Well, it's official. I've changed parties.

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Iraq may have been a blunder in the execution after the attacks.
However, once we were in the quagmire no-one has come up with a way for us to get out and not get drawn back in due to genocide that would happen.

The so called hundred of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed would increase considerably if the place were to be abandoned.

That is the moral dilemma - how to extract ourself without making the situation that we triggered worse.

Do not be like a McOwen and start smearing tar on everyone due to their political affiliation.
</end quote></div>

I have said a million times we simply pull out.

I have asked a million times show me in the Constitution where it says it is our "moral" responsibility to police the world.

How soon they forget the lessons of Vietnam.

I still (and probably always will) think that if King George had taken his Vietnam era service seriously (instead of just "pretending" to be a fighter pilot) he never would have invaded Iraq without several good "exit strategies".

 

[BigDH01]

Congratuations, you left one corrupt political party for another. You want a medal?

I was a Republican too once, until I came to the realization that politicians are in the game purely for self-gratification and could really care less about they people they claim to represent. This was shortly into the first term of our current president. Luckily, I was too young to vote for him the first time and came to my senses before the second. I voted libertarian. If half the people that voted for one of two major parties because "they have a chance" instead voted for someone who actually had integrity and represented an independent party, then we would have viable alternatives in this country. As it stands, people just want to side with someone they feel might win. It's pathetic really, democracy at its worst.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Craig

Kennedy put "advisors" ie. Green Berets on the ground in Vietnam. Many more than Ike had and they were active military, not REMFs.
LBJ was not the first to send troops in.
Kennedy may have stated an intent on pulling the troops back; however, he could not forsee what the VC and NVA may have done over the following year.
Troops were in combat and more troops were being sent over to support them.


Arkaign

Why did we go involved in the Balkans? Because of genocide.
People within the US are not willing to let an area that ganers media attention sit back and allow a slaughter to take place.

And I do not think that the Dems would be willing to invite another country in to take over what we started.

Your option #1 is best; however, politically unacceptable in the current climate.
I do not think the Dems would attempt such a solution.

 

[Arkaign]

Eagle, if we are so determined as a nation to stop genocide, why aren't we in Darfur?

Side note; the F15 > *

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari
From what you said, why don't you just become an Independent. It seems odd (to me) that you'd leave one corrupt organization for another. It seems odd unless you have a need to belong to some group. I can't imagine being a part of any of these groups. For me, speaking my own mind and voting my own way is better than waving some flag just for the sake of belonging. Congratulations, you got your 15 seconds of fame, now go join the sea of lemmings before somebody mistake you for a thinker.

Wow Dari. It finally looks like you've escaped that warm & comfy little cocoon you were in back in the day. See? You never really needed a mentor to help you think.



blackangst1 is a Republican. Gee, what a surprise. :roll: I gotta hand it to ya, though. This is about the most nontrollish way to satisfy a need for attention.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm sorry, were you not a Republican shill before? Seriously, I have NEVER seen a post from blackangst1 even remotely suggesting he's a liberal or a Democrat. I've seen a lot of posts where he claimed to be a Democrat, but it seemed to me a lot like those people who claim to be disillusioned members of a party just to give some weight to their political mud slinging. But for what it's worth, I think blackangst1 made the right choice...he's clearly been a Republican for a long time now.

 

[blackangst1]

Okay, #1, you said earlier in this very thread that you agreed with everything the Republicans have done outside of immigration and spending. The Iraq invasion is a purely PNAC/Republican administration policy initiative. #2, you say that 'the guys on the ground know how to make it happen'. Does this mean that you would listen to men such as Spc. Jason Glenn of Mount Grove, Missouri, who said to SecDef Gates "I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up?. I think it's obvious that trickling a few thousand extra troops will do nothing but fill more bodybags.

What do you say to Shinseki's initial estimates of several hundred thousand?

1: As I've ALWAYS said...I agree with the war, but I have problems with how it was executed. How many times do I need to say it before you understand?

2: Of course I would listen. And to some extent I would agree. Who the fvck are we to disagree with guys on the ground? That said, I WOULD question a general who hasnt seen combat in 40 years. Dont think his opinion would be as valued as guys there NOW. This is a different kind of war. But not everyone is saying we need that many troops. If youre POTUS or SECDEN you obviously have to take all things into consideration. Including opinions we need 130k troops. This doesnt oppose ANYTHING I've ever said about the war. But the first time I say I agree with the war but disagree with the execution, all you see is "I agree with the war". You then hastily call me a Bush lover...or a war monger...or stupid...or misguided...or worse. Are YOU so stupid that you cant figure out there IS a middle ground here? Are you REALLY that simple?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh, and about Hagel, at least he SERVED in Vietnam, and didn't dodge it like Clinton, Bush, or Cheney. It seems this administration has gone out of their way to run this war by civilian committee rather than listen to combat vets and the generals.
...

