Political Opinions

Devil, You obviously have a hatred of the current administration that is clouding your interpretation of events. Please read this Clinton speech and rethink your position. Bush really had no choice but to invade Iraq. Like I said, if WMDs were found, he would have been hailed a hero. It was Saddam's WMD bluff for Iran that was the main reason for the invasion. We couldn't wait until our malls, stadiums and subways were filled with sarin gas from Iraq before we acted. Saddam was perceived as a real threat to us by all concerned.

Here's the link. I took out the speech because it was so long. I don't think it is copyrighted though.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... inton.html - 34k -






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote="coalkirk"]Devil, You obviously have a hatred of the current administration that is clouding your interpretation of events. Please read this Clinton speech and rethink your position.

Good evening Coalkirk. I have had a long day & will admit to the possibility of your first line but, since we both admire Winston Churchill, I will leave you with this until tomorrow when I have had a chance to read your entire message:

The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read.
Winston Churchill

Fair enough! Talk with you tommorow.

coalkirk wrote:Fair enough! Talk with you tommorow.

OK.....I got a 2nd wind & because I respect your views, I wanted to take some time to read your entire post & try to be honest with myself in terms of your first statement to the effect that my hatred of this admin is clouding my interpretation of Iraq events.

Why Do I Hate Bush/Cheney

You are quite right & perceptive to say that I hate this administation. "Hate" is a very strong word but it accurately reflects my feelings in this case.
So I have to ask myself......."Self.....why do you hate men that have never done a thing wrong to you or your family & that you have never even met?"
To be honest, I can only guess at the causes of the depth of my ill feelings towards these men, but let me try to free associate as I proceed here:

Definites:
1. I hate hypocrits above all else & I see Bush & Cheney as hypocrits
( 2 priveldged men who avoided Vietnam like the plague but have no aversion to sending our sons & daughters off to a war
that they would never have had the courage to fight in)
2. I have an immediate mistrust of people, born to priviledge who use their family's name/standing to avoid earning respect of their own:
a. Bush got into Yale because he was a legacy (we've all seen Animal House & knows what that means)
b. Bush managed to escape service in Vietnam through his father's intervention
c. Bush was/is so arrogant that he didn't feel the need to even show up for much of his Nat'l Guard service
d. Bush played dirty (Nixonian) tricks on John McCain in the Republican N.Carolina primary that caused McCain to lose that primary to Bush, primarily due to Bush's lies.

(Sorry...This is really dragging along so I guess I am more tired than I thought.... I will push on a bit more & plan on finishing tomorrow but I think you will be pleased when you will see that I have softened my certitude about my position)

Psychological Poosibilities:

I have a feeling that when I look at Bush & Cheney, my feelings towards them may be clouded by memories of people I have known that they remind me of. (We all remember the fat little rich kid on the block that couldn't play sports well, cheated all the time,ran home to tell Mommy about any bad things you had done & yet was somehow smug that his father's sucess in life was somehow his!....That kid)

To be continued........

Devil5052 wrote:(We all remember the fat little rich kid on the block that couldn't play sports well, cheated all the time,ran home to tell Mommy about any bad things you had done & yet was somehow smug that his father's sucess in life was somehow his!....That kid)

Sounds like Hillary

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:(We all remember the fat little rich kid on the block that couldn't play sports well, cheated all the time,ran home to tell Mommy about any bad things you had done & yet was somehow smug that his father's sucess in life was somehow his!....That kid)

Sounds like Hillary

Just for your info (cause it sounds like you think I support Hillary Clinton) I have never liked her because she blows with the political winds. I was a Joe Biden supporter & now support Obama.

Devil5052 wrote:I was a Joe Biden supporter & now support Obama.

So if Hillary is the nominee you will vote republican?

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:I was a Joe Biden supporter & now support Obama.

So you will vote for a republican if Obama doesn't get in?

