Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

this is coming from the same party that doesn't want everyone in America to have health care? that is against most bail outs? im all about helping out fellow Americans. the war was, and always will be about oil. and i have no problem with that. but lets not try to kid each other. this war was grossly mismanaged. i have more problem with the thousands in New Orleans, that still have to live in a trailer, then i do with some Iraqi, that would probably prefer to cut my head off. lets get our house in order, before we send trillions elsewhere

this is coming from the same party that doesn't want everyone in America to have health care? that is against most bail outs? im all about helping out fellow Americans. the war was, and always will be about oil. and i have no problem with that. but lets not try to kid each other. this war was grossly mismanaged. i have more problem with the thousands in New Orleans, that still have to live in a trailer, then i do with some Iraqi, that would probably prefer to cut my head off. lets get our house in order, before we send trillions elsewhere

Boy is that ignorant. I'll just leave it at that.

Not only do we owe it to the Iraqi people, but we owe it too the entire Middle East to continue supporting their country. We've fucked up the Middle East for years... and now when we have the chance to rebuild a country and improve the quality of life exponentially, people think it's a good idea to back out?

Sorry, with our track record in the Middle East... we would be doing nothing but continuing a tradition of shitting on countries by getting out. Nothing would be a bigger slap in the face to the Iraqi people than to abandon their country prematurely.

The Middle East needs Iraq to work. In the grand scheme of things, the Iranian people can look up to a successful democracy and see, first hand, what they all want. Most Iranians despise their own government, but they can't do anything about it. I'm not saying they're going to overthrow their government based on the success of Iraq, but just that it will help our cause for peace.

Setting an example in Iraq can have profound affects on neighboring countries. Conversely, if we let them fall back into shambles, the religious extremist gain an entirely new population of disgruntled citizens that hate the United States.

If you can't even tell me who we're fighting in Iraq, then I can't even believe I'm debating with you. I also can't believe you intend to cast a vote in this election. Our main enemy there is Al Qaeda in Iraq and the like-minded fighters that are coming in from Iran and Syria, but we're also there as a peacekeeping force. Without a strong military and police force, Iraq is left in a power vacuum, giving the various ethnic groups a chance to assert themselves by force and thrust the country into civil war. And you're wrong in saying Iraqis don't want us there, the 90% of people in that country who simply want to go to work and protect their families have wanted us there to keep these forces in check. And now, after finally putting enough troops on the ground, we are gradually handing over control to the Iraqi military and police force as they work to keep warring ethnic groups under control.

When speaking of "sunken costs", you are clearly analyzing the situation solely based upon what America is putting into this war, and not thinking one iota about the Iraqis' stake in all of this.

From a moral standpoint, how can you show such little regard for the safety of a people who we left in a power vacuum when we invaded and toppled Saddam? How can you be OK with leaving suddenly, without first ensuring security, after watching your country invade under false pretenses knocking out electricity, commerce, communications, and running water in some spots? How can you talk of sunken costs when our country left their lives in shambles?

We owe it to them to see that their society can successfully quell any uprisings from the crazies at the far end of the political spectrum, who if given the opportunity, will gladly seize power by force.

Bush created this clusterfuck, but don't make it worse by failing to fix it, and that's exactly what Obama would do.


Now you're just bring a water pistol to a gun fight. Give it up on Al-Qaeda and Iran b.s. It's a well know fact that Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the war and we're the only reason they continue to be there. Iraq is nothing more than Al-Qaeda recruiting tool. The gift that keeps giving. Every collateral damage results in a fresh recruit. Iraqis can deal with them and probably more effectively than we ever can.


I care about the people I don't think it's continued cost justifies staying there. The fucking thing is a clusterfuck as you put it and there's no end in sight unless the issue is forced. I believe McCain captured some of my sentiments quite well...I give you the brilliant and honorable Mr. McCain.

