digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How to End the War

washingtonpost.com — If the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush's obsessions with the removal of Saddam Hussein were worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -- the answer would have been an unequivocal "no."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • FulcrumVitesse, on 03/28/2008, -32/+50I still don't get why Bush and his cronies haven't been impeached.
    • warlax27, on 03/28/2008, -17/+7Because they are really cool!
    • Marglar, on 03/28/2008, -16/+8at this point it would do us no good, and it's not ilke Nancy P (next in line) would due us any better.

      but on a matter of princepal, sure.. they should be. :)
      • Pimptastic, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4regardless of the succession of power, there is no way that congress could get support to remove both the president and vice-president at the same time.

        If Bush is Impeached and removed then Cheney would become president, then a new VP would be appointed. Though that appointment process would be worse than any recent supreme court nomination.

        If we impeached and removed Cheney then we would be in the same situation of getting a new VP appointed. Pelosi has almost no chance to become President from Impeachment.
      • mb3581, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2Being impeached does not necessarily mean they would get kicked out of office. Remember, Clinton was impeached and his penalty was not to be removed from office. Impeachment merely insures that they are reprimanded for their actions. Getting kicked out of office would not solve anything at this point, but I do think that they should be held accountable for the mess we are in now.
        • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4"Remember, Clinton was impeached and his penalty was not to be removed from office."

          Because he was tried by the Senate and they voted "not guilty." Remember?
    • republicker, on 03/28/2008, -12/+12two words: puppet government
      • CrazedLeper, on 03/28/2008, -5/+5Yes, puppets controlled by the Queen of England; that's why nearly half of the presidents have been her distant relatives. What are the odds of that happening by chance? Infinitesimal.
    • pianomahnn, on 03/28/2008, -1/+29Because the people have not made it their sole priority. Do you notice severe societal unrest about this? No. Do you see huge gatherings (millions of people) in DC? No. As long as the calls for impeachment are kept to the internet and small local protests, nothing will happen.
      • cornswalled, on 03/28/2008, -3/+13Exactly. Most Americans either approve of the war, or are s casual in their "disapproval" that they won't even change their vote based upon it. Most of the "Disapproval" of the war really boils down to "Well, I'd rather we weren't at war."
        • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -9/+4Some AmeriKans probably don't know we're at war, ha.
    • zephc, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6Sometimes people make a war, don't know what is for.

      /business
    • ebolaworld, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2It would probably only help Bush's approval ratings.
      • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2No , it would help our devastated economy, make us more secure, and help our standing in the world.
    • Spikito, on 03/28/2008, -8/+13Because technically he hasn't committed an impeachable offense.

      The term "impeaching a president" simply means take him to court to see if he has done anything worthy of office removal. Which as far as his constitutional rights as president are concerned, he hasnt.

      So basically, if he gets impeached, itll be a nice media frenzy, the supreme court will look things over, and then he'll go back to doing what he was
      • SuperVepr308, on 03/28/2008, -6/+10Oh, they (the libs on digg) don't want to hear that *****. He MUST have done something illegal.
      • SickDrummerJ, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1On The Nose!
      • pigfister, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2maybe, illegally invading another country, torture, war crimes?
      • Izult, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1so let's get him under oath so he can lie under oath since that's what they nailed Clinton to the cross over. Oh wait he won't testify to anything under oath and will only talk about his involvement with things with Cheney present.
        • windycitybluez, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0exactly,!! how can some people be so naive, this administration lied to get us in to a war they wanted and before you call me a liberal I'm more conservative than most, if you think this administration is not liberal than you don't understand these labels I can show you some videos of Bush, Cheney & rumsfeld watch them lie to us then watch them backtrack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o
    • pnmoore, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4The problem is that our government overall is incompetent, regardless of party. As a result, however immoral or unethical anyone believes the Bush administration to have been over the past few years there is apparently a lack of PROVABLE illegal actions. Provable by our incompetent government agencies that is.
      • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1All governments are incompetent. That's why they have rules. Governments can't do things better than the people through free markets.
    • sb66, on 03/28/2008, -8/+11Because americans get more outraged over lying about a blowjob then invading a country for no reason and killing lots of women and children.
      • xen0blue, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I guess overthrowing a tyrannical dictator counts for nothing these days, huh? and since when do American troops deliberately kill women and children? I'm anxious to hear your answer, because i'm in the military and if you say something stupid i'll be sure to remember it.
        • sb66, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1I never said american troops deliberately kill women and children. But women and children have been killed as 'collateral damage'. This is arguably acceptable if a war is 'just' or in self defence; but who appointed america as world policeman to go waltzing into Iraq and cause *****? Last time I looked they didn't do anything to the USA.
          Just imagine if all those resources had gone into finding Osama in afghanistan.....
    • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -3/+7Probably because the people who would be impeaching him are equally as guilty of the same non crimes. I'm just not going to call him a criminal until he's been proven guilty of something. You know, because that's a right that all Americans have, even president that you don't like.
    • ventralnet, on 03/28/2008, -9/+5because he hasn't done anything illegal
    • rlbond86, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3Because the shadow government is behind the war.
      Learn about it http://youtube.com/watch?v=CYQ4QvR-O0Q
    • fatas, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1your American democracy is BS
      • novaculus, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2And you, whoever and whatever you are, can stick your opinion where the sun don't shine.
    • swordedge, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Even if you did impeach him, he'd serve out his term. Both Clinton and Andrew Johnson did. So why bother?
  • AreTooDeTo, on 03/28/2008, -7/+13front page and no comments? interesting article, but nothing new.
    • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -8/+7notice they fail to mention the 600k-1million iraqi casualities

      • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6who cares? maybe if you lied even more and said 1gizocatrillion babies were eaten by bush
        • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1its a fact you neocon centcom trash
      • Wargalas, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Probably because that many people haven't died. You really need to do the math if you are going to claim that many dead. That means that on there should have been 328-547 dead EVERY SINGLE DAY of the war and that simply hasn't happened, even according to the local morgue who claims that there was a high of 2,000 a month.

        http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2007/09/volunteers ...

        So even if you claim 2,000 a month across the board, that means AT MOST, 120,000 dead.

        Do try to not fall into the propaganda, even when it comes in from your side of the aisle.
        • Akronos, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Many Iraqis aren't given official burials because it takes a bribe to a government official to get the death certificate, so only the rich Iraqis can afford it.
          According to this, about 1 million have died by the beginning of 2008. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRd3Bi6CXI94ke ...
          I think you are just trying to muddy the waters with false or misleading information.
        • ordig, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3Gee... only 120,000... i guess this pointless war is ok then.
          • Wargalas, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Gee, perhaps you should go re-read what I wrote. You can't say 600k-1million when it isn't true. It's propaganda. And not one word I said demeaned those 120k dead.

            Please pay attention, I really do hate to explain things to those that can't keep up.
          • Akronos, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Your article does not show at all how those numbers are propaganda or where you got the 120,000 number from. So far, only you have been supplying us with the propaganda, Wargalas.
      • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1google iraqi death count you centcom garbage worker
  • AndrewDB, on 03/28/2008, -15/+10The way how to end the war was to impeach Bush, after he got rid of Saddam, and broke his "promise" to find Bin Laden.
    • Roger_Ramjet, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Last time I checked, "Breaking a promise" isn't a HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR. Otherwise, every president in our history could've been impeached.

      You guys really need to read the Constitution.
  • johnlm89, on 03/28/2008, -11/+15Well we sure know how to start them.
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -7/+3Why would this get dugg down this is completely true, even in policy. That is what "preemptive strike" means.
      • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -4/+5That is completely false.
        • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -6/+4It means "preemptive strike" strike before something happens, which could be used to do just about anything in the future, run rampant.
          • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3If one is using it as a ***** excuse for war, then it would by definition not be a preemptive strike.
    • CrazedLeper, on 03/28/2008, -9/+5People really don't get it. The US government has no interest in or use for peace. Whatever they say in public is irrelevant because it's always a lie. They have lied so much and so consistently that the truth can no longer be told by the Gov't; they merely say what opinion polls indicate is currently the most popular sentiment or what will move people toward the *next* disaster. The US government is headed by men who firmly believe 1) there is no God. 2) they, as the master race, own the planet and 3) war is the way "natural selection" works.

