How do we fight it now?

[Yanksfan396]

Actually it has everything to do with the present. Looking at the past gives you better insight on how to deal with the present. They were similar situations where the countries we were occupying did not want us there. And it's pretty laughable that you're comparing tourism with military occupation...now that's something that has very little to do with this conversation.

And yes, military installations are mutually agreed upon. But at the time Japan, Germany, etc agreed to let us occupy and/or set up bases, they couldn't really say no because they had just been defeated in a World War. If they had said no, we would have any way...or worse. And now, they can't rightly tell us to leave without causing problems with the best ally they have. Do you honestly think, AS A NATION, that Japan or Germany actually wants us to have military bases there? Why would they? It's simply tolerated because of the politics you're talking about.

I suppose that's the narrow-minded way of saying, "Yes, you were right. I concede."

[Yanksfan396]

Wait, I thought your fellow Democrats said that Iraq was a madhouse, and we lost and everything. Have we prevailed? Bush did something right??

No, it was still a failure because tens of thousands of people died in the meantime. It was a bad situation that was approached horribly. Look at the economy, deaths, et cetera. We lost, plain and simple.

[OnePimpTiger]

I suppose that's the narrow-minded way of saying, "Yes, you were right. I concede."

No actually, it's not. It's saying if someone doesn't have another option, calling it "politically agreed upon" is not completely correct.

I suppose making a cheap jab instead of an intelligent rebuttal is the ignorant way of saying "I have nothing relevant to add to the conversation, so I'll just insult you." It's a pretty popular response from people who don't know what they're talking about.

[Yanksfan396]

Again, narrow-minded. Perhaps you missed the post after that. I've intently followed politics for ten of the twenty one years I've been alive, have written numerous theses on political theory, and am studying law.

By the way, that of which you have accused me is indicative in your post. Be careful.

[OnePimpTiger]

Explain how it is narrow-minded please. But if you're just going to use some cop out insult, don't bother.

The post after that says "tens of thousands of people died"...wow, what genius political insight. Just because you started watching CNN when you were 11 doesn't mean you understand...Comparing military occupation to tourism and saying Iraq is extremely stable right now doesn't sound like someone who knows what they're talking about. I would be interested in reading your numerous theses, however. Should be interesting.

By the way, that of which you have accused me is indicative in your post. Be careful.

Glad you caught that, thought I might have been too subtle...(that's sarcasm...I made sure to point it out because apparently you missed daniel's). If you're going to ignore the points and just throw out insults, I have no problem returning them.

[Yanksfan396]

Explain how it is narrow-minded please. But if you're just going to use some cop out insult, don't bother.

The post after that says "tens of thousands of people died"...wow, what genius political insight. Just because you started watching CNN when you were 11 doesn't mean you understand...Comparing military occupation to tourism and saying Iraq is extremely stable right now doesn't sound like someone who knows what they're talking about. I would be interested in reading your numerous theses, however. Should be interesting.



Glad you caught that, thought I might have been too subtle...(that's sarcasm...I made sure to point it out because apparently you missed daniel's). If you're going to ignore the points and just throw out insults, I have no problem returning them.

Here's a few points:

A) I've yet to here any sort of credibility on your part. I just see the same neo-conservative remarks.

B) My first post actually defended McCain, yet you began insults.

C) Narrow-minded = seeing what you want to see in order to throw out smart *** remarks.

D) Shoot me your email address and I'll get you some lengthy excerpts.

[OnePimpTiger]

I haven't claimed any credentials...I don't feel the need to defend my intelligence. But if you would like some, I have kept up with politics as long as you have including high school and college courses and in depth research on my own.

