OT - Styx Board Presidential Straw pole - May 2008

[Rowdy]

well not being republican or democrat ( that would make me independent). I can't see having anothe Republican in office. McCain will probably get us out of Iraq and straight into Iran. I am surprised at how many Styx fans chiming in are pro republican though.

Yeah, I didn't want to reveal the results of the Poll in the beginning, but I was very surprised to see basically the majority of Styx fans (thus far) voting Republican. I thought I was in the minority on that one.

I originally supported Gore a long time ago. He had great ideas, once he became Clinton's Lackey tho, he began to change. He'd take money hand over fist from Tobacco lobbyists, then all of a sudden they are to blame for all the ills of society. His sister or father passed away from lung cancer, yet he still took a crap-ton of money from them, then decided they were EVIL. Then let's not forget how he *invented* the internet.

Republicans have their issues, rejects, and morons too, but that is all based on personal belief and life experiences.

As far as Joe Lieberman goes, it's a nice idea, but the RNC won't allow it. McCain already seems liberal enough in a lot of circles so he will need someone firmly planted in the Party. The RNC will fight tooth and nail to see Lieberman not on the ticket and someone a little younger. There's already worry over McCain's age add Joe Lieberman to the mix and people will be looking heavily at the line of succession.

[LtVanish]

Ron Paul is the perfect choice for president

[Rowdy]

Ron Paul is the perfect choice for president

Ron Paul is basically an isolationist. We tried that path prior to WWI and we found out very fast that we can't leave the world behind and be on our own. The world is a lot smaller than it was 80 years ago, so his plan is hollow. Ron doesn't stand a chance of ever being taken seriously.

My brother who's always been more liberal than me is backing Ron Paul and while at least he's chosen a side, he's chosen a side that has no hope of doing anything, except taking votes away from another candidate... He's much like Perot was in the 92 Election, which ultimately put Clinton in office by taking normally Republican voters away.

[Zan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mc3GQmGGms&feature=user

[Rowdy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mc3GQmGGms&feature=user

"Normally I'd tell ya to watch yer mouth, but that pretty much sums it up." lololol

[classicstyxfan]

If you think THIS board leans to the right, you havent seen anything ....compared to the Journey board,, theres a couple of threads over there that are an interesting read...I think they are planning a seance to see if they can bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead !

[Rowdy]

If you think THIS board leans to the right, you havent seen anything ....compared to the Journey board,, theres a couple of threads over there that are an interesting read...I think they are planning a seance to see if they can bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead !

Awesome, I don't think there's a Republican who wouldn't want Reagan back. Even with Alheimers he could wave his hand and end the war.

[classicstyxfan]

cool....so just have him cross back over the river Styx and come back to get us out of the mess GWB's gotten us into....

PS, while he's here, maybe he could bring Gas back down to $1.39/gallon.....it's price on inaugeration (sic) day 2001. I shudder to think of what the price might be today if we didnt have an OILMAN in the oval office to keep it under control !!

[Rowdy]

cool....so just have him cross back over the river Styx and come back to get us out of the mess GWB's gotten us into....

PS, while he's here, maybe he could bring Gas back down to $1.39/gallon.....it's price on inaugeration (sic) day 2001. I shudder to think of what the price might be today if we didnt have an OILMAN in the oval office to keep it under control !!

Bush has his faults, I wholeheartedly agree, however to blame this war totally on him is a bit unfair. After the USS Cole incident, the oh so wise and great President Clinton passed up his chance to assassinate/capture Bin Laden. 9-11 was the 2nd attack on the World Trade Center/American Soil.

Let's try to re-write history for a second and see what we wind up with. Gore/Lieberman win, do you think that the attack on WTC would not have happened? Or anyone else for that matter?

The attack was going to happen, regardless of who was or was not present in the Oval Office. The plan was in effect 5-7 years before the actual attack, which puts it squarely under Bill Clinton's watch. on 9/12/01 Bush stood before the world and said, "If you are a terrorist nation, or harbor terrorists, we are coming after you" The world applauded, even Cuba and Iran claimed to be saddened by 9/11 and said for once they stood behind the West on this.

We send troops off, first in Afghanistan, then to Iraq. Our soldiers start dying and suddenly we realize that "Shock and Awe" don't mean a simple in and out mission. The masses realize soldiers die, Al-Qaida has lots of holes to hide, allies in Rebels, etc... Bush received bad Intel from the CIA, MOSSAD, his own Veep, and other Cabinet members (specifically Rumsfeld) and yet he did not whine or bitch that he was treated unfairly or cast fingers to anyone else but himself. He fired Rumsfeld and several other Cabinet members and has been trying to pull other resources to curb America's burden. But he was not wrong in removing SoDamn Insane Hussain. The man was a murderer, a butcherer, and a psychopath who tortured his own family and he destabilized the region more than he could ever help it.

I'm not a huge supporter of Bush, he's done wrong, but he's done good. Now, you want to talk about the Economy... OK, fine. How much of the economy is Bush's fault? Let's examine that. If you know anything about Economic Policy in Political Terms, then you know it takes 3 years for any Stimulus plan a President signs into law to become effective. 3 Months after Bush takes office, the Economy begins a downturn, this is due to the fact that Clinton passed new laws 2 years earlier and the package was now being delivered. We will never truly know if Clinton's final Economic plan was worth the paper it was written on, as 9-11 happened and the American way of life was stopped.

We lost the WTC, trading was suspended, Airlines shut down, gas prices rose, people were scared to travel, afraid to spend money, lenders got scared increased points on loans and people saw the short term gains. All this directly affected what is happening today. The housing market falters because of the interest rates and balloon payments no one can afford, the airlines are still in turmoil, gas has risen to nearly $4 a gallon.

Bush isn't a great President by any stretch of the imagination, but he took what was handed to him and he ran with it. Whether you agree with his methods or not, he has led this Country through the worst of times and still manages to push through. That is a leader. Maybe not a great leader, but a leader none-the-less. I think History will take into account all I've said and Bush will be looked at kinder than he is in his own age. I think that is a Bush Legacy, as many people thought his father was one of the worst Presidents, now he is hailed as a Great Leader.

[classicstyxfan]

My biggest issues with GWB are the fact that he pulled the trigger rather quickly on starting a war in Iraq based on what turned out to be bad intel........and yes, it's hindsight, I just think if you are going to start a war, there ought to / should have a higher standard of justification. If the war had started with a direct bombing of confirmed WMD's in Iraq that would be justified. It also bothers me that our mission there is still very vague in nature.... How do we measure when the Iraqui's will be ready to take care of tyhemselves ? This war has already lasted longer then World War II, and I cannot see an end in sight. If we cant achieve our goal in 5 years, will we be able to do so in the next 10 ?

in the past 8 years GWB's policies have ailenated many countries we arent enemies with, and it will require his successor ( Dem or Pub ) to do much damage control to repair our image.