      Therefore, they have made themselves the gods of this planet and have determined that all "undermenschen" must go. Nothing short of divine intervention will stop them from pursuing this mad course. They couldn't care less what the people think; people have zero value to them except as fodder to be deceived into trenches and tanks and supporting the economy.

      This is why, despite talk of peace, we only see constant war and these evil beasts have promised us nothing but for the next 100 years.
      • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6To bad you can't backup anything you just said.
        • CrazedLeper, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1If your head weren't so deeply embedded in their lies, you'd be able to see it for yourself. If you're waiting for someone to come tell you the truth, you'll be waiting a very long time. Truth belongs only to those who seek it.
          • sifuchar, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Your tin foil hat is on crooked. {fidget} ... There you go. Now "go sell crazy somewhere else."
          • CrazedLeper, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Really, the "tinfoil" excuse again? How long has it been since that was clever? Like I said, "people don't get it" That includes idiots like you who deserve it the way they're giving it to you: with no grease.
        • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I'm pretty sure the actual reason I can't see it is because you didn't present anything evidence for me to see. It's a nice little theory, hunch, whatever but that's all it is. I can't think of anything that supports any of it so my hunch is that you probably can't either.
          • CrazedLeper, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Proof is in the pudding. Did you expect me to attach documents from one of the TWO man-sized safes Cheney keeps in his office? If that is your standard of proof, you'll never know the truth. Think for yourself, do the math, arrive at the truth or be deceived.
  • BryanG412, on 03/28/2008, -6/+15Check the date on the article, it must be from the future!
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4yea it's about the one we are about to start with Iran , ha.
      • Cyrus042, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Sometimes papers post an article online before it actually goes into print. It's for their Sunday paper (which is generally larger), which might include a more general look at the Iraq War.

        Oops, meant to reply to Bryan.
      • cornswalled, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3God, I hope we just Nuke them. We're having enough problems with the Iran trained terrorists in Iraq without trying to occupy ANOTHER country.
    • TonyLocNE, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Ask them if I should pull my money out of the bank now and invest in some other currency. Preferably that of our future overlords of whom I do not welcome.
      • fwertz, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Tired of reading this and that about a failing economy. Why is the dollar weak? Because there are so many dollars out there, that's why. Main contributor, oil. Oil is universally priced in USD and typically bought with USD. So when Barrack hopefully becomes the next president, don't expect the dollar to just the dollar to regain all its old value immediately. Eventually, it will bounce back.
    • lenninct, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3in soviet Russia everyone has time machine!!!!
  • Marglar, on 03/28/2008, -7/+15the article is titled "how to end the war", but realistically, they don't offer any solid solutions in it.

    I agree with the sentiment of the article, and really hope it can come to an end in the not too distant future - but however it is done will be a very difficult route and there will be many impacts felt around the world.
    • markgl, on 03/28/2008, -7/+3right. its always end the war, but the offer zero anything on what todo. at least we know what the government wants todo. if someone comes up with a promising solution, well we haven't seen one yet.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6I disagree. The premise of the article is that ending the war will not result in the calamity that the GOP suggests will happen.

      So ending the war is, for the most part, as simple as simply pulling our troops out in an orderly fashion.
      • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4it is so simple! we just leave the middle east and instantly every arab starts to crap candy and sing yankee doodle. peace on earth and all we have to do is surrender. what a great frickin idea!
  • PDF84, on 03/28/2008, -19/+13To end the war you have to kill all those tribal savages.
    • rficwizard, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3You left out the /sarcasm tag. Of course, it is obvious that you must have intended sarcasm. The problem is that people say crazy things on Digg all the time, so when someone says something crazy, we don't know for sure that they are being sarcastic.
      • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0He's sort of right. The tribal warfare that will happen when we leave will tear the country apart. Saddam was able to keep all of them in line with his strong arm tactics; which involved mass exterminations. I'm not saying Saddam was right. I'm just saying that the tribal feuds and animosity run deep and have been for centuries.
        The countries in the Middle East were of Western Europe's creation. The borders have nothing to do with the ethnic makeup of a particular people. mix in the oil money, and Voila! tribal warfare.
        • rficwizard, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1The people of the region are not "savages." Their sectarian conflicts are no more (or less) savage than those between different Christian groups throughout history. The suggestion that conflict between groups can only be solved by wiping out the groups involved is very unlikely to be accurate. It may be comforting to think of a particular group of people as somehow less human than a different group, but it isn't true.

          I agree that Saddam was only able to keep order in the artificially unified nation of Iraq through strong-arm tactics. I think that it is likely that the solution will involve allowing Iraq to divide itself into more natural states. That is unlikely to work unless it is done by the people involved, and not by an outside group with their own agenda and an imperfect (at best) understanding of the dynamics of the culture(s).
    • Masticity, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0Thanks for the encouragement!
  • Hetman, on 03/28/2008, -10/+31How to end the war. 1) Bring troops home. 2)........ 3) wars over.
    • GreenLynx, on 03/28/2008, -5/+0Profit?
    • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -10/+6If that's all you think it'll take then you truly deserve such a fate.
      • wbeavis, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5Playing Devil's avocate here, what else is there? There are not "goals". We overthrew a regime and instilled a new one. Without defining goals and milestones, the war can never be complete. So perhaps pulling out troops and letting the chips fall where they may, is the only sane solution.
        • sifuchar, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5I believe the goal is to leave Iraq a stable democracy. If you think that's dumb or unnecessary, read up on World War I. We rebuilt Germany after WWII because we realized that the second war was a direct result of short-sightedness after the first war. So now we have a free and stable Europe. If we make the same mistakes with Iraq, it will most certainly cost us dearly down the road. The old saying is true that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2A better example would be Vietnam, a peaceful trading partner of ours. We left and all their big problems went away.
          • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5it only cost 1.5 million dead Vietnamese. alot who were our allies that the democrat congress left to die.

            if you think that is ok there is something very wrong with you or maybe you just don't like Asians?
          • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/28/2008, -3/+0And we have a moral obligation to put their country back together.
            Viet Nam isn't a valid comparison because the people were united for one purpose: get the western occupiers out first the French and then the Americans. And they are all of one ethnicity - unlike Iraq.
            Iraq has many different ethnic groups that really never liked one another. The only reason Iraq was able to stay together was Sadam's strong arm tactics.
            Unfortunately, the Middle East's countries were created by Western Europe without any consideration for the ethnic makeup of the lands. Hence, the poor Kurds are split up in three different countries. They should have their own. The same goes for the Palestinians.
            I'm all for US and the rest of the World to butt out of the Middle East and I mean everywhere in the Middle East. Period. After we put Iraq back together.
          • sifuchar, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4@Jlaugh ... Vietname is NOT a better example. We did not replace/reform the government in Vietnam ... as we did in Iraq, Germany, and Japan.
          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1We did kill millions of Vietnamese though and still lost. And guess what Vietnam did not become Nazi Germany! So yeah it is a better example. If we truly believed in democracy we would have respected the vote of the South Vietnamese to join communist North Vietnam. But instead we installed that lame ARVN government and spent 10 years there and still lost.

            There's an old military saying "Never reinforce a failure."
        • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1I do not hate Asians I know quite a few of them. I respect other peoples rights to self determination as should you. Millions of people died in South Vietnam because we dropped more ordnance on South Vietnam than was dropped in the entirety of WWII. Mysteriously we didn't bomb the North that much. We did bomb Laos and Cambodia and destabilized the Cambodian Kingdom so much that those murderous ***** Khmer Rouge we're able to take over and commit genocide on their own people. Interestingly enough it was the Vietnamese that intervened in Cambodia.
          • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6more Vietnamese died after we left then the entire time we were there. read up boy read up
          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Provide some sources then, because I've read a lot on the Vietnam war, and my research says the opposite.
          • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM
            their you go. this is by R.J. Rummel
            he doesn't add the 1.5 to 3 million of the Cambodian killing fields
            he doesn't add the up to 500,000 in Laos.
            he doesn't add the 100,000 to 500,000 boat people and it is still more than what the US killed from 1960 to 1975.
            now compare that to the 450,000 dead NV military and civilians killed
            and yes there were more after than during

            now please provide some of your research.

            google the deaths after the war.
            http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html another good one


          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1According to the wiki vietnams official records suggest 1.1 million vietcong died and an additional 2 million from bombing.

