Americans didn't flock to Canada after Bush win

[BuddyLee]

But voting FOR the war, and then wanting to pull out - it tells me one of two things - they either voted FOR it for political expediency (which means, they're precisely the kind of politician I most despise) or they did it but haven't the cojones to stick with it (for WHATEVER reason).

Here's one more scenario: After 9/11 the country grew greatly patriotic, Bush or any president really could have gotten almost anything they wanted. A vote against the war meant a vote for being unpatriotic at the time IMHO.

Hate him or love him, Bush pretty much does what he says - I just wish he'd veto more spending.

 

[remaxrealtor]

Whatever is needed to show these dolts we're serious.

That's a fact! If the democrats are so gung ho about us getting out of there, then we need to step it up a notch and push the envelope a little more. If we pussy foot around over there, it will just extend time spent there.

 

[BuddyLee]

It's scary how the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty seems to have many loopholes and can be trumped in a split second. Why do we even have this if it is not applied?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Treaty_pillars

 

[ylexot]

Here's one more scenario: After 9/11 the country grew greatly patriotic, Bush or any president really could have gotten almost anything they wanted. A vote against the war meant a vote for being unpatriotic at the time IMHO.

No, you're thinking of Afghanistan. The Iraq vote was much later when that knee-jerk patriotism had faded.

 

[SamSpade]

No, you're thinking of Afghanistan. The Iraq vote was much later when that knee-jerk patriotism had faded.

Even still - to vote to go to war and then rescind the decision is political cowardice. I fully understand the political reality of voting for or against something to protect your azz. Some folks in Washington fully believe that their continued presence in the Congress is all that stands between what IS being done, and what SHOULD be done, and they make compromises to achieve those goals. Vote for my bill, and I'll vote for yours. It sucks, but compromise is about giving up to get something else.

The problem is - far too many make the compromises SOLELY to continue in office. It is ALL about political expediency and survival. If you're the kind of person who continually votes in such a way as to protect your job, you're EXACTLY the kind of weasel who should NEVER hold office - you're the *problem*. You don't have any convictions.

You know, voting for a pork-barrel transporation bill is something I could either vote for, or pass on. But everyone should have moral conviction when it comes to voting for a *WAR*. Lives will be lost. You can't vote your azz when people will be losing theirs. Because going to war is like deciding to raise a child (or maybe, jumping off a cliff) - you can't back out when it is no longer convenient. The time for soul-searching comes BEFORE you commit.

I still feel as I did before - any schmuck who was AGAINST the war but voted for it as a matter of political expediency is a coward and gets no respect from me. Anyone who voted for it, and has since reconsidered and is now against it is an idiot who needs to be replaced by someone who thinks things through past election time.

Anyone who voted against it, and still holds that position - him, I disagree with - but I respect him.

 

[Bruzilla]

I hate to say it, but I think that the biggest political coward of the Iraq war has been George Bush. He's fallen into exactly the same traps that Johnson and Nixon did, and he's redoing all of their mistakes. For example:

1. In order to avoid criticism that we were just there for the oil, Bush makes it pretty much impossible for the US to use Iraqi oil dollars to pay for anything. The result: more criticism that the Iraqis aren't paying more of their share.

2. In order to fight a "nice war" and win hearts and minds, we now have troops in the field who need a lawyer to tell them when it's ok to shoot, and who is ok to shoot at. The result: more criticism as we keep losing troops when we don't need to.

3. We know that Iran and Syria are funneling men, arms, and money into the insurgency, but Bush refuses to take them to task due to fear as being seen as a "war monger." The result: He's already viewed as being a war monger, our troops are getting killed when they shouldn't be, and Syria and Iran are both getting back the prestige and balls they had pre-9/11. They're kind of like when Arafat's compound was first invaded and he was hiding under a table pleding with Powell to save his life. Then after the Israelis promised not to hurt him he was talking tough and yelling for an AK-47 to go confront the devils with. Syria and Iran were quaking in their boots when it looked like they were next on the hit list, then Bush gets scared and backs off and that just enboldens the radicals.

Bush has been dancing to the Democrats' music through this whole war, which wouldn't be so bad if the Democrats were offering up sound advice and not just a "whatever Bush says/does is wrong" stacotto that has Bush doing all the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Bush needs to quit being a coward and press the military for a victory at all costs. Screw the casualty figures, screw the armchair quarterback tactics, and screw what anybody thinks were going to do with the Iraqi's oil, and win the damn war. If only we could bring back George Patton, "Black Jack" Pershing, and Hap Arnold... they could teach folks how to win.

 

[hvp05]

Nuclear Japan?

Found this article posted yesterday for the Times that you may find interesting.

"... the rise of China and North Korea's nuclear ambitions have spurred what is referred to here as 'active pacifism,' or a more pragmatic line on defense."

 

[SamSpade]

Maybe they read THIS:


http://www.nationallampoon.com/nl/08_features/Canada/Canada.asp

 

[hvp05]

"... it's almost impossible to commit a crime here! Check out all the great stuff that you can get away with!"