My other biggest issue is regarding our debt increasing by 3 trillion dollars on his watch while pushing through his tax cut program.....I know the debt pre dates him and its impossible for it not to increase at all, but that rate of growth is staggering.

I give him credit for his leadership immediately following 9/11 ( he's not ALL bad...) I just truly feel we are not better off then we were when he took office, and that he has to shoulder a portion of the blame.

stepping off my soap box now......

[Rowdy]

My biggest issues with GWB are the fact that he pulled the trigger rather quickly on starting a war in Iraq based on what turned out to be bad intel........and yes, it's hindsight, I just think if you are going to start a war, there ought to / should have a higher standard. It also bothers me that our mission is still very vague in nature.

in the past 8 years GWB's policies have ailenated many countries we arent enemies with, and it will require his successor ( Dem or Pub ) to do much damage control to repair our image.

My other biggest issue is regarding our debt increasing by 3 trillion dollars on his watch while pushing through his tax cut program.....I know the debt pre dates him and its impossible for it not to increase at all, but that rate of growth is staggering.

I give him credit for his leadership immediately following 9/11 ( he's not ALL bad...) I just truly feel we are not better off then we were when he took office, and that he has to shoulder a portion of the blame.

stepping off my soap box now......

I don't disagree that he shoulder's part of the blame, but I'd never go so far as to say all of the blame as a lot of people do. Soap Box is good, it offers debate and another perspective. We need that. Keep it up!

[elmotano]

cool....so just have him cross back over the river Styx and come back to get us out of the mess GWB's gotten us into....

PS, while he's here, maybe he could bring Gas back down to $1.39/gallon.....it's price on inaugeration (sic) day 2001. I shudder to think of what the price might be today if we didnt have an OILMAN in the oval office to keep it under control !!

Bush has his faults, I wholeheartedly agree, however to blame this war totally on him is a bit unfair. After the USS Cole incident, the oh so wise and great President Clinton passed up his chance to assassinate/capture Bin Laden. 9-11 was the 2nd attack on the World Trade Center/American Soil.

Let's try to re-write history for a second and see what we wind up with. Gore/Lieberman win, do you think that the attack on WTC would not have happened? Or anyone else for that matter?

The attack was going to happen, regardless of who was or was not present in the Oval Office. The plan was in effect 5-7 years before the actual attack, which puts it squarely under Bill Clinton's watch. on 9/12/01 Bush stood before the world and said, "If you are a terrorist nation, or harbor terrorists, we are coming after you" The world applauded, even Cuba and Iran claimed to be saddened by 9/11 and said for once they stood behind the West on this.

We send troops off, first in Afghanistan, then to Iraq. Our soldiers start dying and suddenly we realize that "Shock and Awe" don't mean a simple in and out mission. The masses realize soldiers die, Al-Qaida has lots of holes to hide, allies in Rebels, etc... Bush received bad Intel from the CIA, MOSSAD, his own Veep, and other Cabinet members (specifically Rumsfeld) and yet he did not whine or bitch that he was treated unfairly or cast fingers to anyone else but himself. He fired Rumsfeld and several other Cabinet members and has been trying to pull other resources to curb America's burden. But he was not wrong in removing SoDamn Insane Hussain. The man was a murderer, a butcherer, and a psychopath who tortured his own family and he destabilized the region more than he could ever help it.

I'm not a huge supporter of Bush, he's done wrong, but he's done good. Now, you want to talk about the Economy... OK, fine. How much of the economy is Bush's fault? Let's examine that. If you know anything about Economic Policy in Political Terms, then you know it takes 3 years for any Stimulus plan a President signs into law to become effective. 3 Months after Bush takes office, the Economy begins a downturn, this is due to the fact that Clinton passed new laws 2 years earlier and the package was now being delivered. We will never truly know if Clinton's final Economic plan was worth the paper it was written on, as 9-11 happened and the American way of life was stopped.

We lost the WTC, trading was suspended, Airlines shut down, gas prices rose, people were scared to travel, afraid to spend money, lenders got scared increased points on loans and people saw the short term gains. All this directly affected what is happening today. The housing market falters because of the interest rates and balloon payments no one can afford, the airlines are still in turmoil, gas has risen to nearly $4 a gallon.

Bush isn't a great President by any stretch of the imagination, but he took what was handed to him and he ran with it. Whether you agree with his methods or not, he has led this Country through the worst of times and still manages to push through. That is a leader. Maybe not a great leader, but a leader none-the-less. I think History will take into account all I've said and Bush will be looked at kinder than he is in his own age. I think that is a Bush Legacy, as many people thought his father was one of the worst Presidents, now he is hailed as a Great Leader.

Again, not a democrat here, but I will say, my life was much better when Clinton was in office. And, this despite watching the witch hunt that took place by republicans right from the get go fro white water to Monica's dress. I guess I prefer a President who likes a a good cigar and a BJ as opposed to a President who dragged us into a war for oil money and to avenge an attempt on his father's life. Don't get me wrong, Afghanistan needed to be done. No one can argue with going after the Taliban after 9/11. And that is where the US efforts should have been concentrated. Finish the job and set Afghanistan clean of Taliban. The Only reason we are in Iraq is for $$$$$$$ from oil.
We went from finally having a $0 deficit to a record deficit that only increases by the second. And then when George started saying if you are against the Iraq war you are anti troops my only reply is KISS MY ASS. I am completely for the troops and do not think their lives should be wasted (mentally or physically) to line the pockets of individuals in our gov't. GWB wanted to go to Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.
If GWB is considered a great leader....we are in big trouble.
Geez, I hate political discussion, but I guess it's a change from they never ending debate of styx v DDY, DDY v JY etc.

[Rowdy]

As to the first part it is completely opposite for me. Under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. my life has been better than it was while Clinton was in Office. Even without the Scandals, Media, and Republican "Witch Hunt" just his Policies were enough to change things in my way of life. It all boils down to your own convictions, location, and life experiences. I've always had money, but when Clinton took office, I found myself scraping the barrel and for you, it may just be the opposite.

The first Gulf War wasn't about oil, it was about Stopping a 2nd Hittler. When Hittler invaded the Sudatenland, no one opposed him. We didn't want Kuwait to be another WW situation. We already knew Saddam was killing Kurds, much like Hittler killed the Jews. This was not acceptable and Bush and the UN decided to nip it in the bud.

