"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
The article concludes the majority of the public is against the policing in Iraq, even if it doesn't understand why it isn't feasible to just leave.
They can ask Colin Powell or the first George Bush President why it isn't feasible to leave, and why it wasn't a good idea to depose Saddam Hussein in the first place. Peace will be restored in Iraq maybe after whatever government in Iraq does 99 percent of the stuff the Saddam Hussein regime did. Saddam Hussein: no worse than Francisco Franco of Spain, Pinochet of Chile, etc., etc.
During the height of Apartheid brutality, South Africa somehow aquired Nuclear Weapons. It didn't seem cause to invade South Africa. Apartheid didn't seem cause to invade South Africa. Think how much better everything would be if we had invaded South Africa in 1977: Soldiers could have returned with all sorts of gold and diamond rings. This would have increased the marriage rate and lowered the divorce rate. You can't get married without a diamond ring.
Stephen Eisel wrote: Was Francisco or Pinochet or South Africa under UN Resoluion(terms of surrender)?
Was it the UN that invaded Iraq? Has the current operations in Iraq ever been considered a UN operation? Is Operation Iraqi Freedom a UN name or one from the Pentagon? They might put "Multinational Force" in the name but it isn't a UN force. And the UN did act and their inspectors came back with a "no, there are no weapons of mass destruction stockpile" and we invaded any way. Just saying since you brought the UN into this.
I believe the first Gulf War was totally under the auspices of the UN. Several dozen countries contributed troops where they could or money if they couldn't. There were ceremonies of finance ministers presenting checks for their share of that war's costs.
This one is strictly an American op. It's been called the "Coalition of the Billing". We have a feeble collection of "allies" who had to be bought. For instance, Poland was given grants of over 1/2 billion of "foreign aid" to secure their participation.
Enjoy your $4.oo a gallon gas this weekend which was caused by an administration that chose this diversionary war to escape the hard work of becoming more green and energy self sufficient.
Stephen Eisel wrote: Was Francisco or Pinochet or South Africa under UN Resoluion(terms of surrender)?
Was it the UN that invaded Iraq? Has the current operations in Iraq ever been considered a UN operation? Is Operation Iraqi Freedom a UN name or one from the Pentagon? They might put "Multinational Force" in the name but it isn't a UN force. And the UN did act and their inspectors came back with a "no, there are no weapons of mass destruction stockpile" and we invaded any way. Just saying since you brought the UN into this.
No, the UN did not have the balls to enforce its own resolutions or the balls to make Iraq live up to its terms of surrender from the first Gulf War.
Enjoy your $4.oo a gallon gas this weekend which was caused by an administration that chose this diversionary war to escape the hard work of becoming more green and energy self sufficient.
Enjoy your $4.oo a gallon gas this weekend which was caused by an administration that chose this diversionary war to escape the hard work of becoming more green and energy self sufficient.
Stan, this is bigger than the president. I cannot afford to go green. I cannot afford a hybrid car or to put solar panels on my house or to replace my hotwater water tank with a tankless water heater. When the heck is all of this stuff going to become more affordable so the masses can go green? Why isnt the city of Cleveland building wind farms on the North Coast?
First, the bad news: Nothing - and I mean nothing - the U.S. government does can stop the rise in the price of oil in the short run.
Now for the good news: Oil is a commodity. Usually commodity prices go in cycles. That means they usually (not always) go down after they have gone up sharply. It could and probably will happen this time, too.
In other words, it sure looks like a bubble, although a bubble that might last a long time.
was it Jimmy Carter who said, "Put on a sweater"? It was nice last week, with the temperature in the late 50s. Once it goes over 65 It's hard to go outside.
Invading Iraq did raise oil prices. the reasons given for invading Iraq were paper thin. anyone with enough honest bones in their body could see that it was about oil. Since oil was important enough to lie so eagerly and then commit such military expenditures, it became a fact that oil was under-valued on the market. the top guys in the market have remedied that.
Steve--- Good friend, this is as small as the President. He had an opportunity riight after 9/11 to bring us together, get things right. He chose to use Orwellian strategy and divert our attention to an endless war.
Stan
Stan Austin wrote:Steve--- Good friend, this is as small as the President. He had an opportunity riight after 9/11 to bring us together, get things right. He chose to use Orwellian strategy and divert our attention to an endless war. Stan
Stan, I do not disagree with you on the Orwellian point...
