Story Comments
Posted by: Goppy 10 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
89%
Goppy10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He better. The Iraq war is one of the most tragic blunders in our nation's history.
Reply
Let me repeat.
THE IRAQ WAR IS ONE OF THE MOST TRAGIC BLUNDERS IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY.
I believe if Obama backs down from his campaign pledge - it will say that "he went to Washington to Washington and Washington changed him."
The Iraq war is a stain on our nation - and it must be eradicated.
It is the very symbol of Presidential FRAUD and DUPLICITY ... of massive CYNICISM and IDEOLOGICAL PERVERSION.
We need to extricate ourselves ... to regain our Moral Standing ... and apply a salve our national conscience.
.-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
20%
jimdoze10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"THE IRAQ WAR IS ONE OF THE MOST TRAGIC BLUNDERS IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY"
Reply
You could not be more wrong, Goppy.
If Obama fully draws down American combat troops in 16 months, he will bring us to the brink and very likely into world war. He will succeed in opening southern Iraq to Iran, which will force the Kurds to go independent, which will in turn bring the Turks into northern Iraq to crush the Kurds and take the northern oilfields. The resulting warfare would have a very high probability of closing the Persian Gulf thereby pushing the world economy off a cliff. The resulting worldwide surge in economic nationalism would virtually guarantee widespread war.
The lack of strategic foresight that such moves speak to is beyond naive.
The underlying amorality of risking such a move is breathtaking. But, Goppy, I am sure it all will still serve to salve your grade school conception of "Moral Standing".-
galletta6121Comment removed: Spam
-
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't get do you? It is not whether the generals will obey the orders but whose head it falls on if they do and disaster looms. But liberals do not care what happens to the people of Iran. They only want to rant about how many deaths there have been over there.
Reply -
94%
Goppy10 months, 1 week ago
-
23%
jimdoze10 months, 1 week ago
-
94%
jovial10 months, 1 week ago
-
-
0%
jimdoze10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I condemn torture and I rebuke all those who were involved and knew.
Reply
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."-
17%
jimdoze10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jovial, quit trying to put words in my mouth. I never claimed to be bipartisan. I know you are trying to paint me into a corner. But, I have no reason to go into that corner. I did not condemn "every democrat I could think of". Again, you have tried to put words in my mouth. You come from a world that fervently hoped that this issue would somehow de-legitimize Bush and Cheney. Quite simply, it didn't and it doesn't.
Reply -
89%
jovial10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice sidestep, but you didn't answer the question as it pertains to Bush and Cheney.You said this about 2 months ago according to jovial's wayback machine...
Reply
"Of course, I have not "tried to tear down our Democracy with illegal torture and massive theft. Nor has the current administration." Bush was President at that time. Continue explaining.-
17%
jimdoze10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I repeat, "Of course, I have not "tried to tear down our Democracy with illegal torture and massive theft. Nor has the current administration."
Reply
If you really, in your heart, think that Bush and Cheney tried to tear down our Democracy in any way, Jovial, you are truly being silly in my estimation. Frankly, I think your sense of "moral outrage" is primarily political in its motivation.
Beyond that, I am at a loss as to what you are fishing for.-
90%
jovial10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't like people claiming to be objective and bipartisan when they are saying something else when they are in a different forum. You said the administration was not guilty of torture in one forum, and now you're trying to justify it by saying Pelosi approved of it. Then you say you condemn it, but you stop short of condemning Bush and Cheney. You trot out every Democrat that you can think of and condemn only those people. It's hypocritical, but it's what i come to expect.
Reply
-
-
-
25%
jimdoze10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If, in 2003, you were being scared out of your wits by someone talking of "Iraqi missiles pointed at our country", Jovial, you are sillier than I thought.