Tell you what, before McCain became senile, started pandering to the religeous right (that he had disagreed with b4) & backed Bush on the occupation of Iraq (maybe for anothe 100 years he said) I could easily have voted for him. He was an honest, decent & courageous man & just think how much better off this country would be if he had been President for the last seven years. Be honest now.
As far as who I would vote for if Obama isn't the Dem nominee...........I'd have to think about it but I will telll you that anyone would be a vast improvement of the garbage we have in there now!

Let me think out loud here
Hillary-Just wants power & is willing to say/do anything to attain it
McCain-Senile & cant consider him based on his occupation support of Bush
Huckabee- I like alot of what he says but his religeous zeal scares me
Romney- He & Hillary could be siblings. He just wants it too much & will say/do anything, spend a fortun to attain it.
Obama-A bit of an unknown quantity but is self made, appears intelligent & very well spoken, is inspiring & would surprise me to find out he was in the pocket of any special interest.....I'm willing to take a chance on him.

If not Obama I would have to possibly hold my nose, but I would vote for any Democrat because I want us out of Iraq. (a rapid reaction force maintained in Kuwait or Bahrain would be available to go after any terrorists in the area) Continued occupation of Iraq costs us too much in blood & treasure, makes us less safe due to the anti-Americanism it brings throughout the middle east & I want my tax money spent here, in the US on our schools & infrastructure.....Not in Iraq!

Devil5052 wrote:I would vote for any Democrat!

Commander in Chief Hillary Clinton has a ring to it

Devil5052 wrote:(a rapid reaction force maintained in Kuwait or Bahrain would be available to go after any terrorists in the area)

A rapid reaction force is what we have now in Iraq, logistically it would not make sense to deploy from another country.

Devil5052 wrote:makes us less safe due to the anti-Americanism it brings throughout the middle east

And what caused the anti-Americanism of the bombing of the Cole, our embassies abroad, and 9/11? The last I checked Kuwait or Bahrain are in the middle east According to your logic we would have to completely leave the middle east & if your pissed off about high fuel prices now it would be crippling without US presents.

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:I would vote for any Democrat!

Commander in Chief Hillary Clinton has a ring to it

I'll point out that both Hillary Clinton & George Bush have the same exact exposure to combat.....NONE!

Devil5052 wrote:(a rapid reaction force maintained in Kuwait or Bahrain would be available to go after any terrorists in the area)

A rapid reaction force is what we have now in Iraq, logistically it would not make sense to deploy from another country.

Except for the small point that we are being killed in Iraq on a daily basis & wouldn't be hated & targeted if stationed outside Iraq. Additioinaly, a rapid reaction force is comprised of a relatively small force capable of quick reaction. Hardly the 100's of thousands of occupation forces we now have stationed in Iraq.

Devil5052 wrote:makes us less safe due to the anti-Americanism it brings throughout the middle east

And what caused the anti-Americanism of the bombing of the Cole, our embassies abroad, and 9/11? The last I checked Kuwait or Bahrain are in the middle east According to your logic we would have to completely leave the middle east & if your pissed off about high fuel prices now it would be crippling without US presents.

No, you are wrong. Osama Bin Ladin specificaly objected to our presence in Saudi Arabia. But, rather than argue the point, I would be totaly satisfied with a seaborne rapid reaction force from our fleet in international waters-Gulf of Arabia. What's wrong with that idea?

You should get used to the idea that we are never leaving Iraq. We quietly built a number of huge bases there and refurbished a huge air base the Russians abandoned. We are there to stay and anyone (politician) who says otherwise is being dishonest. Hopefully our combat role will diminsh more over time but the US presence in Iraq is more or less permanent. While I'm all in favor of developing alternative energy sources, our economy and indeed the world economy is and will be for a long time, highly oil dependant. We can't afford for some nut job like Ahmadijhad in Iran to choke off the world supply of oil. Like it or not, we need to be the 800lb gorrilla in the region. Hey, I'm doing my part! I haven't burned a single drop of oil this heating season.

Devil5052 wrote:
I'll point out that both Hillary Clinton & George Bush have the same exact exposure to combat.....NONE!

Whats your point?