            Cambodia is our bad we destabilized the country enough to allow the Khmer Rouge to take over.

            Laos is because of us.

            According to the wiki tens of thousands died in "reeducation" and up to a million died in the boats.

            Most of those deaths would have not happened if we had not set up shop to begin with. How many would have died if we had left them alone?

            Agent Orange is blamed for 2 million more deaths.
          • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4nice sources i gave you a peer reviewed source. thanks though
            /agent orange? really your going with agent orange?
          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1I just looked through your source and his numbers agree with me. The US killed more South Vietnamese than the North did. Your claim that North Vietnam had something to do with Cambodia and Laos is strange to say the least. The wiki has several sourced articles to follow up on by the way.
          • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4so you agree that the north killed millions, good, you just blame the us for making them kill millions after we left?

            strange
          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1No I blame us for killing 3.1 million directly, and getting involved in the first place. I do think the north killed millions too and there assholes. Two wrongs don't make a right. If we hadn't been involved at all, most of that ***** wouldn't have happened.

            If we killed 3.1 million during the war in north and south Vietnam, not including how many died in Cambodia due to bombing and deathcamps which is all our bad because we where the cause of Cambodia. Who knows how many in Laos, again our bad not North Vietnams.

            I'm not defending communism here just pointing out our intervention in the world makes things far worse rather than better.
          • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4yup blame America typical
          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Yeah go figure blaming a nation for it's actions.
        • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4another
          http://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When_we_knew_what_ ...
      • 10lbhammer, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2riiiiight, madoc. the boogeyman's gonna get us!
    • cornswalled, on 03/28/2008, -9/+31) use "Poor boy" nukes to take out the remaining Terrorist strongholds
      2) Nuke Iran to green glass to cut off the supply of freshly trained terrorists
      3) bring the troops home
      4) war's over.
      • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -3/+6Yea and how would your nukes avoid the innocent people of Iraq who live in cities that look just like ours. Don't buy into the ***** being shown on Fox. These people don't want war any more than us...unless you do want it. The government makes the war, the citizens have to fight it. The old make the war, the young have to fight it, the rich make the war, the poor have to fight it. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
        • cornswalled, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4If they were so "innocent" they'd stand up to the butchers who run their country and overthrow them.
          • Onyxblaze, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Why don't you stand up to the bastards who run our country and overthrow them?
          • halleyscomet, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2@Onyxblaze

            Read his other posts. He approves of Bush and Co, why would he want to overthrow them?
      • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6You write so easily of murdering 65 million people. You should consider therapy.
      • walkingdogs, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5How about we spend our money and efforts getting of of middle east oil and then we don't have any reason to involve ourselves it the region. They can fight among themselves and we can sit idly by and drive our electric, hydrogen, or hybrid cars. You war hungry righties are the reason that there is still a terrorist threat towards us. It scares me that people have such disdain for another race of people. And you are the same people calling obama racist. Pot meet Kettle.
        • cornswalled, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3Amusing comparison, since Obama isn't even black, he's Arab.
    • thecmgeek, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7You forgot, pay reparations to Iraqis. With no IMF/World Bank "strings" attached.
    • pershingdriver, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Silly child that does not end the war only changes the battlefield and the citizenship of the civilians being killed.
    • Manchowder, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Did you read the article? It will require real statesmanship, engagement with all actors in the region who have power, and a delegation of authority in Iraq to all those who wield power. This means a whole lot of carrots, sticks, bluffs, negotiations, and back room arm wrenching. All the stuff that Bush and his crew cannot do. But Obama can. Hence Brezinski backing Obama.
    • Hetman, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2To bad Obama's economic plan is a big pile of epic fail. But anyways tell me again why I care if their is a power struggle in the middle east? You can make an argument that we want to secure oil. However sense the Iraq war oil prices have climbed not lowered.
  • laserblazer, on 03/28/2008, -15/+12Remove from office those who pushed this war of lies, try them before Federal, State and military courts as appropriate, retract all military forces from the Middle East, pay reparations to every Iraqi, make copious apologies while independent humanitarian groups rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, begin treating the walking wounded, and guide the nation back into being a sovereign secular state.
    • PDF84, on 03/28/2008, -8/+3Yea and in the mean time they are still blowing each other up.

      just kill them all and be done with it!!
    • seomike, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2make copious apologies... Ok here's one, I'm sorry we bankrupted our country to kill your ***** dictator and give you freedom. How dare we...
      • laserblazer, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1So you have no problem with the U.S. bankrupting itself to depose one dictator of the hundreds on Earth? With America so financially weakened, aren't we in a much worse position to battle terror now?
    • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4you forgot sit in corner and suck thumb
  • crossgrain, on 03/28/2008, -15/+14How to end the war? Stop shooting and go the ***** home.

    >:-(
  • zaii7, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6damn it
    tricked into a shameless war
  • daxsymbiont, on 03/28/2008, -9/+18get the ***** out?
  • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -31/+29how NOT to end the war:

    vote for barack obama
    -- he voted for the patriot act
    -- he voted for continuing funding of the war
    -- he said impeachment isnt an option with bush/cheney
    -- he wants to keep permanent bases in iraq and have a phased withdrawal of 9 months != ending the war. that is following bush's policy of securing the country before we leave. both hitlery and mccain want to leave troops in iraq permanently too.

    if you wanted to end the war all you had to do was vote for ron paul, but the mainstream media only allowed us three candidates who differ slightly on their policies but greatly in their rhetoric. youve all been duped.
    • jcastillo81, on 03/28/2008, -11/+28FYI, Ron Paul is still running. You can still vote for him.
      • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5i know, but the media didnt let him win and the gop didnt let him win any caucuses.
    • Hercules, on 03/28/2008, -10/+12Yes, but since Ron Paul cannot win the election... who is the most likely candidate to end the war?

      I'd rather vote for the guy saying he wants to get out, rather than the guy saying he wants to stay for 100 years.

      Although if Ron Paul was on the ballot... I'd vote for him.
      • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6the guy saying 'lets stay in for 100years' is saying it because thats what his base wants to hear. just like why he's now saying illegal immigration is bad.

        obama is the guy saying 'lets end the war' because thats what he needs to say to get elected. mccain is buddy with hillary clinton and also friends with obama. do you really think they care about the 4k soldiers dead, cost to the american people, or million iraqis dead? of course not. theyre just playing the political game in order to win power.

        hillary says she is against nafta but then she called up the canadians and said that it was just rhetoric and for them 'not to worry'. pelosi said if we elected the dems in 06 they'd end the war for us. the dems dont want to end the war because the war IS US POLICY. the dems and repubs work together and appeal to their bases to keep the people polarized and make you think that one party is better than the other.
      • Izult, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1zomg write in?
    • jjmelch, on 03/28/2008, -9/+0Oh, and how much better did Hellary do?
      • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5did i say she was any better? she is a full fledged neocon wrapped in a big (D). the clintons were the ones who planned the war, beginning in 97 when regime change in iraq became US policy.
    • jbettineski, on 03/28/2008, -7/+3Obama voted for the Patriot Act? Not to be snarky, but do you have documentation? I would love to have that bit of info in my pocket.
      • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -4/+5can you not do your own research? jeez

        http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+patriot+act+v ...
      • diggdiggerid, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5No, he voted for a bill that watered down some sections in the PATRIOT Act. Ideally the best thing would be to get rid of it altogether, but in the meantime if there is a way to neuter it a little, I don't see any problem voting for that.
        • TonyLocNE, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Here's a new concept.... How about vote against it, I don't see any problem voting for that.
          • diggdiggerid, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1.....? Do you support the PATRIOT Act or just not understand what I was saying? Goal is to get rid of A. You can either be an idealist and refuse to vote for anything other than "AN ACT THAT REPEALS A", but that would accomplish nothing besides having A still in effect while a bill comes along that waters it down and you look like an idiot for not supporting it. That would look like you support A rather than want to get rid of it.
          • Akronos, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Obama should have voted against the compromise he made. Because, quite frankly, even though they were able to remove some provisions of the Patriot Act, it did NOT make it "watered down" as you say it is, diggdiggerid.
            " The reauthorization bill that will become law retains the most serious flaws from the original Patriot Act, primarily failing to require that any private records sought in an intelligence investigation be about suspected foreign terrorists or Americans conspiring with them."
            http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/whereit ...
            Yes, they did make it better than the original Patriot Act, but it is still quite frightening. The government is figuratively taking a ***** on the fourth amendment. Obama helped compromise to make it more appealing, a relative term of course, since it is only a bit better than the original. He should have voted against the new version, because, if he had strong principles on the matter, he would have felt that even the new version is still horrible for all Americans. He wouldn't be thinking about how it looks like or how it would affect his political career.
        • Pilot85, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2....the bill repealed certain provisions. If he hadn't voted for it, they might not have taken effect.
      • Chode2235, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3He wasn't even in the senate when the original one went through. But truth be told he did vote to reauthorize the watered down version.
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Very very true, Hillary and McWar obviously won't do it either. We will be bankrupt and the middle class wiped out.
    • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -5/+9Tracker,
      Careful lad, don't criticize the Obamamessaih to much lest the Obamaniacs come after you! Can't let the truth outta the bag about Obama not doing squat against the war!
      • TonyLocNE, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Careful now guys... You're walking right through the hive.
      • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6you are lucky i am in the middle of a full fledge OrBasm or i would really tell you offfffff arrrrhghghghaaaaaaaa oboy OBAMMMAAAAA YES YES YES LET ME FEEL YOUR HOOOOOOOOPE
    • BryanG412, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6your info isn't too accurate, i won't prove everything you said wrong, but at least I can prove the first part wrong...
      Obama didn't vote for the Patriot Act, it was for the Patriot Act Reauthorization. He actually opposed it but after many months of dilberation improvements were made and he compromised. Here are some of his quotes about the Reauthorization he made on the senate floor...

      Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

      This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:

      *We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

      *We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

      *We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

      *We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

      *And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

      The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things."

      • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7the whole thing is unconstitutional and evil. a less evil bill should still be voted down and he and all the senators/congresspeople who voted for it should resign.
        • BryanG412, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1I am not for the Patriot Act either, but part of being a good politician is the ability to compromise and find middle ground, this and only this will lead to progress
          • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4so if bush wanted to kill all americans and was willing to compromise on killing just half, that would be good politics in your mind?
          • diggdiggerid, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3Let's say the current policy is "Kill all Americans." You can be an idealist dumbass and while a bill that can get passed says "kill only half americans" you hold your nose and say :I welp, americans are still being killed so I can't vote for it even though it would be a massive improvement. in that case, nothing changes, and "kill all Americans" remains the policy. Or, you could vote for it, so only half of all Americans are being killed, and then when there is a new bill to stop killing Americans altogether, you vote for that ALSO.
          • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3you just voted to kill 150million people under the guise of saving 150million. you condoned mass murder. you lose.
          • diggdiggerid, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1what you DON'T vote for is just as much as a reflection on your character as what you do vote for. you would essentially vote to continue killing 300 million in good elitist conscience. good job, you win I guess? I suppose you also won't donate a few cents to your favorite charity because it would be better to donate a million dollars.
          • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3what im saying is, if those are you only two options then you choose neither and overthrow the entity who is leaving you with the crappy choice. by playing their game and compromising you are giving it legitimacy, which is bad mmkay. they try to keep us divided and polarized so the people will never rise up together. switch to independent and charities are good and every penny counts, but only when the charity isnt pocketing it for their own paychecks.
          • diggdiggerid, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1this is funny since it seems you support Ron Paul. Isn't that accepting the system as legitimate also? Did you in your system of private contracts ever sign or agree to the Constitution? Were the people ever consulted in its creation or just a bunch of rich landowners? Hint: it's the second option. I think you might enjoy the essay No Treason by Lysander Spooner, if you haven't already read it.
          • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Well ideally you like to exhaust the system and try all your options before you take up arms and declare a revolution. but if someone were to start one i wouldnt be opposed to joining. the grip of the fascist regime grows tighter with each day. pretty soon we wont even have the compromises that are touted as victories.

            true i never explicitly agreed to it but when you grow up and decide to stay in america as a citizen you are accepting it implicitly. black people, women and native americans werent in the founders' minds either but if you accept it as a universal document and apply it to everyone then it is actually a pretty good foundation for a society. im not saying we should have no system to work in at all but obviously there werent enough safety nets put in ours to prevent fascism.
          • BryanG412, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1wow, you can't even compare the Patriot Act to mass murder...that response in now way showed any intellectual or critical thinking, I award you no points at all, and may god have mercy on your soul
          • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2too bad, i have more points than you:)

        • diggdiggerid, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Holy ***** you are an idiot. That would just mean the FULL bill is in effect instead of only PART of it. Which is better IN THE MEANTIME? Goddamn.
        • Pilot85, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Zealotry don't work well with a quorum. Compromise is one of the key principles of a democracy. Deal with it.
          • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3if you dont stick by your principles and always vote for the lesser of two evils, what do you have left?
        • pershingdriver, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0Its not congress you should be upset with its the supreme court they have the last guess.
    • UknowWho97, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8If anyone else here has read Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, or a combination of the 4, then you've seen this coming for a long, long time....corporations, eradication of the middle class, and the sudden rise of a Charismatic authority, Populist leader in Obama...thesis is colliding with antithesis within the next decade, and the coming synthesis is going to largely depend on this election
      • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7so what are we going to get in the next decade? a soft fascism? A camera system like in the UK, with a wealthy elite that the lower class cannot break into?
  • jbettineski, on 03/28/2008, -6/+5The best way to end it is to realize it's none of our business, and simply leave. Then focus our manpower, resources, and money locally to help the citizens through a recession.
    • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -5/+4Yeah, that'll work _so_ well for a couple of years then it'll be another big terrorist attack like 9/11 and cause another massive action on our part - only this time we'll have fewer allies to fight with us since they'd all know we'd just cut and run when the going gets tough. Smart move that'd be. Yeah, let's run home now just as we're starting to win over there.
      • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -4/+4Our being over there will not win anything. Our being over there will guarantee future attacks here.
        • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3JL,
          So, what option would you pursue? Run away? Crawl home and pull up the drawbridge? Hope the world will but leave us alone? Right... that's worked _so_ well previously...
          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2How about peaceful trading like the founding fathers recommended. We have and isolated continent, peaceful neighboors, and the biggest nuclear stock pile on earth. No one is even in a position to mess with us, and if actually respected other peoples ways instead of trying to enforce ours we'd have mostly nothing to worry about.