Reply
When was the last time you heard Rush Limbaugh or Fox News say anything that i have said here. You haven't. So I'd suggest you be a little more careful about the brush you paint with.-
-
FrauBlucherComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor jovial. What was permitted is not defined as torture. If you notice Obama didn't change anything. He signed a presidential order that on the surface says it but on closer inspection only applies to Gitmo where it these things never took place. Oh Great Obama does it again.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, Ill help you do something called "research", go to google, (www.google.com in case you are truly lost) enter waterboarding torture. You can have your pick of over 796,000 articles that talk about it. Be clueless is one thing continually proclaiming it for all to see is another.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14%
jimdoze10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If that be the case, then they are much smarter and strategically wiser than I thought. I don't listen to Rush and I far prefer watching History or Discovery Channel to O'Reilly.
Reply
While I don't live in a vacuum, I prefer to think on my own.
-
-
95%
Beau789010 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If that's your argument, jim, then you admit Goppy's point that it was a huge strategic blunder to depose Saddam, who was able to keep all those competing forces in line. Right? After all, we wouldn't now be faced with two horrible choices, if we'd never gone in. Right?
Reply
You didn't happen to support "regime change" back in 2003--or earlier, did you?-
90%
jovial10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Jim,
Reply
It appears Limbaugh and O'reilly from Foxnews have similar views to yours, or am I wrong. If I'm wrong please show me how your views differ.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410120004
-
-
6%
jimdoze10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, Beau, it was not a strategic blunder at all. Saddam was not going to live forever and the vacuum, in our absence, that would have been created by his demise, would have produced the same strategic dynamic that leaving now will produce.
Reply
Back in 2003, we were faced with re-arming Saddam, allowing him to re-arm himself or taking him out. Re-arming him or allowing him to re-arm himself might have been preferable to the Realpolitikers here. However, I submit that would have been the height of moral vacancy coupled with strategic idiocy.
Beau, Realpolitik during the cold war was strategically necessary and, as such, had at least some moral underpinnings. You would have to go a very long way to convince me that it was anywhere near strategically appropriate in Iraq... and, it certainly was not morally appropriate.-
-
87%
jovial10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Back in 2003, we the people, weren't given those three choices. We were being scared out of our wits that Iraq had missiles pointed at our country that could hit us at will within minutes. So spare me, we were there too. and all of us didn't listen to Limbaugh and Fox news.
Reply-
100%
wtagg10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The assertion was Iraq had obtained or was attempting to obtain the materials to create either a nuclear weapon or a 'dirty bomb" in violation of the treaty Saddam signed to end the first Gulf War."
Reply
Which have been proven patently false many times over. Using your lie'o'meter, the admin lied to us. -
-
-
20%
Endoscopy10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suggest you dig out history books of the world. Point out to us the times where there were no wars. An ideal world would have none. We do not live in an ideal world. There are always those who think that they have the right to take what does not belong to them. Just look at the conquerors in history. Look at what Islam conquered. The problem in the middle east is the terrorists believe that Sharia law must be in place where ever Islam has ever conquered. Some of them are talking about getting Spain back. Islam believes that they are to conquer the world. The devout only differ as to the means.
Reply
What is your answer to these type of problems? Roll over and play dead, fight them here, or fight them elsewhere?
-
-
-
100%
dunkirk10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, party line over country again. Seems NONE of that would be a what-if, if some President didnt invade based on lies and manipulated intel. Kinda odd how you left that out. AND I do love the sky is falling scenario you;re painting considering the Iraq's dont want us there.
Reply -
-
0%
galletta612110 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HERES WHAT YOUR COMMUNIST OBAMA HAS IN MIND !
Reply
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition. A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
“The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself.” the spokesman said, “At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution.”
The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.
“Technically, we can’t talk about it before it becomes official policy.” the spokesman continued. “However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass.”
Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.
“The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.”
“We expect a lot of flak over this,” the classified memo continues. “But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control.”
The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/militar...
Reply
From the source of the story....
"Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Conservative News and Reporting
"News for the Rest of Us"
Michele Chang
NOTE: This article is, in fact, a satire piece."-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/oath.asp
Reply
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned8 Replies
-
100%
jovial10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was Blair that said it and Bush backed up this nonsense to build up the case for the U.N. It was being broadcast over here as well as over there.
Reply
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/launchchemicalwa... -
100%
Beau789010 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, in 2003, we had another choice, which was to continue doing what we had been doing before that--enforcing the UN no-fly zones and containing Saddam. That's a different alternative to the ones you listed--we could have avoided re-arming him, allowing him to re-arm, or taking him out.
Reply
And now your argument seems to be, since Saddam would have died eventually, we needed to hasten it along in order to cause the situation we wanted to prevent, the one in which we now find ourselves. You have no idea how Saddam might have prepared for a transfer of power in the event of his demise--which was by no means anywhere close--but he did show us he always prepared for eventualities. (And in a much better way than our commander-in chief did.)
In any case, Saddam was nearing his 66th birthday when we attacked, and there's no evidence to suggest he was in failing health at the time.
Every time you're faced with justifying the decision to invade Iraq, you do the same thing so many on the right did in 2003--you shift rationales to suit the argument against you.
You said we were faced with one of only three choices, all of which would result in a power struggle there, when in fact we had others that wouldn't have involved the carnage we've inflicted. Now you say we're the only thing keeping counterforces Saddam had under control in check, though we actively gave those counterforces their opportunities to enter the country.
You say it was not morally appropriate to allow Saddam to live--he was brutal to his people. Then you defend our acts of torture there, and the "collateral damage" we've caused millions of civilians during the war we started.
(And before you tell me you didn't defend torture, you did defend the treatment of prisoners we took there that has been considered by our own government torture when used against our troops in the past.)
You've also said in previous discussions we've had that we needed to control Iraq's oil. But we're reaping no benefit from that at this point--that control is in the hands of western oil companies, and does not appear to have affected the market for oil favorably.
You often complain about left-wing realpolitik. What do you call brutally taking Saddam out and causing tremendous collateral damage while destroying Iraq's infrastructure in order to provide ourselves a favorable government there, if not realpolitik? What do you call pretending to take the moral high ground while going after control of Iraqi oil, if not realpolitik?
For that matter, what do you call the bargains we made with General Musharraf in Pakistan, the payments we make to warlords in Waziristan, and those we gave to Muslim clerics we'd ordinarily call enemies in Iraq to stave off violence against our troops if not realpolitik?
-
-
0%
crghss10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"put Saddam in power by suppplying him with chemical weapons & helped him overthrow the democratically elected pro American Shah as well."
Reply
Sorry but this is to funny. The government in Iraq was not democratically elected when Saddam removed the guy in front of him and took power. The Ba'athist took over in a coup and Saddam was second in command to Abdul Rahman Arif. After a few years Saddam removed him.
The chemicals sold to Iraq could have been used for a great many things including medicine.
-
-
100%
orndorffter10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You bet ya grandpa, Ito think Obama is making the right call. He wont back down, thet thought that Obama would be a puppet for them, so far his standing up and is none of their puppets.I have the faith every american should have that our President is and well do what he promised, This country needs some one who cares and that person is President Obama.I have no dault in my mind, Obama is going to put America and her people back where we were at one time. The great country America.
Reply -
100%
cowboygrandpa10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jovial:
Reply
Thanks for the invite.
First of all, all we have accomplished by being in Iraq is the continued wasting of tax payer dollars for a lie.
This has cost us far to many innocent lives,in Iraq and here at home. We are taking funding away from where it will do the most good and putting in the hands of terrorists on both sides of the conflict.
No matter how long we stay we will not change what is going to happen. All we are doing is weakening ourselves; financially, morally, bodily, while splitting the people of this nation into two waring camps.
We entered the war on false premises and have continued to fight it knowing we are fighting based on a lie. Any wonder we are having so many problems.