Ajm5JTf7jZs

Back on topic. Palin sure is a reformer. Fox New's Chris Wallace doing his job:

hG7WGVmVl-4

Did you listen to what he said?

He's telling you what could happen if we left right now, essentially arguing that the cost of leaving would be greater in the long run than the cost for staying. I remember watching this on meet the press and completely agreeing with what he had to say.

Yes, I got the message that it's not really about the people (display of hypocrisy is sickening). They couldn't project the cost of entering and they keep telling us we're making progress and we're winning for the last 5 years and now I'm to take this dipshit's word on the cost of staying vs leaving? What is the cost of leaving? And can we continue to stall that cost or stop incurring that cost all together?

Cried wolf too many times...red card...unsportsmanlike like conduct warranting an ejection...strike 3...you're out!

ULyka2Bfp04

Some serious humor:

VKwesxb83c4

Eneq0jcMlTw

Now you're just bring a water pistol to a gun fight. Give it up on Al-Qaeda and Iran b.s. [B]It's a well know fact that Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the war and we're the only reason they continue to be there. Iraq is nothing more than Al-Qaeda recruiting tool.

1. "Al-Qeada in Iraq", the movement Schneed identified, is not bin-laden's "Al-Qeada". Rather it is a pre-existing Sunni extremist group that declared its allegiance to bin-laden after a new Iraqi govt. was established. By all accounts, this group has steadily lost credibility and recruits since the surge.

The gift that keeps giving. Every collateral damage results in a fresh recruit. Iraqis can deal with them and probably more effectively than we ever can.

True earlier in the war. Again, however, every report out of Iraq lately is that the pendulum has swung and the populous is now viewing the extremists as just that and it is their intransigence and commitment to violence that is driving the populous away.

At some point, people realize that the extremists have no solution but violence and see that the cycle of violence can only be broken(and thus the collateral damage stop) by coming up with non-violent solutions. The US and the Iraqi govt. are open to non-violent solutions, AQI is not. As the US shows that it is not opposed to peace and prosperity for Iraqis (and, in fact, is actually striving for that end), Iraqis and other Arabs see that and realize who is actually causing the violence.

Been out drinking and hanging out in the sun all day so this post probably makes no sense. Just pointing out that the Al-queada connection implied by Saden was wrong. Flame away.

1. "Al-Qeada in Iraq", the movement Schneed identified, is not bin-laden's "Al-Qeada". Rather it is a pre-existing Sunni extremist group that declared its allegiance to bin-laden after a new Iraqi govt. was established. By all accounts, this group has steadily lost credibility and recruits since the surge.



True earlier in the war. Again, however, every report out of Iraq lately is that the pendulum has swung and the populous is now viewing the extremists as just that and it is their intransigence and commitment to violence that is driving the populous away.

At some point, people realize that the extremists have no solution but violence and see that the cycle of violence can only be broken(and thus the collateral damage stop) by coming up with non-violent solutions. The US and the Iraqi govt. are open to non-violent solutions, AQI is not. As the US shows that it is not opposed to peace and prosperity for Iraqis (and, in fact, is actually striving for that end), Iraqis and other Arabs see that and realize who is actually causing the violence.

Been out drinking and hanging out in the sun all day so this post probably makes no sense. Just pointing out that the Al-queada connection implied by Saden was wrong. Flame away.

You speak for Schneed now?

Oh, I see now, the Iraqi Al-Qeada branch isn't really part of the bin -Laden franchise. They really existed in Iraq before as some other group and were plotting to kill Americans. After we invaded Iraq they joined Al-Qeada family but that really wasn't because of us, they were planning to do it anyways.

If everything is so cool and nice, why not pickup and leave? I get it, we've made progress but not enough to hand over the country yet. It's getting better by the day though. We just have to stick to it even if we have to pay people off and setup a puppet corrupt government.

If I'm wrong I fail to see the wrong turn I took. I think you might want to re-read my earlier post. It's pretty clear, reasoned, and self explanatory.