            Will there still be terrorism? if we stop propping up dictatorships all over the world most people would leave us alone. Will some nut job occasionally blow something up? Yes. It's a small unit matter, not a war theatre.
        • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1People don't leave us alone because we are constantly in other peoples business.
        • madoc62, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1JL,
          You know, it sure sounds nice and it'd be really nifty if we could get away with such a policy. Pull back to our own shores and only trade with the rest of the world, doing so without a care as to how they run their affairs. We'd be nice so everyone else on the planet would also be nice. Yeah, that'd be really nifty. And it'd be nice.
          Thing is, we tried that once already. Isolationism was thought to be the very ideal of foreign policy. We had big oceans on either side of us and figured no one would ever bother us so long as we stayed this side of them. That cost us over 400,000 dead. And our policy of non-involvement also allowed enough evil to propagate in the world that over 200,000,000 other human beings lost their lives as well. And all these deaths occurred with nukes only being used twice and at the end of that war.
          An isolationist policy as you advocate would be impossible to achieve in today's world. Crawling back to our shores would not protect us in the least. The enemy has already shown their willingness to come here to kill us. And even if we swore off an involvement in their affairs they'd still find reason to come here and kill us. Our very existence is a threat to them. Every bottle of Coke and every pair of Levis we'd sell them subverts their control thus we would remain the enemy.
          Sorry, as nice as it sounds, simply hoping the world will suddenly become nice is an ugly, ugly dream.
      • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4the world already knows the Dems will leave our allies to hang. they have been proving this for forty years. this isn't news to the world. in fact our enemies count on this.
      • Akronos, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Yeah that makes sense. Keep the troops in Iraq rather than the U.S. so that when we get attacked by terrorists from Saudi Arabia on our homeland, there will be no troops to defend us because they will all be half way across the world.
        You're a ***** dumbass. First off, nearly all nations that helped us in Iraq have left now. Most of the world wants us to leave. So us leaving would actually help improve our relations with other nations, not hurt it, as you say. Second off, your fear mongering isn't going to work here. The day I fear a terrorist is the day the terrorists win (Hence their name). So that will never happen. Third off, you guys have been trying to prolong this war the entire time and perhaps if you repeat that we are just about to start winning the war there many times, it might become true. It's not. The surge can't last forever, regardless of your "pause".
        • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Akronos! What a joy to discuss things with you in such a wonderfully civil tone! I see you graduated with such honors at that charm school.
          Personally, I'd rather not have the US military roaming around America's streets trying to defend us here. As they say, the best defense is a good offense and it's far better to kill the jihadis over there than have to kill them over here once they're amongst our civilians.
          Yes, the Coalition of the Willing (and of the Billing) has worked its way down. Thank you very much George Bush for being _such_ a wonderful communicator. The guy lost the initiative to the doomsayers despite the facts on the ground and has never been able to regain it. The man is damn near inarticulate and is so bad as conveying the importance of our presence in Iraq that he makes his dad look the gifted orator. And that, my friends, is no small feat as Bush Sr. was excruciating to listen to.
          The "world" wants to complain about the US because the US is on top. They only "loved" us when we were wounded. Once we acted on that - and showed that we had the power to do so by ourselves - they then turned to their normal whining. Not all the world, mind you. But the usual suspects.
          We've only been in Iraq now for five years. I see you've not much knowledge of history and must be used to the instant gratification life that we've got going for ourselves here in the US. Sorry to tell you Akronos, some things take time. Time as in years - decades, even. Grinding through an insurgency usually takes at least a decade if not longer.
          No, the surge can't last forever but hopefully it'll last long enough for the Iraqis to get enough of their act together that it will have done its job. Already we're seeing proof of that in how the Sunnis tribes have come over to us and how much better the Iraqi security forces have become even over just this past year.
          • Akronos, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Madoc62! Been waiting to discuss this issue with a warmonger! Apparently your friends are out in full force as well.
            "As they say, the best defense is a good offense and it's far better to kill the jihadis over there than have to kill them over here once they're amongst our civilians."
            Yes, it is MUCH better to have our troops spread around the world rather than concentrated on our country, the only place we have a right to be. And it's not like our presence there is ***** anyone off, you know?
            You can go ahead and blame it on George Bush's communicating skills or any other superficial reason, but that sounds like a copout to me. I don't think France or any other country who was against the war from the beginning would be a part of it if Bush was a better communicator. They realized that was Iraq a waste of time and money, and no amount of smooth talking is going to change that.
            "The "world" wants to complain about the US because the US is on top. They only "loved" us when we were wounded. Once we acted on that - and showed that we had the power to do so by ourselves - they then turned to their normal whining. Not all the world, mind you. But the usual suspects."
            What are you talking about? What have we proven that we have the power to do so by ourselves? To fight a war by ourselves? Well, no *****. We outspend the rest of the world combined. It's not hard.
            And you say we've ONLY been in Iraq for five years? That's longer than World War II. Don't try to justify your candidate's desire for a 100 years of occupation in another country with irrelevant rhetoric about gratification. The only person without a knowledge of history is you. Don't you know the British already tried this about 90 years ago? And it failed. They couldn't occupy Iraq and they had to withdraw.
            But anyway, I'm interested in knowing where you plan on getting the funding to stay there another few decades, as you say? Do you plan on your buddy Bernanke to print you guys a few trillion dollars? You do realize you have no realistic way of funding your war without putting our country into bankruptcy? We're quite close to that, already. Furthermore, you're asking for way too much out of our soldiers. Many have already served longer tour times, and some have been redeployed multiple times.
            The reason the situation has gotten better there isn't because of the surge. It's because the Sunni Tribes have gotten tired of Al-Queda and have stopped supporting them.
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2absolutely right
    • jbettineski, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5Um, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

      Maybe we should just move the forces to Saudi Arabia where the terrorists actually came from.
      • TonyLocNE, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5or we just shouldn't be in the Middle East to begin with......
        • madoc62, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Actually, if they'd agree to keep selling us all the oil we (as in the West) need at market prices _and_ agree not to spread their terrorism beyond the Middle East then fine, we could all go home.
          Ah, but that's not likely to happen now, is it?
  • Hercules, on 03/28/2008, -1/+16What the ***** is going on with the porno bots?
  • gametavern, on 03/28/2008, -13/+12Nuke... Worked for WWII
    • daxsymbiont, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7ye, worked, the children playing in their schoolyard in hirosima were slaughtered alright.
      • mcfly99, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Plus, we're not the only one's that know how to make them anymore.
      • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2war sucks so tuff ***** to those we fight.
        and their children
  • Stryder81, on 03/28/2008, -15/+12You vote for Ron Paul you dumb sons of bitches >:-!
  • jjmelch, on 03/28/2008, -7/+4Yeah, and Zbig's one of the geniuses that got our hostages back from Iran, oh that's right... NOT!
  • markgl, on 03/28/2008, -8/+13if you would've asked Lincoln if the civil war would been worth 55,000 deaths in 3 days of fighting at Gettysburg.

    We can do this all day if you want to.
    • Hetman, on 03/28/2008, -4/+9Lets see the civil war had a big affect on america. It was going to tear apart the union. On the other hand Iraq is half way around the world and had nothing to do with terrorism until america entered the war.
    • dougmc, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4He probably would have said yes.
    • rficwizard, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6If people wouldn't have supported the war if they knew the cost going in, then the war shouldn't have been fought. Do you have any reson to believe that people wouldn't have considered the preservation of the Union worth the cost of the Civil War?
      • rficwizard, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1Let me get this out of the way so no-one else feels the need: Is there any "reson" you don't use the spell check that is provided?
  • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -23/+26How to end the war:

    1. Order all US troops to the Baghdad airport.
    2. Put them on Boeing 747s 500 at a time.
    3. Fly 100 747s round trip three times.
    4. Put George Bush in chains and send him to The Hague for war crimes trials.
    5. Take the profits from Exxon, Chevron, Blackwater and Haliburton for the last five years.
    6. Give it to Iraq as compensation.
    • PDF84, on 03/28/2008, -11/+9Oh you might wanna just go ahead and end free market capitalism too. geezz
      Oh how about implement Communism too so we wont ever have to worry about money again, the govt will provide all my needs. UGH!!!!
      • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/28/2008, -6/+13Well, Blackwater and Haliburton are war profiteers. There is nothing capatalistic about no-bid contracts being handed to cronies.

