buy influence.
And I'm sure that every candidate has gotten some money from the defense industry, just like always.
It only makes sense for them to give money to the one they think will win, and therefore benefit them the most.

In the case of Hillary, since her stated policy is to continue with foreign wars, it's a safe bet for the defense industry to donate money to her campaign because they stand to benefit financially from her policies. Who picks who is a moot point.
We keep hearing that she has a "stated policy" yet no can seem to find that "stated" anywhere, funny thing.

[lenny]

And I'm sure that every candidate has gotten some money from the defense industry, just like always.
It only makes sense for them to give money to the one they think will win, and therefore benefit them the most.

Sounds like we mostly agree then?


We keep hearing that she has a "stated policy" yet no can seem to find that "stated" anywhere, funny thing.


You must have missed post number 71 that I made in this thread. Her stated policy seems to be to "mostly" end the Iraq war over a four year period, but she's open to more war with Iran if needed. Not sure about Afghanistan, but my guess is that she'd keep troops there as well. In other words, the war in Iraq might "mostly" end 5 years from now if she's elected, but it might spread to Iran also. So she'll "end" the war "mostly" by not ending it for several years while she makes everything better. And all the people who die over there over the next five years will have died for good reason because we elected a Democrat in 2008...

[moderator]

Drivesme and Lenny,

Take it to the PM, and save the rest of us this tiring drivel. And that's not a request.

[NuclearShadows]

I'm not a supporter of Obama, Nuclear S., but as for the quote you mentioned, I don't see anything essentially wrong with what he said. We ought to kill Islamic terrorists. I'll kill them if given the chance.

To suggest that a country can exist without any policy for war as Kucinich seems to think is just a ludicrous position. Do you really believe that?


So you are a believer in unilateral military intervention? The Bush Doctrine... Who would be next? France, India, Syria, Lebanon???

Well I believe you create what you believe. I would rather do my best to envision a true world of peace as Gandhi said, "Be the peace you wish to see."

Here is a recent interview with Kucinich (http://www.alternet.org/stories/74268/?page=1) that I would invite people to read. As he says, silence is complicity...

[GUS]

AMEN Brother NS, Kucinich is certainly the ideal with Edwards not being far behind. Funny how everyone is suddenly paying attention to the economy which the two candidates have harped on for years.

Americans got so propagandized by Bush they forgot to, or were incapable, of paying attention to all that deficit spending. Instead of paying attention to the federal deficit and the $9.6 billion a month OIL WAR, again the press and MBA degreed Bush are supporting an economic stimulus plan which will push us further into a fiscal wreck. $250 billion, a 53% leap between what the revenuers collect and our government spends draws us closer to a real day of reconing.


PEACE, Brother.

[NuclearShadows]

OK then.
First I doubt highly that you have received any complaints, let alone been "inundated", maybe one or two but hey, who cares?

If you all want a bulletin board where no back and forth is allowed, where mommy is watching and slapping hands to keep everyone in what someone else considers 'inline' instead allowing folks to engage with one another, then have fun.
Color me gone!

I hope you don't leave drivesme...
Everyone knows how I feel about banning people on forums.
This forum ain't so bad...
Imagine if the moderators tried to get control of the Neurolux forum!! (http://www.neurolux.com/board.cfm)
LOL :eek: