You must have been sick the day they taught Civics in Civics class, Mesquite. Just to enlighten you...our system of electing a President is not based on popular vote...it's based on a little thing called The Electoral College. Do I necessarily agree with this system? NO . Do I think it's an outmoded way of doing things in this day and time? YES. But is it the system that's currently in place and the system we all agree to abide by?YES(to quote you from another thread, insert your own Southern Cal/AP punchline here). And yes...based on the way we do things in this country, Al Gore DID attempt to hijack the 2000 election...unless you consider him wanting recount after recount until he could get the result he wanted to be otherwise. Unless you consider him attempting to circumvent Florida election law to be otherwise.
i was there that day, and know all about the electoral college. however, you cannot ignore the fact the PEOPLE wanted Gore, that is all I am saying. i am not bitter about the election results. it is very LSU/USC BCS/AP type stuff IMO. You will side with the party or team you follow or are a member of. I just thought hijacking wa a harsh term...the people said their peace you know!
Red, I know what your saying about Clinton but please understand it was making the point that hatred between the Dems and Republicans, especially the hatred today of George W from the left is payback and people actually hate the president? I think some hate him just as bad as our enemies, read the article above about shooting the secretary of defense? The whole point i made applies to today and the hatred on both sides, its not like I was talking about something that happened only 4 or 8 years ago. Does the hatred in government bother anyone else? Kennedy and other Dems are giving comfort to the enemy in a time of war, what if this would've happened when Truman was president?
I hope it doesn't go so far as hatred, but there is more polarization between the parties than I have ever seen. Far too little cooperation for the common good. It's all about party politics. Whichever party's man is in power seems to forget that he represents all of us including the 50% opposition. Yes, I see some payback being served by the democrats. Did the republicans think they could do the Whitewater/Monicagate/impeachment assaults on Clinton without expecting similar treatment when the roles were reversed? It's politics as usual, only the gloves are off. But Northern Ireland-style hatred between our political parties isn't really whats happening, I think. We are in trouble if it is.
I never said they weren't, but they are hardly Vietnam-esque numbers. And al-Sadr's little riot is finally winding down. Leading Shi'ite clerics are now coming out and openly imploring him to give himself up and end the violence. He has no support, with the exception of a few isolated bands of his most loyal fanatics. The mission to oust Saddam Hussein and defeat his army and his govt. had been accomplished. Major combat operations were indeed over. We are still there because the work of building up a nation that will be free, prosperous, representative, friendly to the United States, progressive, and a beacon of light in a vast darkness of despotism and fanaticism has yet to be done. Nobody said it would be easy. But many (myself included) believe it is worth the struggle and sure as heck beats the alternative. To answer your second question first, you're damn right we've won in Korea. South Korea today is democracy, a robust free market economy, and a friend and strategic ally of the United States in the region. North Korea can't even feed it's own people and is being propped up by Red China. Them getting nuclear weapons won't change that. It will only change how we deal with them if Li'l Kim is crazy enough to use them. Geopolitical stability in East Asia is worth keeping U.S. troops and ships there because it contains China's ambitions. And if you don't believe containing China is in America's best interests, you aren't seeing the big picture. Now to Iraq. What do we win? A foothold for liberal democracy and progressive culture in the vast, evil bleakness that is the Middle East. A nation that will hopefully one day serve as a clear and present alternative to despotism and radical Islamic theocracy and that will keep the bad guys in Syria and Iran looking over their shoulder and worrying about their flanks should they continue to make trouble for the U.S. A pull-out from Saudi Arabia so that we can one day prepare for the meltdown that is coming to that country sooner than anyone will think possible (SA will fall to a Taliban style govt. sometime in the next 40 years, and our re-positioning in Iraq is preparation for that) And, should Iraq become successful and that success leads to the toppling of other anti-U.S., anti-freedom govts., one day we could finally have a stable, peaceful Middle East and Islamic world that will never again cause the U.S., Europe, Israel, Russia, or India any more trouble. Big dreams? Yes. Impossible dreams? That's what our enemies would like us to think. I refuse to accept that. How long do we hang on? In Iraq, only till the enemies of the United States and democracy in Iraq are all dead or in jail. In the wider war against radical Islam and totalitarianism, as long as it takes. How long will it take? I really don't know. But I figure we'd better win it. The alternative is not pleasant to think about.
Red55, why is it that you opposse the war? I have read between your lines and understand vaguely why...but I want something concrete. I want to know why it is that you, red, oppose freeing a dictatorship, forming a democracy, and making the world safer.....
The world is full of dictatorships and I don't think we should spend American lives and American treasure being the worlds policeman. We should be the leader of the free world and defender of our land and people and those of our allies. We have more important miltary priorities than Iraq. The important war in Afghanistan is unfinished. Al Quaida and Taliban enemies (proven threats) still are free. We need some smarter war-fighting policy from this administration. I especially dislike fighting a war suposedly to benefit people who hate us, want us to leave, and are trying to kill our soldiers. We are trying to help these people and they sh!t all over us. Just like Vietnam. Just like Lebanon. Just like Somalia. Unwinnable local civil wars that we should never have gotten into. Also, the way this unnecessary and unpopular war has turned into a postwar millstone around our neck has made it easier for Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria to defy us. We are unlikely to rashly invade another country anytime soon. The longer the bulk of our miltary resources are tied up in Irag, the longer we are unprepared for a war that truly threatens America. Korea and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, missiles to deliver them, and American targets in range. Panama and Kuwait are examples of how to fight a foriegn war. First, we were protecting allies who wanted us there and appreciated the effort. We got in quickly with everything we had, defeated the enemy, and got out quickly. Libya and Kosovo are alternative war-fighting success stories in dealing with tyrants who threatened our allies. Airpower only with no ground forces. We took only 2 casualties in the Libya bombings and brother Quadaffi has come to see the light. We took no casualties at all in Kosovo, a record unmatched in the history of war. Yugoslavia was defeated and its dictator is in war crimes court to answer for Bosnia and Kosovo. This Iraq war was not in our national interests, was justified by terrorism links and WMD's that did not exist, and will cost us hundreds more lives and billions more dollars. And when we actually do leave, the Iraqis will still hate us and will just start killing each other again. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the Arab world. We can't just go around flattening countries and trying to impose democracy on people who can't comprehend it. It doesn't make the world safer.
Newsflash, Red...Brother Qadaffi has come to see the light because he saw our resolve in dealing w/ Saddam. No other reason. Show me how Kosovo WAS in our national interest, Red. Or do you favor wars that AREN'T in our national interest just so long as there are no casualties? Wake up, man...that's not war. That's a PlayStation2 game.
Tell any combat pilot that he's playing a video game . . then stand back, G_MAN. He might take exception. Kosovo makes my point exactly. It was NOT in our national interests to put troops on the ground in Kosovo. Some of them would be dead now and troops would probably still be there. No, we got involved in Kosovo because our important NATO allies were bungling it. Making the decision to provide precision airpower to cripple the Yugoslavs fighting ability and enhance the NATO ground forces capabilities was the right one. Sending in the army would have been against our national interests.
I never said that our combat pilots were playing a video game, Red. I said that any view of a bloodless conflict indicates a video game mentality. In any event, do you think that flying close ground support doesn't put those aviators at risk? Perhaps you'd like to explain how we have no ground troops in Kosovo to my brother-in-law's younger brother, who just finished a one-year tour of duty over there. Not that he wouldn't agree with you that it wasn't in our nation's best interests to be over there in any capacity. He's also told me from his experience something that I already knew...that the UN is a totally useless entity.
