4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

[toasty]

link to source story here

[toasty]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

Incidentally, this right here is the primary reason I'd have trouble voting for McCain if Clinton ends up pulling the nomination out of her ass somehow.

[FM]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

impressive shot.

But this is Vietnam once again...maybe less dead to spin it that way, but it'll last just as long...if not longer.

[88Mariner]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

What makes you think Clinton has any plans to the contrary?

Anyways, I'm curious to what some of the soldiers on the ground think about this. About that thier original mission was simply a fabrication. Particularly those that were induced to join because they thought they were going to find WMD's...

edit: just read that 95%+ of the soldiers that have been killed happened after the notorious "Mission Accomplished" press conference...

[toasty]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

What makes you think Clinton has any plans to the contrary?

Well, she's not beating the war drum like McCain is. I have to think that she'd be the better option of the two on this issue, and I don't know that I could in good conscience vote for a dude that was hell-bent on giving us 4/8/100/10,000 more years of the same.

[88Mariner]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

The distrinction between McCain and Clinton is that McCain has reiterated he intends to continue our money-burning pursuit of to no end. Clinton, however, will use the same doublespeak as George Bush has done, skewing what she says and does in order to appease everyone possible. It's too easy to say that almost anything she says is done for self-serving political posturing.

"Her bold "I will end the war" promise is an obvious exaggeration. A truer description of her position would be, "I will do my best to end a war that I now believe to have been deeply mistaken, but the United States has many interests in the Middle East that must be protected."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/the_fine_print_in_hillarys_pro_1.html

For more recent quips, check this out:

"

When we talk about combat missions in Iraq, my understanding is that we had the same agreement that we would bring out combat troops but we would pursue a mission against Al Qaida in Iraq if they remained a threat. I don't know how you pursue Al Qaida without engaging them in combat. We should get as many of the combat troops out as quickly as possible. If we leave any troops in, like special operations, to go after Al Qaida in Iraq, we don't want them just sitting around and watching them. We want them to engage them. That is a very limited mission. That is what I have said consistently. It's going to be complicated, and it's going to take time. I intend to do it in a responsible manner that is as safe for our troops as possible. We're going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy. We may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaida in Iraq That's a very big difference than having the 160,000 troops that Bush has there today.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007

Q: In 2006, Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate, and many believed that was a signal to end the war. You have said that will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013. Why not

A: It is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But it is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. We do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal? That's why last spring I began pressing the Pentagon to be very clear about whether or not they were planning to bring our troops out. And what I found was that they weren't doing the kind of planning that is necessary, and we've been pushing them very hard to do so. You know, though, about the Democrats taking control of the Congress, I think the Democrats have pushed extremely hard to change this president's course in Iraq. The Democrats keep voting for what we believe would be a better course. Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 26, 2007

But this is just my opinion, which may or may not change when Clinton's does as well.

[toasty]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

Honestly, if Clinton ends up getting the nomination, I may be so disenchanted with the entire process that I don't vote at all out of protest, so this is probably a moot point. At this point, she has no realistic path to the nomination that I would view as legitimate, and if she's so drunk on power that she's willing to destroy the party to get the nomination, I'll probably just say "A pox on both your houses" and that will be that...

...so from my standpoint, the options are:

1. Voting for Obama over McCain, or
2. Getting royally pissed off and probably not paying a bit of attention to the whole process.

I can talk about what I'd do if it were Clinton v McCain, but the real answer is probably "nothing."

[88Mariner]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

I'm on the same page as you. I think if it came down to Clinton v. McCain, I would take the opportunity to vote Libertarian, on the grounds that it could break down this two-party system. I've always thought that giving people more choices and freedoms to choose was a good thing, so I guess that is my motivation.

Also, I would probably make an effort to help others differentiate between what is conservative, and what is neoconservative. Because they aren't the same. Because one has made this country what it is/was...and the other has effectually destroyed it all.

It's ironic that you mention how Clinton is breaking apart the Democratic Party. I've seen that headline a few times this week. What's frustrating, is that McCain has done the very same thing with the GOP, and he's not getting any attention for it. Hell, when you have Ann fvcking Coulter say she'd rather vote for Clinton than McCain...ears should perk up!

And as angry as I am about this situation we're all in....given the option (dare I call it a choice) between McCain and Clinton.... doing 'nothing' doesn't seem all that bad anyways...

[tiddles]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

nytimes has a very good story on some of the soldier's stories, it was kind of hard for me to read, long but you should at least read the stuff that is in bold on each page...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/25dead.web.html?hp

[Jenks]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

if it comes down to clinton v. mccain, i'm not voting.

[CactusBeats]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

Unfortunately, I think there are people who will die in this war in Iraq who haven't even been born yet. Really. Iraq is a failed state with a puppet government set up by the occupier. The repercussions of this "misjudgement" will haunt America for generations, if not centuries.

We have created at least two more generations of terrorists by starting this war. Many young people in Iraq don't even have clean drinking water and maybe have 4 hours electricity, no sanitation, and a bleak economic future to look forward to. The educated have left Iraq along with their money. If there was a recipe on how to plant seeds to ensure future terrorism and hatred, it couldn't look any more accurately than the interaction between Iraq and the USA over the past eight years. Unbelievable levels of incompetence at the top. The US has lost its stature on the world stage. Will we ever regain respect of world citizens again? Sadly, those in power and many others in this country don't think that is necessary or even care one way or the other. "To hell with the rest of the world. US interests are the only ones that matter." That's the same attitude that got us 9/11 in the first place. Hubris, pure hubris. Blowback is a bitch.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Ronald Reagan

[|Thrax|]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

true that.

sad, as i get older, views start to change on life.

[CactusBeats]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

As far as the presidential election of 2008 is concerned, my heart is with Ralph Nader. My head knows that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic nominee (whoever it is), but there is one area in which the parties are very different. It is a vitally important area. Supreme Court nominees. The next four years may see up to 3 Supreme Court Justices retire. Before you go off and vote for a third party or sit out the vote, I urge you to consider the Supreme Court and how much its influence can affect the future direction of this country. What the Supreme Court says, stands, i.e. game over, no veto, no complaints, gotta live by it.

"If you're feeling turned off to politics, you better take a lesson from history. Either you turn on to politics or politics are gonna turn on you."
Ralph Nader

[88Mariner]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

I agree 100%. I think that's a strike against McCain, who would seem to be the only person who could get Roe overturned at this point...

[Jenks]

Re: 4000 Dead -- 4 more years?

As far as the presidential election of 2008 is concerned, my heart is with Ralph Nader. My head knows that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic nominee (whoever it is), but there is one area in which the parties are very different. It is a vitally important area. Supreme Court nominees. The next four years may see up to 3 Supreme Court Justices retire. Before you go off and vote for a third party or sit out the vote, I urge you to consider the Supreme Court and how much its influence can affect the future direction of this country. What the Supreme Court says, stands, i.e. game over, no veto, no complaints, gotta live by it.

"If you're feeling turned off to politics, you better take a lesson from history. Either you turn on to politics or politics are gonna turn on you."
Ralph Nader

Voting for nader is the same as not voting.