Yeah, that's right, this administration doesn't give half a shit about the troops, their lives, or their families. By supporting their madness, you align yourself with those despotic ignorant fools. A majority of REPUBLICANS think the Iraq situation is an unforgivable blunder, yet you stick to it like a zombie.
</end quote></div>

It is typical of politicians and is reinforced by that the military command structure is UNDER the political command structure. The military can act as advisers - however, the president does not have to take their advice.

Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon all ran Vietnam from the civilian side of the house and did not listen to the combat vets and the generals. If they had, the Vietnam conflict would not have existed.

The president puts in advisor's that he feels comfortable with and lets things go from there.

Iraq may have been a blunder in the execution after the attacks.
However, once we were in the quagmire no-one has come up with a way for us to get out and not get drawn back in due to genocide that would happen.

The so called hundred of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed would increase considerably if the place were to be abandoned.

That is the moral dilemma - how to extract ourself without making the situation that we triggered worse.

Now, the current administration has not a clue and stumbles around.
The Democrats chime in by stating, get out - yet they have no plan for the resulting chaos that we will leave behind.

They are just in the dark as how to resolve the problems as the administration.

So just because on does not like that the Democrats are pulling the wool over peoples eyes and burying their heads in the sand, does not mean that the actions of the administration are whole heartedly supported.

Do not be like a McOwen and start smearing tar on everyone due to their political affiliation.

</end quote></div>

Well. Thank you for your well-stated post, with clarity and balance. I realize that my criticism of the Iraq debacle may seem purely partisan, but I am not anti-war per se, I fully support (still do) the Afghan mission, and any war that is a logical response to a proven or credible threat. My criticisms of Democrats are just as blistering as those of Republicans when deserved, it just happens that with the recent years of Republican control, they are the primary party to blame for so much plunder and blunder.

If we want to talk about Presidents that I hate, LBJ is probably #1, followed closely by Bush II, Bush I, and Clinton.

The problem that I have primarily with the Administrations Iraq management is that of execution and ignoring obvious truths. It was first obvious to anyone with a brain that Iraq was impotent in almost all areas (certainly when compared to N. Korea, Iran, even Syria), and it was also quite obvious (especially if you are a student of Churchill) that the sects in Iraq were only kept in check by the bootheel of Saddam. Removing that pressure released decades (centuries in some respects) of sectarian strife. So many facts and obvious problems with their plans were ignored, sometimes months or years after they were proven wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, sh*t or get off the pot.

Scenario 1 : start a draft, bring 500,000 troops to the table. Take EVERYONE in Iraq to detention camps for disarmament. Repopulate the green areas with cleared civilians, and make sure the walls and electronic checkpoints are totally secure. Eliminate all arms in the country outside of a mid-sized police/guard force. Divide the country, give the Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites each a slice of the pie, agriculturally, physically, politically, and socially. Make the terms non-negotiable, and execute the division with extreme prejudice. Build a wall and trench system around the entire land border system.

Scenario 2 : Withdraw, wait for either Saddam #2 to make sense of it, or for external forces (Iran/Syria/etc) to establish local order.

What about the Iraqi civilians, you say? Well what's new? At minimum, tens of thousands have already been killed, the true number is probably north of 100k. What makes Iraqi civilians special anyway? Hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur/Sudan/Chad, but you don't see us there dying with them. Why not? They do have Islamic terrorists (Sudan has been a known Al Qaeda playground for over a decade), but damn, they don't have much infrastructure to break and rebuild, and little oil to exert pressure over.

Bleh. We could always invite the Russians or the Chinese down to the party, they would have no trouble bringing 500k+ to do the job right.

Wow you certainly have some original ideas there. Im sure no one in the cabinet has EVER talked about those revelations. And why they wont work. :roll:

Hey...why arent you in the presidents cabinet anyway?

 

[IGBT]

..I'm still a registered democrat. And am wondering where all the democrats went?? and who are all these eco-thiest socialist self loathing psycotics that have hijacked the democrat party??

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
Congratuations, you left one corrupt political party for another. You want a medal?