Now, for Gulf War Part Duex, I concede that it is very likely that Bush had vengeance on his mind, but I'd bet anything that it was at the insistence of others, than of his own volition. We know for fact that Hussein HAD chemical & biological weapons, but Intel could not tell us where they were. After the first Gulf War, there were stockpiles unaccounted for and UN Teams were blocked for over 10 years searching for them. What happened to them?!

My guess is Saddam knew we would come back after 9-11 and bartered a deal with another Country and had the weapons moved. There are so many tunnels, caverns, and bunkers that it would be impossible to find them all. We caught very few leads, but my guess is they were moved out of Iraq and into Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or my best bet would be Lybia and Khadaffi. Saddam knew we would come back and find nothing. He wanted this war. He wanted to embarrass Bush and the U.S. He essentially won. BUT could we really take the chance? What ifs we can discuss them all day long, but we were right to remove him. I don't think anyone gave much thought to the aftermath tho.

As for only being there for oil, part of me believes this, then again, there is more OIL in the Gulf of Tonkin/Vientam, than there is in the ENTIRE Mid-East according to published reports by Environmentalists, the D.o.D., and the Vietnamese Governments. We'd be better off brokering a deal with Vietnam, than squabbling for scraps from the greediest region on the planet.

As far as the deficit goes, we haven't had a $0 deficit or surplus since Thomas Jefferson. This was spin control by the Clinton Administration, much like how Budget cuts aren't cuts. If the current years Budget for Defense is 300$ Billion and a Republican asks for $400 Billion in most cases it's a 33% increase. Now on the Democratic side it goes like this. This years budget for Arts is $50 Billion and they request $100 Billion. If they don't get it, they tell the Populace that the funds for the Arts have been reduced by Republicans by 50%. I'm just using these as examples, they aren't the real numbers and both sides do do this, but Democrats seem to have a knack for doing it more often.

Most Americans are against the War, but support the troops. People like Streisand, Dixie Chicks, Bono, should express their displeasure in the Government, but not disrespect the troops who are doing 1) What they agreed to do 2) What they were ORDERED to do. Bush never said everyone who was Anti-war was anti-troops, just that by not keeping a positive view of the war, was detrimental to the focus of the troops. This happened in Vietnam. No one supported the troops and suicides, divorce, drug addiction, and poverty skyrocketed.

Again, not a democrat here, but I will say, my life was much better when Clinton was in office. And, this despite watching the witch hunt that took place by republicans right from the get go fro white water to Monica's dress. I guess I prefer a President who likes a a good cigar and a BJ as opposed to a President who dragged us into a war for oil money and to avenge an attempt on his father's life. Don't get me wrong, Afghanistan needed to be done. No one can argue with going after the Taliban after 9/11. And that is where the US efforts should have been concentrated. Finish the job and set Afghanistan clean of Taliban. The Only reason we are in Iraq is for $$$$$$$ from oil.
We went from finally having a $0 deficit to a record deficit that only increases by the second. And then when George started saying if you are against the Iraq war you are anti troops my only reply is KISS MY ASS. I am completely for the troops and do not think their lives should be wasted (mentally or physically) to line the pockets of individuals in our gov't. GWB wanted to go to Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.
If GWB is considered a great leader....we are in big trouble.
Geez, I hate political discussion, but I guess it's a change from they never ending debate of styx v DDY, DDY v JY etc.

[yogi]

I am a republican. But what George W. has accomplished as a president is very very UNimpressive.

Timing is EVERYTHING. No doubt Saddam had to be taken care of. But not when we decided to do it.

We should have taken care of Osama, and the Taliban first. Our borders should be secured by now.

No one will ever convince me that if we didnt go into Iraq we wouldnt have Bin laden by now. We are spread soooo damn thin.

I am glad Saddam is dead, but I would much rather know that the man responsible for attacking OUR country is dead.

Not only did George and George alone allowed us to take our eye off the ball, he rolled out a new ball. In his mind this ball was going to allow us to play an eaiser game, a game in which daddy played and had much success. Only this new game wasnt near as easy as George W. and his advisors thought it was going to be.

3000 + deaths in Iraq later we are no closer to catching the demon responsible for invading our country than we were back in 2002.

[shaka]

That whole oil money argument is so tired. If that was the reason we'd be pillaging the Iraqi oil industry at this exact moment.

[elmotano]

That whole oil money argument is so tired. If that was the reason we'd be pillaging the Iraqi oil industry at this exact moment.

that is the reason

[elmotano]

As to the first part it is completely opposite for me. Under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. my life has been better than it was while Clinton was in Office. Even without the Scandals, Media, and Republican "Witch Hunt" just his Policies were enough to change things in my way of life. It all boils down to your own convictions, location, and life experiences. I've always had money, but when Clinton took office, I found myself scraping the barrel and for you, it may just be the opposite.

The first Gulf War wasn't about oil, it was about Stopping a 2nd Hittler. When Hittler invaded the Sudatenland, no one opposed him. We didn't want Kuwait to be another WW situation. We already knew Saddam was killing Kurds, much like Hittler killed the Jews. This was not acceptable and Bush and the UN decided to nip it in the bud.

Now, for Gulf War Part Duex, I concede that it is very likely that Bush had vengeance on his mind, but I'd bet anything that it was at the insistence of others, than of his own volition. We know for fact that Hussein HAD chemical & biological weapons, but Intel could not tell us where they were. After the first Gulf War, there were stockpiles unaccounted for and UN Teams were blocked for over 10 years searching for them. What happened to them?!

My guess is Saddam knew we would come back after 9-11 and bartered a deal with another Country and had the weapons moved. There are so many tunnels, caverns, and bunkers that it would be impossible to find them all. We caught very few leads, but my guess is they were moved out of Iraq and into Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or my best bet would be Lybia and Khadaffi. Saddam knew we would come back and find nothing. He wanted this war. He wanted to embarrass Bush and the U.S. He essentially won. BUT could we really take the chance? What ifs we can discuss them all day long, but we were right to remove him. I don't think anyone gave much thought to the aftermath tho.

As for only being there for oil, part of me believes this, then again, there is more OIL in the Gulf of Tonkin/Vientam, than there is in the ENTIRE Mid-East according to published reports by Environmentalists, the D.o.D., and the Vietnamese Governments. We'd be better off brokering a deal with Vietnam, than squabbling for scraps from the greediest region on the planet.