        These companies should be shut down, their profits seized, and their leaders imprisoned. If you don't agree, you haven't been paying attention.
        • sifuchar, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I think you should provide them some competition, so they won't have no-bid contracts. You could even under-bid them, and conduct your operation according to your own sense of purpose and morality.
          • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2Yes he should pull a multinational engineering firm out of his ass. No bid contracts aside, corruption should be prosecuted. Cost plus needs to go away.
        • pershingdriver, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4The reason Haliburton got at least some of the contracts for repairing the Oil infrastructure was because they built it in the first place and therefore already had the plans. ... that said no bid contracts are in general bull *****.
      • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -5/+7"you might wanna just go ahead and end free market capitalism too"

        That's a different problem. But after seeing the effects of the "free market capitalism" crap perpetrated on the US economy by the right wingers in power now, I'm certainly willing to discuss it.
        • MrWhite7, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4this isnt remotely close to a free market. It's a cuilmination fo the worst aspects of both capitalism and socialism.
      • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -5/+4This is not free market capitalism, this is corporate welfare and corporatism very close to fascism. True free markets function fairly peacefully. We have over regulated and look what happens now. Haliburton got a no bid contract from Bush and Cheney, former CEO. Our marekts are anything but free.
    • wbeavis, on 03/28/2008, -3/+9Your plan is completely, utterly absurd...you left out Cheney.
    • SemiSarcastic, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Of course you have to assume that more people with ten times your income will agree to that.
    • pershingdriver, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Mean while back in the real world.....
      • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2"Mean while back in the real world...."

        we pour $5000 a minute and gallons of human blood into the sand in Iraq.
  • DSSPROXY, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6"The solution to Iraq -- an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself -- is more than a military mission. Precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,
  • poduski, on 03/28/2008, -3/+17Sadly, there is still no mention of Iraqi casualties, which are over 100 times higher than those of the U.S., and the bulk of them being civilians.
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4Estimates of over 1.2 million including women and children. Seems more like genocide. They would pray to have Saddam back.
    • TIMMYGOAT, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2hey idiots...the vast majority of people being killed in Iraq are being killed by their own people. 70 to 80% of the deaths in Iraq are from suicide and car bombs...planted by other Iraqis or outside terrorists.
  • angusm, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5That's a lot of words to say "We broke this ***** so badly that I have _no_ idea how to fix it."

    What Brzezinski forgets to discuss is that even what he presents as the sensible course of action requires talking to people we've already alienated, finding money we don't have to cover the costs, and giving up on the real goals of the war (the whole 'reshaping the Middle East' project, not the unfindable WMDs or the equally-fictitious Saddam-Osama links). It'll be a cold day in Hell before John McCain agrees to any of those things, and even the Democratic candidates are unlikely to have much enthusiasm for the project.
    • Manchowder, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1You realize that Brzezinski is in the tank for Obama right? Brezinsky used Carter to goad the Soviets into invading Afghanistan in order to bring about their downfall. Brzezinski is a sharp and scary man. I think that he will use Obama as a pawn to accomplish his goals of getting us out of Iraq. Which, much like the invasion of Afghanistan by the soviets, helped us in the long term.
  • hmmdar, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1Wow, am i the only one that saw the headline and thought it said, "How to end the world"
  • VintageMud, on 03/28/2008, -8/+8Glass skating rink... if the savages over there can't join the rest of the modern world and learn some tolerance instead of declaring that all non-islamics be exterminated, then so be it. If they want to join their 144 virgins so badly, lets give them what they want!
    • jbettineski, on 03/28/2008, -4/+5Nice grasp of Islam, buddy.
    • bicyclethief, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Hell yeah! You lead the way...I'll be right behind you.
    • MidnightRealism, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Most of the fighting currently taking place overseas occurs between Islamic sects so I'm not sure your "idea" has any relevance
    • PDF84, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1WOOT WOOT!
    • cornswalled, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7I thought it was 42 virgins and a collection of underage slave boys?

      Either way I agree with the whole "Green glass" option.
    • rficwizard, on 03/28/2008, -6/+6Understanding Islam by looking at terrorists is the same as understanding Christianity by looking at the Klu Klux Klan.
      • pershingdriver, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4if the extremists in Islam were marginalized and as powerless as the white power groups I would agree with your statement since they are not I suggest get a better analogy ... perhaps northern ireland (up till a few years ago anyhow)
        • rficwizard, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3The Klu Klux Klan once wielded great power in the American South. They could and did kill and intimidate those who stood up to them with no fear of punishment. They controlled an entire society by intimidation, and by extremist views on the teachings of their religion. To me that sounds very similar to Islamic extremism.
    • SheilaNoya, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1How would YOU react if a foreign nation (with a different religion) attacked and occupied America? You can bet your ass that most of us would be classified as "insurgents" for trying to end the foreign military occupation of our country. Why is it so hard to grasp that Iraqis feel any different than we do when it comes to foreign invasions and occupations?
  • DSSPROXY, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2"The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me --with an ideology of hope." --George W. Bush
    • etx313, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Self ownage at its finest.
    • drakke1, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0And checking the "reverse speech" on this one should be quite amusing. Removing the two chief psychopaths from our gov't would be too minimal an effort -- they're only "mid level trolls". The real culprits are their bosses at nwo central. What will you do about them?
  • formergthing, on 03/28/2008, -5/+8Oh yes, hindsight is 20/20. If Bush would have known he would have certainly said "no" as well (although he wouldn't admit to that now). Fact is, almost everyone supported the war when we were shown the evidence - at least a majority supported it.

    Remember when the first protests started - even the media was billing the protesters as unpatriotic. There was a transition where everyone changed their minds - unfortunately Bush doesn't have that option - as calling the whole thing a mistake invalidates the deaths of 4,000 Americans and countless Iraqis, will certainly worsen the situation in Iraq by taking all hope and motivation away from the "god guy" new government, and destabilize the entire area.

    I hate war as much as the next guy - but lets be serious. Pulling out of Iraq before it is stable spells death for the middle east.

    Was the war a mistake: Most certainly it was.

    Does that mean we should leave and let them clean up our mess: Most certainly not.

    Digg me down for being realistic. Sorry - but all the ideology and good intentions in the world doesn't change the cold hard facts.
    • prgmctan, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4... that more people will die for no reason the longer we keep the troops in Iraq
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Why?

      Please describe for me the scenario in which pulling out of Iraq will result in "death for the middle east".

      Now, once you've managed that, describe how staying there will actually improve the situation.
    • DamnLogins, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Who would have thought invading a country would be expensive and cost many, many lives? It's not as though there was a precedent set in oooh, South East Asia or anything.

      The kind of politics that goes "We can't admit it was a mistake! Let's waste another 4,000 lives and tell people we're winning" is ***** up in the extreme.

      I feel extremely sorry for the families of those that died or were maimed, but I'd rather they were ***** off *now* at the pointlessness of it, than have many more have to go through the same pain and *then* realise it was all pointless.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7"Oh yes, hindsight is 20/20"

      That would be true if millions of us hadn't opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq before it happened.
    • Mardala, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5"Does that mean we should leave and let them clean up our mess?" YES. and we will help them clean it up. But staying there is NOT an option anymore. Not getting into war is kind of too late and sad, but we have no choice. We have to leave.
      • Matters, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3How are we going to help them "clean it up" if we're not there?
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Doesn't take hindsight to realize wars have to be declared as the constitution states.
    • captndalton, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Yes, be realistic. We've not created a mess that we have not already cleaned up. If we leave, we'll leave the country in a better shape than it was before the war started. However, if we leave, we deserve every bit of what follows us back here. You're wrong, the war was not a mistake. Those who protest the war have the 'god guy' mentality for they believe that they know anything about it. If you're not there and you don't have the information available to the president, then you don't know anything. Those that have lost their lives in uniform, did so on their own conscience. If it comes to more of the protestors dying in America due to a terrorist attack, they'll likely change their tune again.
    • chiggah, on 03/28/2008, -2/+0As politely as you present your points, I think what you claim is far from being "cold hard facts"

      The facts were, immediately after 9/11 talks of "linking Iraq" to Bin Laden was requested from the White House. Follow by repeated request to the CIA intelligence to produce evidence of Saddam involved with the 9/11 attack. (And when none came up initially, Cheney practically claims the CIA must be wrong and they have to keep looking until something...anything come up that they could use to justify the invasion)

      Paul Bream er was pulling in Iraq of what Henry Kissinger did during Vietnam, which resulted in immediate insurgency attacks in Iraq.

      The Pentagon leadership was in a Power-play struggle with the CIA as well as the Defense department since the very beginning of the operation/war in Afghanistan, which created some of the most incompetence mission objective for pure political gains, not the merits of success itself.