I have no opinion on whether there should be a US force to remain in Iraq and I haven't said that I want there to be one. You inferred that from the statements I made, which were merely objective points about past military occupation. And truth be told, I'm not even a fan of McCain...I do believe he's the lesser of two evils at this point, but he's far from my ideal candidate. If you think my points are only me "seeing what you want to see in order to throw out smart *** remarks," please feel free to point out any errors. A lot of people revert to calling someone narrow-minded when they can't point out any faults, but disagree with what was said. I'm not accusing you of that, but if someone doesn't offer a valid argument in response, it starts to look that way.

And there's a PM coming your way with my email address. I appreciate your offer to send those excerpts.

[11chaos]

They are not trying to kill us in Japan, South Korea, German and those countries WANT us there. Iraq DOES NOT want us there that is the difference.

Actually I have been there and no, they don't want us there. Half of the Marines are leaving Japan for Guam because we are trying to make them happy but still keep our bases.

I think you need a tin foil hat and some more Kool-Aid

While this is funny please keep it this tame.

I haven't claimed any credentials...I don't feel the need to defend my intelligence. But if you would like some, I have kept up with politics as long as you have including high school and college courses and in depth research on my own.

I have no opinion on whether there should be a US force to remain in Iraq and I haven't said that I want there to be one. You inferred that from the statements I made, which were merely objective points about past military occupation. And truth be told, I'm not even a fan of McCain...I do believe he's the lesser of two evils at this point, but he's far from my ideal candidate. If you think my points are only me "seeing what you want to see in order to throw out smart *** remarks," please feel free to point out any errors. A lot of people revert to calling someone narrow-minded when they can't point out any faults, but disagree with what was said. I'm not accusing you of that, but if someone doesn't offer a valid argument in response, it starts to look that way.

And there's a PM coming your way with my email address. I appreciate your offer to send those excerpts.

Yes, even when the combat troops pull out of Iraq there will still be a contingent left behind to fix various things and to be instructors and the like. Don't fool your self believing anything else. Yes, both candidates scare me as well. One the Manchurian Candidate and the other a man we really know nothing about.

[daniel3417]

No, it was still a failure because tens of thousands of people died in the meantime. It was a bad situation that was approached horribly. Look at the economy, deaths, et cetera. We lost, plain and simple.

You'll have to give me your definition of loss to me. I'm not trying to be a smart-alec either. I want to know why you think we lost...I mean they have no navy or air force; it would be hard to lose.

Did we lose WWII? We lost 416,700 soldiers in that war. We have lost 4,122 in Iraq (tens of thousands????). I'm just saying if part of your criteria on whether we win our lose is a death count, then we lost badly in WWII.

The strength of an economy doesn't qualify as criterium for win/loss of a war. Can the economy be affected by war? Yes! But it isn't the tell-tale sign. How can we lose a war in which the dictator of the opposing country was hanged??

[Yanksfan396]

You'll have to give me your definition of loss to me. I'm not trying to be a smart-alec either. I want to know why you think we lost...I mean they have no navy or air force; it would be hard to lose.

Did we lose WWII? We lost 416,700 soldiers in that war. We have lost 4,122 in Iraq (tens of thousands????). I'm just saying if part of your criteria on whether we win our lose is a death count, then we lost badly in WWII.

The strength of an economy doesn't qualify as criterium for win/loss of a war. Can the economy be affected by war? Yes! But it isn't the tell-tale sign. How can we lose a war in which the dictator of the opposing country was hanged??

Tens of thousands was actually an under-statement. How many Iraqi civilians have died?


Here are some reasons why we have failed:

--We NEVER found nuclear facilities in Iraq.
--War always affects economies. In this case, it killed ours--plain and simple.
--Of course, the deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees.
--Bad political image.
--No major oust of terrorism.
--Finally, bin Laden is still alive.


The latter is huge, as it was the sole purpose of our invasion. Now, as of this morning, the U.S. and Iraq have established a general timeline for troop removal. The U.S. did not complete its main objective, and now they're leaving. I consider that failure.


As for Hussein being executed, I believe that came a bit pre-maturely. I didn't agree with that at all.