Originally posted by zeeblebotYou can't convince the American people to go to war because you want to control the middle east. Nobody would support that and we'd toss out the President for even saying it. You need a better reason than imperialism to go to war these days. WMD's was perfect because after 9-11 everyone was scared to death. WMD's allowed Bush to implement his plan to move into the middle east.
or maybe he went into iraq, supported by congress, because iraq said they were complying with inspections but actually were giving them the run-around. like, over and over.
has the IAEA had any successes? do they compare with their failures?
Originally posted by TurtlestackI agree with you on Iraq. It was about shaping the middle east. We can't do that from here. By removing the Taliban and Saddam, we removed Irans two biggest enemies, but we put ourselves on their east and west. And yes, Iran is a threat to the middle east also. Even the Saudis realize it and now that Iran is making more noise, the house of Saud is standing up against them quietly. Saud is Sunni and Iran is Shia. Syria is controlled by their Shia majority. Both Iran and Syria fund Hamas, and now Saud is funding Fatah. In some ways the Palestinian civil war is turning into a proxy war. That's why Bush is backing Fatah also.
Caution - Reading ahead 🙂
Let's say Gore (a democrat) had took office. What would the world be like right now? We probably would have invaded Afghanistan no matter who was in office but what about Iraq?
I believe Bush invaded Iraq for the simple reason that it allows the USA to set up a government it can control right in the heart of the middle e ...[text shortened]... ave to make a choice and immediatly following that choice comes the consequence.
Saudi Arabia is also increasing their oil production capacity. I think its to offset future decrease in Iranian production.
Little known fact, Fallon is 62, that's retirement age, (can be extended to 64) yet he is being move from PACCOM to CENTCOM. Doesn't make any sense until we get to the even lessor known fact that after commanding a carrier in the Gulf during Desert Storm, he did some shore duty (not sure exactly what) in Saudi Arabia. Trust is a mojor issue in Saudi Arabia, and I will net the move is because they know and trust him. We already know they trust the Bush family. The pieces are aligning a little too well for it to be coincidence.
You can bet that Saudi Arabia has already signed on with what happens in regards to Iran. Iran is their enemy, they would be happy to see the radical Shia out of power.
Originally posted by TurtlestackSaddam never even told his own generals that he didn't have WMD until 2 weeks before the war. Even the generals in Iraq thought they had them.
You can't convince the American people to go to war because you want to control the middle east. Nobody would support that and we'd toss out the President for even saying it. You need a better reason than imperialism to go to war these days. WMD's was perfect because after 9-11 everyone was scared to death. WMD's allowed Bush to implement his plan to move into the middle east.
Almost everyone thought they had them. Saddam was happen to let that stand because it was good way to keep Iran guessing. He probably should have tried to reach an agreement with say, Blair to see if he could secretly reassure him that he didn't have them. Maybe some inspections that nobody knew about or something. Blair probably could have talked to Bush then. I think it was more about the turf than the weapons, so I doubt it would have done much good. Still, I would think he would prefer to take a chance at having a heartbeat over constant bluster.
Originally posted by MerkWe knew he did not have WMD's. We just needed a reason to invade Iraq and Saddam was ripe for the taking. Bush fabricated the entire thing to get us into the war and into the middle east. Now nobody in power will admit to that because what he did was illegal but it's a moot point because we have bigger fish to fry than WMD's and Saddam. Saddam was never a real threat, not like his next door neighbor Iran.
Saddam never even told his own generals that he didn't have WMD until 2 weeks before the war. Even the generals in Iraq thought they had them.
Almost everyone thought they had them. Saddam was happen to let that stand because it was good way to keep Iran guessing. He probably should have tried to reach an agreement with say, Blair to see if he could secretly r ...[text shortened]... l, I would think he would prefer to take a chance at having a heartbeat over constant bluster.
Originally posted by Merk"Well known fact"? Hmm. Got anything besides empty claims to offer? I've met a few military men. All Democrats.
This list of course tries to make the donks have more veterans claim without mentioning the well known fact that the majority of military personnel vote Republican.
But that won't stop the moonbats on this site from parading this silly list all around the left-o-sphere.
Originally posted by TurtlestackAnd there's another Democratic veteran.
The majority of names on both the Dem and Rep list are well known names who can easily be found in the papers on any given day. I agree that the list is selective but posting the complete list would be a chore. The spirit of the list is interesting in that there has always been the appearance that senators won't send their own sons to war (there was a fa ...[text shortened]... f the same old crap for the next four years if neither party is willing to work together.
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhen you only have one set of data to work with, then that's what you have to work with. There are people on both sides with agendas yet I only see one list. Why is that? Are the Republicans just lazy or was the original poster right?
here are two lists.
probably created by someone or a group of someones with an agenda.
how, then, do you extrapolate that they show a proportion of anything?
if they were complete or statistically derived, you could say that.
are they?