      You claimed that American supported the war given the "Evidence" at the time, so therefore it must stand. What after 2 years later? When every shred of evidence presented by Bush and Powell to UN has been debunk to prove to be complete utter *****. Shouldn't American get a say so now given the "reality" of the situation? (I know, you don't think so either right? Having a president of the USA admit mistake? *****, not even presidential candidates accept mistakes unless they're caught red handed)

      By the way, this isn't the first time a president lied to get our country into war, just because our school don't teach real politics and history doesn't mean it never occur ed. (Golf of Ton kin ring a bell?) Do you seriously believe invading a country that "possibly" might have WMD was a higher priority than North Korea firing actual war practice nukes around Sea of Japan? I'm not a conspiracy truth er, but anyone with an IQ over 100 can tell you there are ulterior motives involved that lead to the war of Iraq, not simply spreading our better and awesome democracy and freedom BS you hear all day.
  • RRJackson, on 03/28/2008, -7/+8If we ever pull out of Iraq it will be the worst decision anyone's made since this whole thing started.
    • diggdiggerid, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
    • Hetman, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Why?
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2This war is one of the most foolish mistakes in the history of all countries. Only frightened weakling sit home on their fat asses and couches saying "kill towelheads".
    • RRJackson, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3It's not about "killing towelheads." We've had no stable base of operations in the middle east and it's cost us dearly time and time again. The Iran hostage crises, the Tripoli riots, the shootings at the embassy in Damascus, the bombing of the embassy in Lebanon and then finally Bin Laden taking offense at our air base in Saudi Arabia because it was too close to Mecca. The Iraq war, IMO, was about securing a base of operations in the middle east and we picked the nation nobody would be surprised at us overthrowing. Look at it on a map sometime. It's a very prime piece of real estate. Now we've got permanent bases right across the fence from almost every one of those countries that ***** us for the last 30 years. Now we don't have to sneak around trying to assess the threats. We're camped out and taking daily assessments. It's something we should have done decades ago, but the unfortunate part is that Bush had to lie to get us there. You can't just go on TV and say, "We're gonna overthrow Iraq 'cause we like the land." You'd never sell that to the country. So now people scream out all these smug declarations about how it looks like he was wrong about those WMDs when I don't really think it was ever about that or a clear and present danger or any of that.
      • chiggah, on 03/28/2008, -3/+0This is Neo-conservative doctrine to the dot. As Ron Paul puts it 5 years ago. "They believe the problem with Middle East is not that we meddle too much, but didn't interfere enough."

        It's sickening you actually believes what you said and justify it with a straight face.


        • RRJackson, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3They're right. Like it or not, we're dependent on the region and that comes with consequences. We've got all kinds of consequences to stare down, though, including environmental consequences.

          We've encouraged growth until we have energy needs that are almost beyond comprehension. It's hitting us from all kinds of fronts. Like, a 1000-Megawatt coal-fired power plant consumes about 8900 tonnes of coal every day it operates (89 100-ton rail cars per day). So we're knocking down the Appalachian mountains trying to keep up with that and the EPA had a warning in effect until 2004 that listed mercury contamination numbers from all the coal plants. The EPA used to have a Powerpoint presentation up on their site that said mercury contamination advisories were in effect for 35% of the nation's lake acres, 24% of the nation's river miles, 65% of the nation's coastal waters including 92% of the Atlantic coast, 100% of the Gulf coast and 100% of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters. The EPA has since removed those materials from their site. This situation is going to have long-term health effects for a lot of Americans. There are studies that connect as many as 30,000 deaths a year to this coal issue.

          We've got serious, serious energy problems and when there are economic issues tied to that it brings out the wolves. There's too much commerce going on between the United States and the middle east for things to just cruise along smoothly. The wolfiest of the wolves have used religion to recruit fanatics to help them make a buck off the situation. The administration was right in securing Iraq and building up bases in the region. We're going to be looking at an unpleasant century. When I was a kid the United States consumed 65% of the world's production capacity. I used to wonder what would happen if the rest of the world started consuming the way we do. Well, now we're finding out. Resources won't meet the demand. We're looking at the first century in the history of the world where the planet can't provide enough of the basics to meet the needs of its population. Personally, if a couple of billion people have to die from drought and famine I'd rather they not be Americans. If energy needs can't be met I'd rather they be someone else's energy needs. As harsh as that sounds.
          • chiggah, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0Yes, I agree with your view on why we're depending on the middle east when it comes to natural resource. But it's HOW we've been conducting foreign policies in the Middle East that's creating most of the problems we face today. (as you put it, consequences).

            One needs to look no further than Bush's "Clean Air Act" to tell you our current president is not doing jack against polluters in America. (Instead of forcing excessive local polluters to purchase expensive equipments to filter out toxic smugs, they can simply purchase "pollution credits" from others that are willing to "sell their legal rights to pollute". )So while you argue the environmental impact of domestic power plants, are these health related death figure you presented preventable? Or just our administration choose to simply ignore it.

            Yes, we do have serious energy problems. So serious that no departments within the government knows anything about it, neither does the American people. The Cheney lead National Energy policy group is so secret that the previous GAO comptroller general David Walker had to file a federal lawsuit against him to request the involving parties identities. Our first problem isn't with the Middle East as you wishfully think, but having a handful of participants hiding in the shadow in charge of our nation energy policy. (I'll let you decide if they'll put the people/environmental interest in priority or their profits.)

            Wolfiest of the wolves? Than what does it makes United State's destructive foreign policy and it's effect to the people in that region? Are you seriously crying victim here and push the blames to "the radicals" for the current conflicts in the Middle East? That the fact our government are willing to stage coup and remove foreign country democratically elect leader and replace them with American friendly tyrants (that also just happens to kill millions of their country men, women and children, as well as selling out the profits of natural resource which essentially belongs to it's people for themselves), or the facts that the so called "radicals and terrorists" are none other than past allies of USA merely few decades ago. Let's face it, our corporate backed government has and always have been willing to deal with state-sponsored terrorists past and present in return for maximum profits monopolizing not just the resource, but the currency of which the resource must be purchased with, as well as an unapologetic excuse for imperialism. Who's the wolf here?


            It's human nature to be selfish, so there is no need to justify your personal view. However, when our government pursue their destructive and corrupt foreign policy with the disguise of American public interest. Well than as much as you don't give a *****, there are just as much blood on your hands as mine, you're the one that choose not to look at it. BTW, when you support ***** up other people's life, they might resent you and do radical things to retaliate. What goes around does come around, as harsh as that sounds.



  • bicyclethief, on 03/28/2008, -2/+15"The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for 'staying the course' draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios."

    A sentence all Americans should read and contemplate.
    • serif69, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3The case for terminating the war is based on selfishness and not understanding what will happen to the Iraqi people, while the case for 'staying the course' draws heavily on Iraq's inability to stabilize itself and the perceived need for an ally in the region that is not Israel.
      Christ, why must everything be black and white? The fact of the matter is this: we can't simply pull out or stop funding it, and we can't be there without there being a public plan in place for rebuilding and stabilizing the area. There are dire consequences to both.
  • NelsonR, on 03/28/2008, -7/+5How to end the war, send in Bush and McCain aka Iraqi John. They are supermen who see a failed surge a success, idiots. You and I know they would never patrol the streets of Iraq at night, they send others to fight. And please don't bring up the continuous crap about war hero, he bombed from thousands of feet in the air while over 55,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam for a war like Iraq which was ALL BASED ON LIES AND DECEIT. Now this abomination says Americans don't cut and run. Hate to inform you old man, remember our departure from Vietnam with helicopters in Saigon evacuating speedily? Don't get me wrong we won every battle, like Iraq, but we lost the war for the aggressions they were and are. No aggressor should ever be rewarded and that means our politicos who rule over you with insanity.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7What part of the surge exactly has failed?
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 03/28/2008, -4/+8The part of the surge where the US is supposed to flee from Iraq (in helicopters from rooftops, no doubt) with tail between legs, and apologize to the world for offending 7th-century sensibilities.
      • swrostmore, on 03/28/2008, -6/+3The part where the Maliki government was supposed use the drop in violence resulting from the US escalation and the Mehdi Army ceasefire as an opportunity to reconcile with ex-Baathists and Sadrists. Instead Maliki attempted to pass a law excluding Baathists from government, and allied himself with the Iranian-backed Badr brigade in open warfare against the Mehdi in an attempt to prevent them from gaining influence in the upcoming elections. Meanwhile, the US took advantage of the Sunni rebellion against AQI by 1st hiring and arming enemies of the Maliki government to fight agaisnt AQI, and then refusing to pay them. There is now a national strike on the part of the Sunni militias who feel they were duped into doing the US' dirty work for them. Sunnis have been alienated from both the US and from Maliki government, Sadr has more popular support among Iraqis than Maliki and his militia is engaged in open warfare with the Iraqi Army, and the US Army is providing air cover for Iranian players in their proxy war against us. Is this what "success" looks like to you?
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Sadr has lost control of his fighters and is pleading for a political solution. Some people you just can't reconcile, so they will be eliminated. That's how counterinsurgency works. You win over those you can, then kill the rest.
        • swrostmore, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Of course Sadr is pleading for a political solution, because he knows he's going to gain a ton of influence in the elections due to his popularity among Shiites. That is the definition of reconciliation; including your former enemy in the political process. Maliki's crackdown and recent offensive against Sadrists is the exact opposite: forceful exclusion from the political process.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Then Sadr should order his "army" off the streets and disarm. It doesn't seem like they're listening to them.
          • chicofaraby, on 03/28/2008, -5/+4It doesn't sound like they're listening to the Republican ***** Machine's nonsense about the "surge" being effective either.
      • NelsonR, on 03/28/2008, -5/+0Iran WILL be the winner of a failed Bush agenda. You see it everyday yet some refuse to acknowledge reality. Keep being the cute neo con ostrich you are. Nationalism rules your world not mine unless America is attacked first. Iraq never attacked us. Pathetic I must explain the obvious.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Who attacked who?