As far as the deficit goes, we haven't had a $0 deficit or surplus since Thomas Jefferson. This was spin control by the Clinton Administration, much like how Budget cuts aren't cuts. If the current years Budget for Defense is 300$ Billion and a Republican asks for $400 Billion in most cases it's a 33% increase. Now on the Democratic side it goes like this. This years budget for Arts is $50 Billion and they request $100 Billion. If they don't get it, they tell the Populace that the funds for the Arts have been reduced by Republicans by 50%. I'm just using these as examples, they aren't the real numbers and both sides do do this, but Democrats seem to have a knack for doing it more often.

Most Americans are against the War, but support the troops. People like Streisand, Dixie Chicks, Bono, should express their displeasure in the Government, but not disrespect the troops who are doing 1) What they agreed to do 2) What they were ORDERED to do. Bush never said everyone who was Anti-war was anti-troops, just that by not keeping a positive view of the war, was detrimental to the focus of the troops. This happened in Vietnam. No one supported the troops and suicides, divorce, drug addiction, and poverty skyrocketed.

Again, not a democrat here, but I will say, my life was much better when Clinton was in office. And, this despite watching the witch hunt that took place by republicans right from the get go fro white water to Monica's dress. I guess I prefer a President who likes a a good cigar and a BJ as opposed to a President who dragged us into a war for oil money and to avenge an attempt on his father's life. Don't get me wrong, Afghanistan needed to be done. No one can argue with going after the Taliban after 9/11. And that is where the US efforts should have been concentrated. Finish the job and set Afghanistan clean of Taliban. The Only reason we are in Iraq is for $$$$$$$ from oil.
We went from finally having a $0 deficit to a record deficit that only increases by the second. And then when George started saying if you are against the Iraq war you are anti troops my only reply is KISS MY ASS. I am completely for the troops and do not think their lives should be wasted (mentally or physically) to line the pockets of individuals in our gov't. GWB wanted to go to Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.
If GWB is considered a great leader....we are in big trouble.
Geez, I hate political discussion, but I guess it's a change from they never ending debate of styx v DDY, DDY v JY etc.

[elmotano]

As to the first part it is completely opposite for me. Under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. my life has been better than it was while Clinton was in Office. Even without the Scandals, Media, and Republican "Witch Hunt" just his Policies were enough to change things in my way of life. It all boils down to your own convictions, location, and life experiences. I've always had money, but when Clinton took office, I found myself scraping the barrel and for you, it may just be the opposite.

The first Gulf War wasn't about oil, it was about Stopping a 2nd Hittler. When Hittler invaded the Sudatenland, no one opposed him. We didn't want Kuwait to be another WW situation. We already knew Saddam was killing Kurds, much like Hittler killed the Jews. This was not acceptable and Bush and the UN decided to nip it in the bud.

Now, for Gulf War Part Duex, I concede that it is very likely that Bush had vengeance on his mind, but I'd bet anything that it was at the insistence of others, than of his own volition. We know for fact that Hussein HAD chemical & biological weapons, but Intel could not tell us where they were. After the first Gulf War, there were stockpiles unaccounted for and UN Teams were blocked for over 10 years searching for them. What happened to them?!

My guess is Saddam knew we would come back after 9-11 and bartered a deal with another Country and had the weapons moved. There are so many tunnels, caverns, and bunkers that it would be impossible to find them all. We caught very few leads, but my guess is they were moved out of Iraq and into Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or my best bet would be Lybia and Khadaffi. Saddam knew we would come back and find nothing. He wanted this war. He wanted to embarrass Bush and the U.S. He essentially won. BUT could we really take the chance? What ifs we can discuss them all day long, but we were right to remove him. I don't think anyone gave much thought to the aftermath tho.

As for only being there for oil, part of me believes this, then again, there is more OIL in the Gulf of Tonkin/Vientam, than there is in the ENTIRE Mid-East according to published reports by Environmentalists, the D.o.D., and the Vietnamese Governments. We'd be better off brokering a deal with Vietnam, than squabbling for scraps from the greediest region on the planet.

As far as the deficit goes, we haven't had a $0 deficit or surplus since Thomas Jefferson. This was spin control by the Clinton Administration, much like how Budget cuts aren't cuts. If the current years Budget for Defense is 300$ Billion and a Republican asks for $400 Billion in most cases it's a 33% increase. Now on the Democratic side it goes like this. This years budget for Arts is $50 Billion and they request $100 Billion. If they don't get it, they tell the Populace that the funds for the Arts have been reduced by Republicans by 50%. I'm just using these as examples, they aren't the real numbers and both sides do do this, but Democrats seem to have a knack for doing it more often.

Most Americans are against the War, but support the troops. People like Streisand, Dixie Chicks, Bono, should express their displeasure in the Government, but not disrespect the troops who are doing 1) What they agreed to do 2) What they were ORDERED to do. Bush never said everyone who was Anti-war was anti-troops, just that by not keeping a positive view of the war, was detrimental to the focus of the troops. This happened in Vietnam. No one supported the troops and suicides, divorce, drug addiction, and poverty skyrocketed.

Again, not a democrat here, but I will say, my life was much better when Clinton was in office. And, this despite watching the witch hunt that took place by republicans right from the get go fro white water to Monica's dress. I guess I prefer a President who likes a a good cigar and a BJ as opposed to a President who dragged us into a war for oil money and to avenge an attempt on his father's life. Don't get me wrong, Afghanistan needed to be done. No one can argue with going after the Taliban after 9/11. And that is where the US efforts should have been concentrated. Finish the job and set Afghanistan clean of Taliban. The Only reason we are in Iraq is for $$$$$$$ from oil.
We went from finally having a $0 deficit to a record deficit that only increases by the second. And then when George started saying if you are against the Iraq war you are anti troops my only reply is KISS MY ASS. I am completely for the troops and do not think their lives should be wasted (mentally or physically) to line the pockets of individuals in our gov't. GWB wanted to go to Iraq before 9/11 ever happened.
If GWB is considered a great leader....we are in big trouble.
Geez, I hate political discussion, but I guess it's a change from they never ending debate of styx v DDY, DDY v JY etc.