Originally posted by TurtlestackI agree that Saddam was a red herring. Iraq wasn't the goal, it was a way to get there.
We knew he did not have WMD's. We just needed a reason to invade Iraq and Saddam was ripe for the taking. Bush fabricated the entire thing to get us into the war and into the middle east. Now nobody in power will admit to that because what he did was illegal but it's a moot point because we have bigger fish to fry than WMD's and Saddam. Saddam was never a real threat, not like his next door neighbor Iran.
Not that I want to argue the WMD point, (because I agree that they weren't the issue) but the meeting between Saddam and his generals when he told them he had no WMD is documented. I don't know if you're the book type, but Gen. Bernard Trainor mentions it in Cobra II.
He couldn't possibly fabricate Iraqi non compliance with inspectors. Could he?
Originally posted by MerkWho knows why he didn't just let the inspectors into Iraq. Maybe it was just pride? He's dead now and we may never know the real reason. He very well may have wanted Iran to think he had WMD's. Hell, he may have had them after all and they were smuggled out during the war by American soldiers so that we could use them against Syria but make it look like terrorism. Anything is possible I guess.
I agree that Saddam was a red herring. Iraq wasn't the goal, it was a way to get there.
Not that I want to argue the WMD point, (because I agree that they weren't the issue) but the meeting between Saddam and his generals when he told them he had no WMD is documented. I don't know if you're the book type, but Gen. Bernard Trainor mentions it in Cobra II.
He couldn't possibly fabricate Iraqi non compliance with inspectors. Could he?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungScientifically speaking, working with data that's known to represent only a minute percentage of the group being studied while throwing out other data, is massively deficient. Everyone knows that the military votes majority republican.
When you only have one set of data to work with, then that's what you have to work with. There are people on both sides with agendas yet I only see one list. Why is that? Are the Republicans just lazy or was the original poster right?
Its not that the other side is lazy, its that they don't care. At least that's the case with me.
What do you want to find out anway? If there's more veteran donk congressmen than pub? You can search away if you want, but I am going to assume that the donks have more veterans in congress. If you only care about a specific subset of the 2 parties, dig away. I think you'll like the results you find.
My point is that if one party has more veterans in congress than the other, it doesn't matter to me. I also don't think congress is a large enough or random enough sample pool to make a conclusion about the parties in general. Especially with existing evidence to the contrary.
But, like I said, if you just want to find out about congress, there's nothing wrong with that. Everyone needs to satisfy a little curiosity now and then.
Originally posted by Merk"...data that's known to...Everyone knows that..."
Scientifically speaking, working with data that's known to represent only a minute percentage of the group being studied while throwing out other data, is massively deficient. Everyone knows that the military votes majority republican.
Its not that the other side is lazy, its that they don't care. At least that's the case with me.
What do you want to f re's nothing wrong with that. Everyone needs to satisfy a little curiosity now and then.
Known? Prove it. Maybe you're mistaken. You can't know unless you actually look it up. Maybe you're making unfounded assumptions.
I went to college and studied science. I know that statements like "everyone knows that..." are meaningless. Scientists work with hard data, not what one person thinks "everyone knows".
Talk to the people I grew up with and you'll find that "everyone knows that" all Republicans are corrupt and evil. Guess that means it's true by your logic.
Do you think scientists throw out data because "everyone knows" the conclusion must be different than what their data suggests? You don't seem to know much about science.
"while throwing out other data"
What data's been thrown out? Please, show us. Otherwise don't make such claims of intellectual dishonesty. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not going to provide you with an internet link to a website because I don't care which party has more veterans.
"...data that's known to...Everyone knows that..."
Known? Prove it. Maybe you're mistaken. You can't know unless you actually look it up. Maybe you're making unfounded assumptions.
I went to college and studied science. I know that statements like "everyone knows that..." are meaningless. Scientists work with hard data, not what one person think ...[text shortened]... uch claims of intellectual dishonesty. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
As for the common knowledge, perhaps its common to everyone that isn't you.
If you really insist on having "hard data", maybe you could find some for yourself. An easy place to start would be with overseas ballets from U.S. military.
Is it accepted in science now to simply assume an outcome, dig up some evidence to support the desired results, cobble together a narrative and declare the hypothesis proven?
I'm done with this sillyness now. Bother someone else with whatever it is you are trying to say.