Devil5052 wrote:a rapid reaction force is comprised of a relatively small force capable of quick reaction.

Quick reaction to what?

Devil5052 wrote:No, you are wrong. Osama Bin Ladin specificaly objected to our presence in Saudi Arabia.

So he doesn't mind us in Iraq?

Devil5052 wrote:I would be totaly satisfied with a seaborne rapid reaction force from our fleet in international waters-Gulf of Arabia. What's wrong with that idea?

Do you think they understand the term "international waters"? Iran doesn't. I got it, we will supply all the terrorists with GPS's to prove we are in international waters.

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:
I'll point out that both Hillary Clinton & George Bush have the same exact exposure to combat.....NONE!

Whats your point?

I think my point is pretty obvioius: Since neither H. Clinton or George Bush have any combat experience, I I dont think either one of them displays good qualification to be CinC. but Hillary is an unknown quantity while George Bush has proven his inabilty to perform that role.

Devil5052 wrote:a rapid reaction force is comprised of a relatively small force capable of quick reaction.

Quick reaction to what?

Reaction to terrorist "actionable" intelligence tips, threats, locations, etc.....Come on now...You know exactly what I meant.

Devil5052 wrote:No, you are wrong. Osama Bin Ladin specificaly objected to our presence in Saudi Arabia.

So he doesn't mind us in Iraq?

What is your point here?? Obviously OBL hates us & wants us dead, but he is merely the crazy figurehead. The people of the middle east in general, are not happy with a US occupying force in Iraq, & want us out . So why stay there when an offshore force will ensure our interests are protected , not cause as much animosity towards the US & is a much easier position to defend militarily?

Devil5052 wrote:I would be totaly satisfied with a seaborne rapid reaction force from our fleet in international waters-Gulf of Arabia. What's wrong with that idea?

Do you think they understand the term "international waters"? Iran doesn't. I got it, we will supply all the terrorists with GPS's to prove we are in international waters.

Much easier to defend a fleet against attack........There aren't many roadside bombs at sea!

coalkirk wrote:You should get used to the idea that we are never leaving Iraq. We quietly built a number of huge bases there and refurbished a huge air base the Russians abandoned. We are there to stay and anyone (politician) who says otherwise is being dishonest. Hopefully our combat role will diminsh more over time but the US presence in Iraq is more or less permanent. While I'm all in favor of developing alternative energy sources, our economy and indeed the world economy is and will be for a long time, highly oil dependant. We can't afford for some nut job like Ahmadijhad in Iran to choke off the world supply of oil. Like it or not, we need to be the 800lb gorrilla in the region. Hey, I'm doing my part! I haven't burned a single drop of oil this heating season.

I certainly hope (& believe) your are wrong about permanent military bases within Iraq. I agree that we will need a military presence in the middle east theater for the forseable future, but why base this presence in a country like Iraq, where we are seen as an occupying force? We can more effectively watch out for our interests & keep peace in the region by keeping a much "lower profile" force in a friendly country or offshore.

Devil5052 wrote:I think my point is pretty obvioius: Since neither H. Clinton or George Bush have any combat experience, I I dont think either one of them displays good qualification to be CinC. but Hillary is an unknown quantity while George Bush has proven his inabilty to perform that role.

So you need combat experience to be commander in chief? Abe Lincoln didn't have any.

Devil5052 wrote:Reaction to terrorist "actionable" intelligence tips, threats, locations, etc.....Come on now...You know exactly what I meant.

Do you really think we are better positioned against the threats you mentioned with a force deployed in another country than where we are now in Iraq? Militarily speaking your idea is, if it wasn't such a serious subject, laughable.

Devil5052 wrote:What is your point here??

You said specifically Saudi Arabia. So now let me get this, if you were Commander in Chief our presents would be down to a few ships in the gulf.

Devil5052 wrote:people of the middle east in general, are not happy with a US occupying force in Iraq

I guess the Iraq people don't have a say? With your logic the Kuwait people don't either or any Arab nation that wants our help.

Devil5052 wrote:There aren't many roadside bombs at sea!