Okay , since we are keeping it friendly< I will reply LOL
Here's how I remember it.... Carter was president, we, the US was in pretty bad shape. Our economy sucked, for most. Our Military was a disaster, we needed change. Reagan comes in, fixes military and has quick fix for the economy.... trickle down economics. And it worked kinda quick. On the downside, it really started to push us into a 2 class Society, middle class started to mesh in with upper class and mostly lower class. But yes, Rowdy, I agree, Reagan's era was prosperous. Unfortunately, Daddy Bush couldn't solve the downturn that happen when Middle class was running out of money to spend because let's face it the rich like money, they weren't spending so there was no trickle down. What happens when the economy is bad, war...the Gulf war. I know, I know we saved Kuwait. I wonder why we didn't do much for the African nations that were going through all kinds of tyranny....could it be , no oil?
And again , I agree the first 2 years of Clinton's administration were lean years, but like you said, it takes about 3 years for policy to take affect, so the remaining 6 years of Clinton were prosperous. I will have to look into what you say about the deficit not being eliminated, but I do recall it was.
Skipping ahead to Gulf War part deux......here's why I am sure Saddam didn't give the "WMD's" to another country. Ready? They all distrust and just about hate each other. If Israel was not in the Mid East , there would still not be peace. All the sects have fundamentalists that believe their sect or religion is THE one. On top of that, these are poor people, with filthy rich governments who like to keep their people down. So they blame being poor on the west, but that's another story. SO, again, I have a hard time believing that these WMD's, th the level we were told , did not exist. Were there caches, yes no doubt. Am I sad Saddam is dead, no. GWB could have gone after him, AFTER, Afghanistan was taken care of. Afghanistan , basically, took down the USSR. So, I really thought then as I do now, it should take all of our Troops' effort. Iraq, spread us thin. Now we can't even keep Iran in line.......guess McCain will take us there.
Agin, not a republican or democrat here, I just call em as I see em...GWB is a disaster that will, in history be recalled as the worst President in US history.

Sorry for the diatribe and let me apologize for my spelling as well. Just tried to get this out during lunch.

[Rowdy]

We should have taken care of Osama, and the Taliban first. Our borders should be secured by now.

No one will ever convince me that if we didnt go into Iraq we wouldnt have Bin laden by now. We are spread soooo damn thin.

I lived in Europe in the early 80's. Most here have no idea what terrorism is all about. Everyday was fearful. Think of how you felt on 9-11 and that is what it felt like every other week in Europe in the 80's. My father's Office at Ramstein AFB was bombed just as he was leaving work in 83. Secure AFB and terrorist still found their way in. Osama caught or not, it's only just begun I fear.

As far as Osama being caught by now, I doubt it. You've prolly never been to the region, like Iraq, the terrain, natural and man-made tunnels, Bin laden could be anywhere. We could send the military in walking hand in hand N to S and E to W covering the entire country and he could still get away.

This war is so much like Vietnam it's not funny. Unless you believe in Genocide, you can't stamp out an idealism. You never know who the enemy is. They protect Bin Laden and as long as they believe in him, he will live and continue. Bin Laden is coming to his end, be it naturally or militarilly, but someone else will pick up his message. It's a cycle that is as old as time. Kill my father, I'll kill you, rinse and repeat.

[Rowdy]

Okay , since we are keeping it friendly< I will reply LOL
Here's how I remember it.... Carter was president, we, the US was in pretty bad shape. Our economy sucked, for most. Our Military was a disaster, we needed change. Reagan comes in, fixes military and has quick fix for the economy.... trickle down economics. And it worked kinda quick. On the downside, it really started to push us into a 2 class Society, middle class started to mesh in with upper class and mostly lower class. But yes, Rowdy, I agree, Reagan's era was prosperous. Unfortunately, Daddy Bush couldn't solve the downturn that happen when Middle class was running out of money to spend because let's face it the rich like money, they weren't spending so there was no trickle down. What happens when the economy is bad, war...the Gulf war. I know, I know we saved Kuwait. I wonder why we didn't do much for the African nations that were going through all kinds of tyranny....could it be , no oil?
And again , I agree the first 2 years of Clinton's administration were lean years, but like you said, it takes about 3 years for policy to take affect, so the remaining 6 years of Clinton were prosperous. I will have to look into what you say about the deficit not being eliminated, but I do recall it was.
Skipping ahead to Gulf War part deux......here's why I am sure Saddam didn't give the "WMD's" to another country. Ready? They all distrust and just about hate each other. If Israel was not in the Mid East , there would still not be peace. All the sects have fundamentalists that believe their sect or religion is THE one. On top of that, these are poor people, with filthy rich governments who like to keep their people down. So they blame being poor on the west, but that's another story. SO, again, I have a hard time believing that these WMD's, th the level we were told , did not exist. Were there caches, yes no doubt. Am I sad Saddam is dead, no. GWB could have gone after him, AFTER, Afghanistan was taken care of. Afghanistan , basically, took down the USSR. So, I really thought then as I do now, it should take all of our Troops' effort. Iraq, spread us thin. Now we can't even keep Iran in line.......guess McCain will take us there.
Agin, not a republican or democrat here, I just call em as I see em...GWB is a disaster that will, in history be recalled as the worst President in US history.

Sorry for the diatribe and let me apologize for my spelling as well. Just tried to get this out during lunch.

LOL, you need more spacing, Howie. lol.

We agree on everything up to Bush Sr. taking office. And I halfway agree there. Bush's downfall here was his departure from "Trickle-Down" Economics. He should have listened to Reagan and the late Great Lee Atwater and kept with it, instead, he tried his "VooDoo Economics" which really, really hurt and forced him to re-nig on his promise of "No NEW TAXES" but that wasn't a lie, as he didn't create new taxes, just raised old ones, so the lie was a play on words. Still, it hurt his re-election in votes and American confidence in him.

As I recall, we were just beginning to hit a recession when the Gulf War started. The war actually pulled us out. Wars are generally good for recession. A common misconception is FDRs NEW DEAL plans got us out of the Great Depression, but it was really from WWII and the mass influx of jobs from Military sponsored jobs. Building tanks, plans, subs, munitions, etc. Things were rough under Bush, but at the end, they leveled off and VooDoo economics started to work. It was a slow plan.

Clinton we covered. We both agree rocky at first, and stable to better toward the end. Only disagreement here is over a deficit, but check several places. I believe we were still around 3 Trillion Dollars at the time with a projected 20 Year Balanced Budget.

I understand your skepticism about Saddam moving the WMDs, however, what is the one thing that that region hates more than each other?! America. The old saying, "My Enemies Enemy, is my Friend" comes to mind here. Don't rely on just CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox for news, they are all skewed and biased. Check out other places like the Department of Defense, Environmentalist pages, etc... and get a wider picture. Moving WMDs to say Lybia makes sense. It's too remote to invade Iraq and Saddam would know khadaffi wants revenge for Reagan sending F1-11's in 87 to bomb him and killing his son and daughter. It's all conjecture, but the world knows he did have WMDs and only firing pins, chem suits, and abandoned factories have been found thus far, so if he didn't give them away, where are they?! He certainly didn't destroy his own WMDs. The other possibility is they are still underground in Iraq somewhere, we just can't find them.