I was a Republican too once, until I came to the realization that politicians are in the game purely for self-gratification and could really care less about they people they claim to represent. This was shortly into the first term of our current president. Luckily, I was too young to vote for him the first time and came to my senses before the second. I voted libertarian. If half the people that voted for one of two major parties because "they have a chance" instead voted for someone who actually had integrity and represented an independent party, then we would have viable alternatives in this country. As it stands, people just want to side with someone they feel might win. It's pathetic really, democracy at its worst.

I guess you missed where I said my interests may be closer to Libertarian. My reasons have zero to do with winning or losing. Why would I want to be part of a party that is ineffective? As much as I may agree with the Libertarian philosophies, I prefer to dance with someone who can at least have some kind of voice. The idea of sitting in a corner crying because no one uinderstands me really isnt appealing. But we're all different arent we?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Being a warmongering little bitch you, Blackangst1 have never been anything but a die hard in the core Neo-Conservative new age Republican.

So announcing you "changing" is just daft.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Craig

Kennedy put "advisors" ie. Green Berets on the ground in Vietnam. Many more than Ike had and they were active military, not REMFs.
LBJ was not the first to send troops in.
Kennedy may have stated an intent on pulling the troops back; however, he could not forsee what the VC and NVA may have done over the following year.
Troops were in combat and more troops were being sent over to support them.

I'm well aware of what Kennedy did. He did what he had to, and kept us out of the war as much as was possible.

The public was in favor of intervening in places like that, they were feeling heady with the US 'never having lost a war', and not so worried about a few peasants in Viet nam.

After all, the story was that the enemy there was a few thousand poor people with guns from the commies, nothing our guys couldn't wipe out fast.

Kennedy had not only a public and congress open to the conflict, but great pressure from the pentagon and even his own advisors, heck, even LBJ - JFK sent LBJ on a fact finding mission to Viet Nam, and before you knew it, LBJ was going outside his authority and giving a speech calling Diem the 'Winston Churchill of Southeast Asia', which pissed Kennedy off because it undermined his policy needs to reduce support for Diem (which eventually culminated in the US allowing the coup that got Diem killed, which in turn pissed LBJ off).

While Kennedy was careful in his public statements, he was planting the seeds for withdrawal, with quotes about how the US could offer them military equipment but it was 'their war', and the fact that he ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 of the 16,000 advisors in October, 1963, sending another signal to the Pentagon about his plans, over their objections.

Try reading John Van Neuman's excellent book on JFK and Viet nam - link

Here's one Viet Nam vet's Amazon comment on it:

Betrayed, October 17, 2002
By William Urban (Presque Isle, ME United States)

As one who has both read Newman's book and as one who served in Vietnam myself, (1970) I can only say I feel a deep sense of betrayal by my own Government, that I have served so well in two wars in a military capacity and as a Civil Servant in a civilian capacity. The document's that Newman publishes in his book were classified "Top Secret" at the time of Kennedy's Assassination. Thanks to the "Freedom of Information" act, that is no longer the case and we can now see the behind the scenes moves that led the US deeper and deeper into Vietnam. We can also see Kennedy's efforts to reverse course before it became too late.

My grandmother who is now dead and millions of other Americans never saw JFK's NSAM - 263 classified Top Secret. Nor did I. That NSAM was quietly shelved by Lyndon Johnson two days after Kennedy's Assassination and his own NSAM implimented. NSAM - 273 freezing everyone in place. Today, thanks to Newman's book we can now see who was the real culprit responsible for America's slide into Vietnam. And it certainly wasn't that awful Roman Catholic President (in the eyes of anti-Kennedy bigots) in the White House, John F. Kennedy.

Instead the REAL culprit was Lyndon Baines Johnson and THAT is how History will eventually record it. Hats off to John M. Newman for bringing these Document's into public view for future generations to "learn" from. That is IF, people are now willing to learn.

William P. Urban

Sgt US Army
PO2 US Navy

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Being a warmongering little bitch you, Blackangst1 have never been anything but a die hard in the core Neo-Conservative new age Republican.

So announcing you "changing" is just daft.

Damn you JohnofNothing you hurt my feelings and made me cry coz you called me names.

/sniff

 

[JulesMaximus]

See, I'm leaning toward the Democrats because I'm fed up with the religious bullsh!t the republicans have been shoving down our throats the last 7 years. I'm a moderate conservative and this administration does not represent me whatsoever.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BigDH01
Congratuations, you left one corrupt political party for another. You want a medal?