          http://digg.com/politics/PDF_The_Military_s_Iraq_A ...

          In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam’s decision to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.”

          In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up operations inside Somalia.44 The overlap between bin Laden’s and Saddam’s interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.
      • NelsonR, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1So, with this so called intelligence like the WMD's that made it proper to take our military and attack a nation? Please, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to justify Vietnam and now your excuse for attacking Iraq. i just give up on common sense when explaining a wrong. Go ahead quote me more intelligence reports that have a history of being in error. Now if you come up with something like an unjustified attack like Pearl Harbor, you then have my ear.
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3I saw an article yesterday saying that the increased violence was a sign that the surge was working. God, they think we are some stupid *****.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7If anything the increased violence around Basra is a sign that the British forces should have had their own surge.
        • Kythas, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5While this may be true, I think the increased violence around Basra is a sign the Iraqi government is starting to stand on its own two feet and exercise control over their country. I wish them success.

          Assalamu alaikum to all the Iraqi people. I wish for nothing less than for them to live their lives in peace. The Iraqi government taking control from al-Sadr is the first step in that journey.
        • NelsonR, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3Now you live in a fantasy worlld where you believe the Sunni's and Shia's will dance together in the streets of Iraq with everything hunky dory. Yeah right, you probably romp around with Alice in Wonderland.
      • novaculus, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2"...they think we are some stupid *****."

        In your case, whoever "they" are, they are correct.
  • swAppp, on 03/28/2008, -1/+14" The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. " - George Orwell
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3"Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain." - Orwell
    • NelsonR, on 03/28/2008, -1/+0Excellent quote that speaks volumes.
  • nobody7, on 03/28/2008, -6/+5youtube 'iran pick your' we don't want john bomb bomb iran 'see a nuke in real life' mccain

    youtube 'bombing civilians' to see what caused 911

    youtube 'bush crusade'

    youtube user 'irancoverage' and wikipedia 'jingoism' and 'neoconservative'

    lookup 'hillary aipac' on youtube
    • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2youtube 2 girls one cup
      youtube i eat my butt
  • Vytorious, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3I don't believe anyone is exactly "pro-war." It is a horrible tool available to us as a necessary evil, much like government. It must be used with good reason and intention with the backing of the people.
    • captndalton, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1I am pro-war. Should war be necessary, it shouldn't be tossed around for months or years, action has no patience. Do it.
      Our government is meant only to supply us with infrastructure and military defense. We, as citizens, do not control the military and thus we have no argument against its use. We support our family members that are a part of the military as they chose to be a part of it and take part in it as the leaders see fit. If you are not pro-war, then you are against the military for it has no other purpose.
  • tricks574, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2FINALY someone writes an article that actually makes a case for ending the war that looks at the inherent danger to the Iraqi people and balances it against arguments for the war. Not sure about the Sunni-Shiite thing being because of the occupation. As I understood it those 2 factions had been pretty ***** off at each other for a while. Still, it's so refreshing to hear an article about the war that is intelligently constructed and looks like someone put actual research and thought into it.
    • Mardala, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1There have been plenty of people putting out valid reasons and ways to end this epic disaster ... but yes its nice to hear it again and that people are starting to listen.
  • koumed, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1They didn't count Iraqi civilians who are dead too, or they lives are too cheap to even count it?
    and Iran is now is too strong then ever because its great enemy don't exist anymore and its influence in the Mideast has expended a lot, this war was the biggest disaster and the biggest Mistake ever made by a president in the US history! seriously, bush really suck in politics.
    • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I don't think they count Iraqi lives because the alternate reality is Saddam would have killed them and more anyways.
      • koumed, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Okay, let talk statistics, how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam in 15 years, and how many were killed in the war in 5 year? the different is really really big! I know Saddam is an asshole and most Iraqis hated him, even his soldiers didn't fight in the war because they hated him, but the actual situation in iraq is much worst then before!
        • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3No it isn't. I've added up the numbers with a left bias and a right bias and guess what, even the numbers with the left bias Saddam killed more people per rate of time than this war has.
  • anarchytv, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6Just get on a plane or boat, load up your gear, and leave. How did they leave after WW2? How did they leave after Vietnam. Just leave the same way. Take a page from history.
    • silentboom, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Obviously they have chosen to ignore history in this new neocon and Orwellian world.
    • bluto36, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3they are still their asswipe. america has bases in germany japan korea england italy turkey etc etc etc. bring home the WWII troops first then the cold war troops then bosnia then we can talk.

      /did i mention asswipe?
    • oldgal, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1When we left Vietnam, we totally bailed, leaving most of our equipment there. That would be a bad idea in this situation, so it will take longer. Most likely, we first downgrade from an occupational force to an expeditionary force.
  • alpha19, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1way to beat a dead horse...
  • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -6/+7I don't get why we would want to end it when it's near over and we've already went this far. Would we have withdrawn from WW2 in 1944? Do you think that path would have led to more war and greater war? Plus you guys don't account for the fact that one side can't end a war any better than not defending yourself stops people who are fighting you. Why don't you push for a victory, that ends the war and brings it to a conclusion that doesn't lead to more war.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3Are you honestly comparing WWII to Iraq? Seriously?

      Oh, and it's pretty easy to end a war when YOU ARE THE OCCUPYING FORCE.
      • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5It goes for any war, why withdraw right before you win? It is simply illogical. I don't spend two years building a house and then give up and leave right as I'm done, it just doesn't make sense. I would have shed all the sweat from building the house and be left without a house.
        • Jlaugh, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2What makes you think we can win. It's not winnable short of genocide.
          • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Strongest military in the world ever > little ***** head murderers. What makes you think we can loose.
    • Mardala, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1and we stayed in Vietnam because ... oh wait ...
      • masterm1nd, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I'm not sure what your point was and I'm not a history expert, but I'm pretty sure we left and millions died as a result.
  • IMJGalt, on 03/28/2008, -2/+61. Defeat the enemy (radical islamist militants.)
    2. Operate puppet government
    3. Profit
    • PDF84, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I am sensing some satire here.
    • trackerbishop, on 03/28/2008, -3/+31. the enemy wasnt radical or militant until we invaded their land and took their oil. they are only trying to kill us because we are over there killing them, trying to expand our empire, preserve our economic dominance and secure an energy supply. we are the evil ones in this situation, get it?
      • IMJGalt, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3What was that planes flying into buildings thing if not radical?
    • Mardala, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1If you recall the so-called enemy was Al Qaeda. Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. That's until we ***** off the Arab world and spread anti-US ism. Iraq was a political move on behalf of some shady people we have in government. They lied