[elmotano]

Okay , since we are keeping it friendly< I will reply LOL
Here's how I remember it.... Carter was president, we, the US was in pretty bad shape. Our economy sucked, for most. Our Military was a disaster, we needed change. Reagan comes in, fixes military and has quick fix for the economy.... trickle down economics. And it worked kinda quick. On the downside, it really started to push us into a 2 class Society, middle class started to mesh in with upper class and mostly lower class. But yes, Rowdy, I agree, Reagan's era was prosperous. Unfortunately, Daddy Bush couldn't solve the downturn that happen when Middle class was running out of money to spend because let's face it the rich like money, they weren't spending so there was no trickle down. What happens when the economy is bad, war...the Gulf war. I know, I know we saved Kuwait. I wonder why we didn't do much for the African nations that were going through all kinds of tyranny....could it be , no oil?
And again , I agree the first 2 years of Clinton's administration were lean years, but like you said, it takes about 3 years for policy to take affect, so the remaining 6 years of Clinton were prosperous. I will have to look into what you say about the deficit not being eliminated, but I do recall it was.
Skipping ahead to Gulf War part deux......here's why I am sure Saddam didn't give the "WMD's" to another country. Ready? They all distrust and just about hate each other. If Israel was not in the Mid East , there would still not be peace. All the sects have fundamentalists that believe their sect or religion is THE one. On top of that, these are poor people, with filthy rich governments who like to keep their people down. So they blame being poor on the west, but that's another story. SO, again, I have a hard time believing that these WMD's, th the level we were told , did not exist. Were there caches, yes no doubt. Am I sad Saddam is dead, no. GWB could have gone after him, AFTER, Afghanistan was taken care of. Afghanistan , basically, took down the USSR. So, I really thought then as I do now, it should take all of our Troops' effort. Iraq, spread us thin. Now we can't even keep Iran in line.......guess McCain will take us there.
Agin, not a republican or democrat here, I just call em as I see em...GWB is a disaster that will, in history be recalled as the worst President in US history.

Sorry for the diatribe and let me apologize for my spelling as well. Just tried to get this out during lunch.

LOL, you need more spacing, Howie. lol.

We agree on everything up to Bush Sr. taking office. And I halfway agree there. Bush's downfall here was his departure from "Trickle-Down" Economics. He should have listened to Reagan and the late Great Lee Atwater and kept with it, instead, he tried his "VooDoo Economics" which really, really hurt and forced him to re-nig on his promise of "No NEW TAXES" but that wasn't a lie, as he didn't create new taxes, just raised old ones, so the lie was a play on words. Still, it hurt his re-election in votes and American confidence in him.

As I recall, we were just beginning to hit a recession when the Gulf War started. The war actually pulled us out. Wars are generally good for recession. A common misconception is FDRs NEW DEAL plans got us out of the Great Depression, but it was really from WWII and the mass influx of jobs from Military sponsored jobs. Building tanks, plans, subs, munitions, etc. Things were rough under Bush, but at the end, they leveled off and VooDoo economics started to work. It was a slow plan.

Clinton we covered. We both agree rocky at first, and stable to better toward the end. Only disagreement here is over a deficit, but check several places. I believe we were still around 3 Trillion Dollars at the time with a projected 20 Year Balanced Budget.

I understand your skepticism about Saddam moving the WMDs, however, what is the one thing that that region hates more than each other?! America. The old saying, "My Enemies Enemy, is my Friend" comes to mind here. Don't rely on just CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox for news, they are all skewed and biased. Check out other places like the Department of Defense, Environmentalist pages, etc... and get a wider picture. Moving WMDs to say Lybia makes sense. It's too remote to invade Iraq and Saddam would know khadaffi wants revenge for Reagan sending F1-11's in 87 to bomb him and killing his son and daughter. It's all conjecture, but the world knows he did have WMDs and only firing pins, chem suits, and abandoned factories have been found thus far, so if he didn't give them away, where are they?! He certainly didn't destroy his own WMDs. The other possibility is they are still underground in Iraq somewhere, we just can't find them.

Okay but Libya and iraq..... never on good terms. Like I said before, all of those countries gov't's hate each other and have crazy paranoia about each other.

Also, I didn't mention the lack of strategy for after the dropping of the bombs? And now, it kills me to say it, we can't leave yet. Until there is a stable government, we are stuck there. Anyway, I guess I am saying because of GWB and how I see republicans now.....I can't vote republican. To quote daddy Bush (or maybe Dana Carvey)" Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent".

Well at least, you might agree, my spacing is better now.

[classicstyxfan]

[quote="yogi"]3000 + deaths in Iraq later we are no closer to catching the demon responsible for invading our country than we were back in 2002.[/quote


Yogi, unfortunately, we passed 4,000 US deaths some time ago...........Dubya's war has now lasted longer than US involvement in Word War II, and is closing in on passing the Vietnam War for longevity. This would not be as big of a deal if there were any light at the end of the tunnel, but Frankly, I don't see any, do you ? I know McCains quote about 100 years is continually quoted out of context, but the intent seems to be we will be staying for quite a while.

I wish McCain would make a pledge to have us out by the end of his 1st term.....If we cant get it done in 4 more years, it's a lost cause, isn't it ? whether it is in the form of a goal or a guarantee , he needs to let the American people know he is committed to some sort of end to this war.

and PS...even though you are a Republican,you're still OK in my book [/b]

[Rowdy]

Okay , since we are keeping it friendly< I will reply LOL
Here's how I remember it.... Carter was president, we, the US was in pretty bad shape. Our economy sucked, for most. Our Military was a disaster, we needed change. Reagan comes in, fixes military and has quick fix for the economy.... trickle down economics. And it worked kinda quick. On the downside, it really started to push us into a 2 class Society, middle class started to mesh in with upper class and mostly lower class. But yes, Rowdy, I agree, Reagan's era was prosperous. Unfortunately, Daddy Bush couldn't solve the downturn that happen when Middle class was running out of money to spend because let's face it the rich like money, they weren't spending so there was no trickle down. What happens when the economy is bad, war...the Gulf war. I know, I know we saved Kuwait. I wonder why we didn't do much for the African nations that were going through all kinds of tyranny....could it be , no oil?
And again , I agree the first 2 years of Clinton's administration were lean years, but like you said, it takes about 3 years for policy to take affect, so the remaining 6 years of Clinton were prosperous. I will have to look into what you say about the deficit not being eliminated, but I do recall it was.
Skipping ahead to Gulf War part deux......here's why I am sure Saddam didn't give the "WMD's" to another country. Ready? They all distrust and just about hate each other. If Israel was not in the Mid East , there would still not be peace. All the sects have fundamentalists that believe their sect or religion is THE one. On top of that, these are poor people, with filthy rich governments who like to keep their people down. So they blame being poor on the west, but that's another story. SO, again, I have a hard time believing that these WMD's, th the level we were told , did not exist. Were there caches, yes no doubt. Am I sad Saddam is dead, no. GWB could have gone after him, AFTER, Afghanistan was taken care of. Afghanistan , basically, took down the USSR. So, I really thought then as I do now, it should take all of our Troops' effort. Iraq, spread us thin. Now we can't even keep Iran in line.......guess McCain will take us there.
Agin, not a republican or democrat here, I just call em as I see em...GWB is a disaster that will, in history be recalled as the worst President in US history.