I say get out, pull the troops back into a surrounding area where they will be a strike force ready to intervene if needed.
We better be watching Russia and Iran, as well as the other war like nations in the region. If we continue to waste our resources on Iraq we will not have the resources necessary for the real deal when it comes down.
Just my take on it. But Obama is making the right call.
As an aside we better start focusing on securing the borders of this nation. And I am not speaking of only the Mexican border, we have many Rusians in this country illegally as well as Chinese,Pakistanis,... My point being we do not know who is here to harm us, or make a better living for themselves.-
0%
Endoscopy10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There goes cowboygrandpa touting another liberal lie.
Reply
"First of all, all we have accomplished by being in Iraq is the continued wasting of tax payer dollars for a lie. "
Why did we go to war?
1. Hussein was refusing to allow the inspectors free reign.
2. The UN made mandate after mandate telling Hussein to comply.
3. One of the mandates said that member countries were asked to enforce the mandate.
4. There was credible intelligence that there were WMD's.
4a. The Kurds were gas attacked.
4b. Spy in the eye showed trucks pulling up to and leaving places that the inspectors were delayed from inspecting.
5. 22 other countries went in with our troops.
6. Over 500 WMD's were found along with tons of yellow cake. The WMD's were not in good repair for lack of maintenance so the liberals ignore them.
Why all the lies from the left about this?-
100%
Will131310 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and the yellowcake was known to have been there.. it was under IAEA seal BEFORE the first Gulf War.. and it was virtually harmless...
Reply
WMD's not in good repair.. when your gun doesn't fire and malfunctions.. don't you then just have a club.... certainly not a threat.. and that one is the one that got Rick Santorium.. voted out.. .. all except the right wing loony toons realized that one was just plain crazy.....
yes they were there.. but they were totally deteriorated.. chemical and biological agents have a very short shelf life... -
100%
cowboygrandpa10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo:
Reply
You obviously missed Bushes own take of the mistake of Iraq. The lies that led us there. He truly regrets putting us there I believe. I think he sees the morass he has put this country into.
But hey don't let a little thing like the truth and logic get in your way. They haven't before why start now ??? LOL
I'm really tired of your left rants !!!! Now I could call you a right wing lunatic and all it does is inflame the rhetoric.
In fact I apologize for doing that in the past. It is not the right thing to do. I do not agree with your views and believe you are wrong. But to attack your beliefs is a show of weakness on my part. So please accept my apology for the attacks of your beliefs.
As for your reasons we attacked Iraq. Could we not be attacked for possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction and being seen as having no regard for the sanctity of other nations rights to have weapons to defend themselves????
I mean because we did not like Sadam Husseins rules we have no right to go over and try and enforce ours.
You can say they wanted to destroy Israel, they wanted to take the world hostage with their oil. Blah Blah Blah .......
The bottom line is almost every nation in the world hates Israel, but Israel is protected by God. He will only allow what He will allow to happen. As far as the oil has not God put hooks into the mouthes of nations drawing us into war over where He said there would be wars and rumors of wars.
It just seems funny to me that Christians cannot see what is happening. We cannot stop it but we surely don't have to support it. Remember that in war innocents get killed, if you support the killing of innocents you have that blood on your hands as well.
How funny you will decry abortion as an act of murder, yet applaud the wholesale destruction of mothers,children, babies, dads, grandparents,pregnant women ...
I too am against abortion, war is abortion of mankind. We are aborting the innocent with guilty the aged with the unborn.
The last righteous war was WWII all the others since then have been for political and financial gain.
Go to war and see if you don't see the insanity differently.
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
engineer
BronxBomber
cushi
jordan11
greenmac
ADAGUY
jovial
globalwarmer
Spadecaller
Beau7890
fsev41
Will1313
crespi
dunkirk
onlyonesecret
GWHayduke
DenCuddy
cowboygrandpa
the_heat
Progressive
Republicrat1844
FrauBlucher
BBcamaro
jimdoze
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.