The Republicans take the Senate - at least in the "served in the Military" department
Republicans
Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN) - no
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO) - no
Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT) - a chaplain in the Army National Guard from 1957 to 1969
Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO) - no
Brownback, Sam- (R - KS) - no
Bunning, Jim- (R - KY) - no
Burr, Richard- (R - NC) - no
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA) - no
Coburn, Tom- (R - OK) - no
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS) - United States Navy (1959-1961)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN) - no
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME) - no
Corker, Bob- (R - TN) - no
Cornyn, John- (R - TX) - no
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID) - Idaho National Guard from 1970 to 1972
Crapo, Mike- (R - ID) - no
DeMint, Jim- (R - SC) - no
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC) - no
Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM) - no
Ensign, John- (R - NV) - no
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY) - Wyoming Air National Guard from 1967 to 1973
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC) - United States Air Force
Grassley, Chuck- (R - IA) - no
Gregg, Judd- (R - NH) - no
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE) - U.S. Army, Vietnam War veteran
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT) - no
Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) - no
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK) - United States Army
Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA) - Georgia Air National Guard
Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ) - no
Lott, Trent- (R - MS) - no
Lugar, Richard G.- (R - IN) - United States Navy
Martinez, Mel- (R - FL) - no
McCain, John- (R - AZ) - United States Navy, Vietnam War veteran
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY) - no
Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK) - no
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS) - U.S. Marine Corps
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL) - Army Reserve
Shelby, Richard C.- (R - AL) - no
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR) - no
Snowe, Olympia J.- (R - ME) - no
Specter, Arlen- (R - PA) - United States Air Force
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK) - Army Air Forces - WWII veteran
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH) - no
Thomas, Craig- (R - WY) - United States Marine Corps
Thune, John- (R - SD) - no
Vitter, David- (R - LA) - no
Voinovich, George V.- (R - OH) - no
Warner, John- (R - VA) - United States Navy, WWII veteran
Total: 16 of 49
Served in war: 4
Democrats
Akaka, Daniel K.- (D - HI) - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WWII veteran
Baucus, Max- (D - MT) - no
Bayh, Evan- (D - IN) - no
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE) - no
Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM) - no
Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA) - no
Brown, Sherrod- (D - OH) - no
Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV) - no
Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA) - no
Cardin, Benjamin L.- (D - MD) - no
Carper, Thomas R.- (D - DE) - U.S. Navy, Viet Nam veteran
Casey, Robert P., Jr.- (D - PA) - no
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY) - no
Conrad, Kent- (D - ND) - no
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D - CT) - U.S. Army Reserve
Dorgan, Byron L.- (D - ND) - no
Durbin, Richard- (D - IL) - no
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI) - no
Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA) - no
Harkin, Tom- (D - IA) - United States Navy
Inouye, Daniel K.- (D - HI) - United States Army, WWII veteran
Johnson, Tim- (D - SD) - no
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA) - U.S. Army
Kerry, John F.- (D - MA) - U.S. Navy, Viet Nam veteran
Klobuchar, Amy- (D - MN) - no
Kohl, Herb- (D - WI) - United States Army Reserve
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA) - no
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ) - United States Army Signal Corps, WWII veteran
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D - VT) - no
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)- no
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D - AR) - no
McCaskill, Claire- (D - MO) - no
Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ) - no
Mikulski, Barbara A.- (D - MD) - no
Murray, Patty- (D - WA) - no
Nelson, Bill- (D - FL) - U.S. Army Reserves
Nelson, E. Benjamin- (D - NE) - no
Obama, Barack- (D - IL) - no
Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR) - no
Reed, Jack- (D - RI) - U.S. Army
Reid, Harry- (D - NV) - no
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV) - no
Salazar, Ken- (D - CO) - no
Schumer, Charles E.- (D - NY) - no
Stabenow, Debbie- (D - MI) - no
Tester, Jon- (D - MT) - no
Webb, Jim- (D - VA) - U.S. Marine Corps, Viet Nam veteran
Whitehouse, Sheldon- (D - RI) - no
Wyden, Ron- (D - OR) - no
Total: 10 of 49
Served in war: 5
Independent
Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID - CT) - no
Sanders, Bernard- (I - VT) - no
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm actually surprised Thousand young that you would support such a stupid post.
You're welcome to provide the rest of the data to show us that the list is not representative of the parties as a whole. Or do you just like to criticise?
If you would actually lok at the list, I'd say roughly 75 names are on the list. And of the names on said list are people who are no longer in these political offices. I mean really you can't get more bias than this list. Now really if it were a republican post you would be shredding like an Erron executive.
Hell I really don't know what kind of out come you would get if you would actually bother to tally up both current parties milliatary backgrounds. Maybe some had legitimate reasons, I mean could you hold it against FDR that he never served in the millitary like his republican hero of a cousin Teddy?
or even I wonder about the outcome if you took every politcian who was ever elected (even just the national govn't) sice the founding of the two parties.
And also can you compare such departments in the millitary such as an army reserve or some one in the army but as a news reporter these people probably faced considerably less danger than you typical "grunt"
You seem to forget a point that you usually fight to try and make. Many of these people from "both" sides have rich mommys and daddys who gave them a silver spoon, and had very powerful friends. And now adays its almost a text book practice to atleast serve in some branch of the military. And its probbaly not hard why you have parents with big connections to stay out of harms way.
But as for providing a list of people and there military sevice I will try to find one for us because I am just as interested as you.