Sorry for the diatribe and let me apologize for my spelling as well. Just tried to get this out during lunch.

LOL, you need more spacing, Howie. lol.

We agree on everything up to Bush Sr. taking office. And I halfway agree there. Bush's downfall here was his departure from "Trickle-Down" Economics. He should have listened to Reagan and the late Great Lee Atwater and kept with it, instead, he tried his "VooDoo Economics" which really, really hurt and forced him to re-nig on his promise of "No NEW TAXES" but that wasn't a lie, as he didn't create new taxes, just raised old ones, so the lie was a play on words. Still, it hurt his re-election in votes and American confidence in him.

As I recall, we were just beginning to hit a recession when the Gulf War started. The war actually pulled us out. Wars are generally good for recession. A common misconception is FDRs NEW DEAL plans got us out of the Great Depression, but it was really from WWII and the mass influx of jobs from Military sponsored jobs. Building tanks, plans, subs, munitions, etc. Things were rough under Bush, but at the end, they leveled off and VooDoo economics started to work. It was a slow plan.

Clinton we covered. We both agree rocky at first, and stable to better toward the end. Only disagreement here is over a deficit, but check several places. I believe we were still around 3 Trillion Dollars at the time with a projected 20 Year Balanced Budget.

I understand your skepticism about Saddam moving the WMDs, however, what is the one thing that that region hates more than each other?! America. The old saying, "My Enemies Enemy, is my Friend" comes to mind here. Don't rely on just CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox for news, they are all skewed and biased. Check out other places like the Department of Defense, Environmentalist pages, etc... and get a wider picture. Moving WMDs to say Lybia makes sense. It's too remote to invade Iraq and Saddam would know khadaffi wants revenge for Reagan sending F1-11's in 87 to bomb him and killing his son and daughter. It's all conjecture, but the world knows he did have WMDs and only firing pins, chem suits, and abandoned factories have been found thus far, so if he didn't give them away, where are they?! He certainly didn't destroy his own WMDs. The other possibility is they are still underground in Iraq somewhere, we just can't find them.

Okay but Libya and iraq..... never on good terms. Like I said before, all of those countries gov't's hate each other and have crazy paranoia about each other.

Also, I didn't mention the lack of strategy for after the dropping of the bombs? And now, it kills me to say it, we can't leave yet. Until there is a stable government, we are stuck there. Anyway, I guess I am saying because of GWB and how I see republicans now.....I can't vote republican. To quote daddy Bush (or maybe Dana Carvey)" Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent".

Well at least, you might agree, my spacing is better now.

I can understand your hesitation in voting for another Republican, however, even in the party lines there's division. It's on both sides. Vote whichever way your heart or conviction leads you, but at least vote. People too often express their discontent with the way the Country is led, yet don't vote. Personally, these are the worst kids or people. Always harping, but refuse to participate in the process and have their voice heard where it counts.

This is a prime example of civil debate. We all have different views, even among the Republicans in this forum. I don't trust any of the candidates personally, but I've chosen a side because my convictions lead me closer to McCain. Yours differ and that's good.

One mistake you are making in my opinion is saying in essence because Bush screwed us over, I won't vote Republican. As I said, I could care less who anyone votes for, it's your right, but look at the bigger picture. That's not a good enough excuse to vote for Obama or Clinton. They need to meet your concerns. Look at their voting records, listen to what they say and not the media spin.

Don't just baseline all Republicans on what Bush has/not done. I'm not harping for Bush, just think McCain deserves a fair shot and I don't even like the guy. Reminds me of Boss Hog with those jowls of his.

Hell, I'd give Obama a fair listen if the guy could back up "change" with a plan. I ain't heard a single thing other than rhetoric and propaganda for "change" from him.

Clinton, I gotta be honest her elitist attitude in her husbands administration and mouth ruined her. She just seems like a pissed off angry woman with vengeance. I don't trust her, but more importantly, I don't hold her values and Politics.

[Rowdy]

3000 + deaths in Iraq later we are no closer to catching the demon responsible for invading our country than we were back in 2002.[/quote


Yogi, unfortunately, we passed 4,000 US deaths some time ago...........Dubya's war has now lasted longer than US involvement in Word War II, and is closing in on passing the Vietnam War for longevity. This would not be as big of a deal if there were any light at the end of the tunnel, but Frankly, I don't see any, do you ? I know McCains quote about 100 years is continually quoted out of context, but the intent seems to be we will be staying for quite a while.

I wish McCain would make a pledge to have us out by the end of his 1st term.....If we cant get it done in 4 more years, it's a lost cause, isn't it ? whether it is in the form of a goal or a guarantee , he needs to let the American people know he is committed to some sort of end to this war.

and PS...even though you are a Republican,you're still OK in my book [/b]

While I express your view that I'd like McCain (or anyone else) to promise we are out of Iraq on a certain deadline, this is Military Suicide. By announcing our intentions, insurgents will just bide their time and we'd end up losing an "Ally" and gain a new Dictator.

While I think Bush's intentions were just and honestly a good thing, as I said previously, it's a fruitless war. Terrorism will never be stamped out.

I wish there could have been some other way to avert ground troops, but to remove Saddam, there was no other way. We tried Sanctions, we tried UN Inspections, we tried Aid, nothing worked to sway Saddam or get him to leave office peacefully. He starved his citizens, while he wasted food, medicine, etc.

It's going to be a long time there, no matter who takes office.

