Originally posted by AThousandYoungare you counting joseph lieberman (no military service) as a democrat or as an independent?
First list:
19/31 Democrats
11/39 Republicans
+1/1 Republican for Colin Powell
Second list:
10/49 Democrats
16/49 Republicans
So, our stats now are:
29/80 Democrats
28/89 Republicans
the list shows him as an independent.
how did he do in the recent committee selection?
Originally posted by zeeblebotAs an Independent. I'm just accepting what I am told in these lists and gathering up the data, not evaluating it.
are you counting joseph lieberman (no military service) as a democrat or as an independent?
the list shows him as an independent.
how did he do in the recent committee selection?
Originally posted by zeeblebotI was not there so I don't know. Hence why I said two opposite things.
it does, because a lot of people are saying that without any better evidence than something on the order of "i saw arrakis post it in another thread." but i thought i saw you yourself post just today something like "hell, maybe they did have wmd's", after posting "bush lied".
has anyone come up with a shred of evidence that anything other than the stat ...[text shortened]... ource not rooted in moveon.org, the democratic national committee, or a european bullpen?
As for why we invaded, Bush has said time and again that we could not allow Iraq to become a home for terrorists. What that means is that we need to control Iraq and put pressure on Iran. Plain and simple. Problem with that is that you need to go to war with a better reason than "because we need to control the middle east".
Fact is nobody found any WMD's - they were not there, none, not one, not a hint of one, not part of one, not a picture of one, nothing, nada, zip, zippo, zilch. Yet the greatest military nation on earth (us) with the greatest intelligence gathering capabilities on earth thought he had plenty of them? I find that hard to believe.
But I don't care about the WMD's. I'm just saying he needed a reason to go to war because he saw an opportunity to surround Iran. I would have done the same thing.
Originally posted by TurtlestackI always thought that vengeance for Saddam trying to take out his Dad was a big factor.
I was not there so I don't know. Hence why I said two opposite things.
As for why we invaded, Bush has said time and again that we could not allow Iraq to become a home for terrorists. What that means is that we need to control Iraq and put pressure on Iran. Plain and simple. Problem with that is that you need to go to war with a better reason than " ...[text shortened]... to war because he saw an opportunity to surround Iran. I would have done the same thing.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/1000.html
Originally posted by Turtlestacklook at all that coastline. why does the U.S. NEED an eastern front?
I was not there so I don't know. Hence why I said two opposite things.
As for why we invaded, Bush has said time and again that we could not allow Iraq to become a home for terrorists. What that means is that we need to control Iraq and put pressure on Iran. Plain and simple. Problem with that is that you need to go to war with a better reason than " ...[text shortened]... to war because he saw an opportunity to surround Iran. I would have done the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_topo_en.jpg
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EU_location_GER.png
look at all that coastline. why does the U.S. NEED an eastern front?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_topo_en.jpg
That's the coastline of Germany.
In WWII we surrounded Germany by entering occupied France and drove up north from Africa and Italy. The Russians pressed west towards Berlin. We won.
Now we are not at 'war' with Iran (yet) but by controlling the flow of people (mostly terrorists) in and out of Iran, by building military bases within easy reach of Iran, by surrounding them (and keeping an eye on them) we have them in check.
Originally posted by Turtlestackgermany had one of the greatest military forces in the world at that time. or THE greatest. it took several countries to defeat them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EU_location_GER.png
That's the coastline of Germany.
In WWII we surrounded Germany by entering occupied France and drove up north from Africa and Italy. The Russians pressed west towards Berlin. We won.
Now we are not at 'war' with Iran (yet) but by controlling the flow of people (mostly terrorists) in and ou ...[text shortened]... n easy reach of Iran, by surrounding them (and keeping an eye on them) we have them in check.
what does iran have, besides an active nuclear research program?
Originally posted by zeeblebotThen what you are saying is that there is no strategic importance to occupying Iraq in regard to Iran and that we can better keep a rouge, nuclear (nearly anyway), extremist nation who hates us in check better by sea?
germany had one of the greatest military forces in the world at that time. or THE greatest. it took several countries to defeat them.
what does iran have, besides an active nuclear research program?
I was in the Navy so I am flattered by your confidence in my shipmates but that is not really a logical plan of attack. You need a base of operations on land to direct ground forces that work in conjunction with sea power.
Originally posted by TurtlestackWe're also really, really pissing a lot of people off. People who might be on the fence about whether or not to resort to terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EU_location_GER.png
That's the coastline of Germany.
In WWII we surrounded Germany by entering occupied France and drove up north from Africa and Italy. The Russians pressed west towards Berlin. We won.
Now we are not at 'war' with Iran (yet) but by controlling the flow of people (mostly terrorists) in and ou ...[text shortened]... n easy reach of Iran, by surrounding them (and keeping an eye on them) we have them in check.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAye, there's the rub.
We're also really, really pissing a lot of people off. People who might be on the fence about whether or not to resort to terrorism.
What is more important to us : protecting our interests at home or protecting our image abroad?
If we play nice with the rest of the world by pulling every Jew out of Isreal, closing off all interests in the middle east what would happen? Would extremist nations all of a sudden chill out and be happy? Would Iran stop trying to build a nuclear device? Would they not strangle the supply of oil and force prices up? Would fanatics stop being fanatical?
No they would not. Just as we in America wish to impose our way of life (democracy) on the entire world, they wish to do the same thing. Germany did it and failed. France did it and failed. Spain did it and failed. England did it and failed. We are doing it and one day we will fail too.
But not just yet will we fail because we still hold the most cards. By imposing our will we will create more terrorists, we will incite fanatic behavior from zealots, we will look like a big bully to the rest of the world. But the rest of the world will still be able to carry on business as usual while we run the show.
And that is what it's all about. Business. Create a free market, give people the creature comforts of life and a few bucks in their pocket and they will be content and less likely to go to war with us.
I'm sure there are European nations who would love to drop a few bombs on America but what good would that do? Their way of life would end too. World wide economic depression - war and god knows what else. Not fun times to say the least.
America is just keeping the status quo she built after WWII. We want to be in charge and dictate to the world how things should be and we will continue to do so until we can't do it anymore. It's a bully and arrogant tactic but that's the way things are. We'll pay our price one day for sure and someday Chinese will be the official language of Nebraska 🙂