I was a Republican too once, until I came to the realization that politicians are in the game purely for self-gratification and could really care less about they people they claim to represent. This was shortly into the first term of our current president. Luckily, I was too young to vote for him the first time and came to my senses before the second. I voted libertarian. If half the people that voted for one of two major parties because "they have a chance" instead voted for someone who actually had integrity and represented an independent party, then we would have viable alternatives in this country. As it stands, people just want to side with someone they feel might win. It's pathetic really, democracy at its worst.</end quote></div>

I guess you missed where I said my interests may be closer to Libertarian. My reasons have zero to do with winning or losing. Why would I want to be part of a party that is ineffective? As much as I may agree with the Libertarian philosophies, I prefer to dance with someone who can at least have some kind of voice. The idea of sitting in a corner crying because no one uinderstands me really isnt appealing. But we're all different arent we?

Your reasons have everything to do with winning and losing as you just admitted. You don't want to be a part of a party that you don't think will win and have a voice. You prefer to dance with a party that has a chance of winning. Meanwhile, I'm not sitting in a corner and crying, I'm voting for someone who actually represents my beliefs. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils simply because the media has told us that they are the only ones with a chance to win.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Being a warmongering little bitch you, Blackangst1 have never been anything but a die hard in the core Neo-Conservative new age Republican.

So announcing you "changing" is just daft.

You never answered me in the other thread that you ran away from, WWYBYWB?

 

[WHAMPOM]

"Sur-pri:music:e, sur-pri:music:e, sur-pri:music:e" (Gomer Pyle speak)Blackangst1 is, was, admits to being Republiconish. Like no one knew before.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BD2003
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>

Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.

You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>

and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card? </end quote></div>

Now that you've professed your love for what has been done to the Country by your Heror and his supporters...well let's hear it, what do you stand for?

What is your agenda for America?</end quote></div>

WTF, are you the forum Hannity?

"Say you hate America...say it!"

LOL.</end quote></div>

How come you guys can never just come out and say what your agenda is?

Just exactly who do you mean by "you guys", McCarthy?

I need to know into which narrow stereotype I'm being pigeonholed before I can respond appropriately.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Okay, #1, you said earlier in this very thread that you agreed with everything the Republicans have done outside of immigration and spending. The Iraq invasion is a purely PNAC/Republican administration policy initiative. #2, you say that 'the guys on the ground know how to make it happen'. Does this mean that you would listen to men such as Spc. Jason Glenn of Mount Grove, Missouri, who said to SecDef Gates "I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up?. I think it's obvious that trickling a few thousand extra troops will do nothing but fill more bodybags.

What do you say to Shinseki's initial estimates of several hundred thousand?</end quote></div>

1: As I've ALWAYS said...I agree with the war[ /q]

Then you have always belonged to the neoconservative faction of the GOP. You agree with attacking a country that had nothing to do with the planning of 9-11. Whether you agree with how it was carried out is moot. Good-bye Mr. Wolfowitz.

 

[Phokus]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BigDH01
Congratuations, you left one corrupt political party for another. You want a medal?

I was a Republican too once, until I came to the realization that politicians are in the game purely for self-gratification and could really care less about they people they claim to represent. This was shortly into the first term of our current president. Luckily, I was too young to vote for him the first time and came to my senses before the second. I voted libertarian. If half the people that voted for one of two major parties because "they have a chance" instead voted for someone who actually had integrity and represented an independent party, then we would have viable alternatives in this country. As it stands, people just want to side with someone they feel might win. It's pathetic really, democracy at its worst.</end quote></div>

I guess you missed where I said my interests may be closer to Libertarian. My reasons have zero to do with winning or losing. Why would I want to be part of a party that is ineffective? As much as I may agree with the Libertarian philosophies, I prefer to dance with someone who can at least have some kind of voice. The idea of sitting in a corner crying because no one uinderstands me really isnt appealing. But we're all different arent we?</end quote></div>

You have libertarian sympathies but you joined the republican party? Unless you're doing it solely to vote for Ron Paul, how has your head not exploded with irony yet?

 

[Siddhartha]

OP,

If after six months you miss the Republicans that much you should be a Republican.

Personally, after 12 years of the Republians running Congress and six years of GWB in the White House, I am willing to give the Democrats more than six months before I get mediaeval.

I think the Democrats should and will win even more Congressional seats and probably the White House in the next election. And then we will see major changes from GWB's agenda.

But right now the breakdown in the Senate is 51 Democrats and 49 Republican. All it takes to stop legislation is a couple of Democrats to vote with the Republicans and Cheney to break the tie.

Is this condemnation of the Democrats has a conservative talk radio feel to it.