[elmotano]

3000 + deaths in Iraq later we are no closer to catching the demon responsible for invading our country than we were back in 2002.[/quote


Yogi, unfortunately, we passed 4,000 US deaths some time ago...........Dubya's war has now lasted longer than US involvement in Word War II, and is closing in on passing the Vietnam War for longevity. This would not be as big of a deal if there were any light at the end of the tunnel, but Frankly, I don't see any, do you ? I know McCains quote about 100 years is continually quoted out of context, but the intent seems to be we will be staying for quite a while.

I wish McCain would make a pledge to have us out by the end of his 1st term.....If we cant get it done in 4 more years, it's a lost cause, isn't it ? whether it is in the form of a goal or a guarantee , he needs to let the American people know he is committed to some sort of end to this war.

and PS...even though you are a Republican,you're still OK in my book [/b]

Any one ever write a book about how to put a genie back into the bottle? Or is this more like Pandora's Box?

Sadly, as I said before, leaving Iraq, before they have a stable gov't is not an option. If we left, besides the anarchy that would occur, we would be showing weakness. Terrorism feeds off of weakness.

This war, that started way before 2001 or 1993 was like a fire under some kind of control.....until Dubya spread it to Iraq... with out a plan. Sorry, that's just how I see it.
To be honest, I can't believe we haven't been hit again, on our soil, yet. In that sense, our gov't must be doing something right?

How's the spacing Rowdy?

[Rowdy]

3000 + deaths in Iraq later we are no closer to catching the demon responsible for invading our country than we were back in 2002.[/quote


Yogi, unfortunately, we passed 4,000 US deaths some time ago...........Dubya's war has now lasted longer than US involvement in Word War II, and is closing in on passing the Vietnam War for longevity. This would not be as big of a deal if there were any light at the end of the tunnel, but Frankly, I don't see any, do you ? I know McCains quote about 100 years is continually quoted out of context, but the intent seems to be we will be staying for quite a while.

I wish McCain would make a pledge to have us out by the end of his 1st term.....If we cant get it done in 4 more years, it's a lost cause, isn't it ? whether it is in the form of a goal or a guarantee , he needs to let the American people know he is committed to some sort of end to this war.

and PS...even though you are a Republican,you're still OK in my book [/b]

Any one ever write a book about how to put a genie back into the bottle? Or is this more like Pandora's Box?

Sadly, as I said before, leaving Iraq, before they have a stable gov't is not an option. If we left, besides the anarchy that would occur, we would be showing weakness. Terrorism feeds off of weakness.

This war, that started way before 2001 or 1993 was like a fire under some kind of control.....until Dubya spread it to Iraq... with out a plan. Sorry, that's just how I see it.
To be honest, I can't believe we haven't been hit again, on our soil, yet. In that sense, our gov't must be doing something right?

How's the spacing Rowdy?

Spacing is infinitely better, bro.

It indeed is Pandora's Box. And I agree, leaving Iraq before a Steady Government is in place is suicide. All the Men and women who've died falready will be for absolutely nothing in that case. Some already feel that way, now.

This war technically started in the 1980's (at least with Bin Laden) We trained him to fight the Soviets in the 80's and because of this, his Militant faction supporters chastised him. Banned from Saudi, exiled, and friendless, he blamed us, even tho we supplied his arms and trained his soldiers to combat the Soviets.

As far as Iraq, it was Clinton's Ambassador, Madeline (Not so bright) Albright who basically gave Hussain the OK to start moving in on Kuwait and other interests and not worry about US involvement. Whether that was Clinton's big mistake or on Albright's own accord, still has not been settled.

Terrorism has changed since the 80's. Instead of hitting every week or other week, they wait until we are complacent and not thinking about it. Several attempts have been made, Sears Tower, GWB Bridge, just to name 2. I think one was Domestic Terrorism, the other was linked to Al-Qaida. But there have been several aversions. It's only a matter of time before we get hit again. We can't stop them all.

[DarrenUK]

I get to vote in my first US election ..... I will vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination as voting for a Republican would be like voting for satan ..... Wish Hillary's husband could run again he could put the country back in the black so the next republican could bankrupt the nation again ..... the 1 republican I had time for was Ron Paul, spoke alot of sense which is rare for a conservative politician.

Whoever wins the presidency needs to hammer these greedy oil companies with a windfall tax, the profits are just pure greed while most Americans suffer, I bet the CEO of Exon Mobil does not have to worry about making the choice of either filling up his car or buying food like some Americans have to ..... I know the current president will do nothing to harm the oil companies as he gets his large check from them next January.

[shaka]

Don't look now but McCain and Romney are making nice. They have been on the fund raising circuit together.

[classicstyxfan]

Any one ever write a book about how to put a genie back into the bottle? Or is this more like Pandora's Box?

Sadly, as I said before, leaving Iraq, before they have a stable gov't is not an option. If we left, besides the anarchy that would occur, we would be showing weakness. Terrorism feeds off of weakness.

This war, that started way before 2001 or 1993 was like a fire under some kind of control.....until Dubya spread it to Iraq... with out a plan. Sorry, that's just how I see it.
To be honest, I can't believe we haven't been hit again, on our soil, yet. In that sense, our gov't must be doing something right?

How's the spacing Rowdy? [/quote]

Spacing is infinitely better, bro.

It indeed is Pandora's Box. And I agree, leaving Iraq before a Steady Government is in place is suicide. All the Men and women who've died falready will be for absolutely nothing in that case. Some already feel that way, now.

This war technically started in the 1980's (at least with Bin Laden) We trained him to fight the Soviets in the 80's and because of this, his Militant faction supporters chastised him. Banned from Saudi, exiled, and friendless, he blamed us, even tho we supplied his arms and trained his soldiers to combat the Soviets.

As far as Iraq, it was Clinton's Ambassador, Madeline (Not so bright) Albright who basically gave Hussain the OK to start moving in on Kuwait and other interests and not worry about US involvement. Whether that was Clinton's big mistake or on Albright's own accord, still has not been settled.

Terrorism has changed since the 80's. Instead of hitting every week or other week, they wait until we are complacent and not thinking about it. Several attempts have been made, Sears Tower, GWB Bridge, just to name 2. I think one was Domestic Terrorism, the other was linked to Al-Qaida. But there have been several aversions. It's only a matter of time before we get hit again. We can't stop them all.[/quote]

OK, I'm confused.....Iraq war I Started during the Bush administration, right ? Clinton came after Bush,, so Madeline Albright would have had to be working for the Bush or Reagan administration in order for her to be communicating with Saddam regarding US policy..........was this the case ? Enlighten me please[/b]

[FormerDJMike]

As a Repulbican I have decided to vote third party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com

This fits what I believe better than anyone in the big 2. I doubt I will vote Replublican ever again.