KaskadskyjKozak

Yeah, right. The opponents of this war opposed the number of soldiers that were sent as it was. And the cost would have been greater too - "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". I deleted a bunch of stuff that I actually agree with - and you didn't get in to hysterics, so you never lost me. :-) Yes we do. We are there to fill the vacuum left by Hussein, with a stable, pro-American (quasi)democracy (little d). It's part of a geo-political strategy in that region, which will pressure the governments of Iran and Syria to move in the same direction. I'm not saying this will work, but that is why we are there at this point. Nope. I wouldn't agree with that part at all. As for the war, just to be clear of where I stand. I only supported it based on the premise of an "imminent threat". There was no imminent threat, so hindsight, I have to say that going in there in the first place was unjustified and wrong. But, let's spread the blame here - Saddam didn't help his case much. You don't play chicken with a hawkish administration after the largest terrorist attack against the US ever. I also must say that I have problems with the growth of presidential power to deploy military forces without a declaration of war. This precedent was terrible to set, and has been exercised far too many times since WWII. I would prefer some type of constitutional amendment to prevent this in the future. And again, the blame is to share here. Congress is run by a bunch of self-serving cowards who simultaneously don't want to be on record for voting *for* a declaration of war, *nor* voting against funding military operations like this. enjoy your evening folks... I'm outta here.

You've got to be kidding! We bend over backwards not to violate human rights and cater to the sensitivies of our islamic opponents. In WWII we called the Germans Krauts and the Japanese Japs, and didn't bat an eye. Human rights? We interned 1000s of US *citizens*, confiscating their properties and depriving them of their rights. On the battlefield, there were incidents of what today would be called war crimes (shooting prisoners who surrender, knocking out teeth, you name it). In WWII we executed saboteurs on the spot. Talk to some veterans while they are still around. The Leage of Nations? A great success! I'm glad we sacrificed over 50,000 lives for that! All WWI got us was... WWII. Yeah, the Treaty of Versailles was a great exercise in our moral leadership and idealism.

1) we're not discussing the merits of one war versus another, but measures of success in the war's execution. 2) there were some poorly planned and executed battles or dubious strategy in WWII with a huge loss of American life.

It figures that you'd drink something in a screw-cap that you found next to a dumpster... yeah, as opposed to your favorite drink, as discussed a few months back. I actually prefer a dolcetto d'alba or a bordeaux any day of the week. btw,

thanks for elevating the debate, a-hole. as for my point, which obviously went over your pointy little head - casualties are not the whole picture here. that's what I was responding to above. The success or failure of a war, or how well it is run, is not exclusively tied to the number of casualties in absolute terms.

compare the death toll to other wars. we lost an order of magnitude more in each of WWI, Vietnam and Korea. Were those utter failures too? what exactly did we accomplish in those wars, anyway? do you hate Wilson, Truman and LBJ as much as you hate Bush? We lost 300,000 in WWII, was that an utter failure? How do you feel about FDR?

I don't disagree. But unfortunately that's how our 2-party partisan politics works in contemporary America. I'm personally extremely critical of such bullshit, but even you have to agree that the right does the same exact shit to the left. Things have gotten extremely nasty with the last two administrations.

I see those points, but looking at the results don't see a disaster. If I graded the occupation on a straight-curve, I'd give it a C or a C+. Obviously, you can do a lot better.

really? it's OK? really, really, really? Gee, I'm glad it's OK now. I've been holding back for so long! the facts are that the left has been 100% critical of everything Bush has done since the day he was "elected" (selected as you put it). talk about the boy cry wolf syndrome... magnified a few million times. heap on piles and piles of hysterical hyperbole and the 'criticism' takes on comic proportions of fanaticism. sorry, but even KK can't compete with that level of one-sided, unadulterated abuse!

this statement says nothing. the guy claims it's a disaster, without saying exactly why, and you believe it because you want to - you like the message. just because a general says it "is" doesn't make it so. I don't see a disaster. the occupation could have gone a lot better; it could have gone a lot worse too

rose colored glasses would be saying it was going perfectly well. as for tinted shades, rabid Bush-haters are in no position to be commenting on how someone else views the facts. the hyperbole of "utter failure" and similar characterizations is just a bunch of BS considering that we don't slaughter indiscriminantly or quell all resistence with an iron hand (as would be done by superpowers of the past), that we are dealing with full-on nut job fanatics, and walk a very fine line in what we can and can not do, we've done a fair job.

there has been no utter disaster or failure in Iraq. it's gone about average.

January 20th... 2009

McClellan was a general, not the Secretary of War. Presidents have fired their generals many times; not so with the Secretary of War (Defense since 1947). Semantics You could make a strong case the Secretary of Defense today occupies a similar position as General-in-Chief of the Union then. As you point out, the position wasn't even created until 1947. It's much more than semantics. There was a certain famous general who profoundly disagreed with his president's policy and was fired for it. Was he happy about that? Didn't he speak before congress? Or did he just "fade away" quietly? Rumsfeld has shaken up the way the army is run - old school generals, of course, are disatisfied with that. People dislike change.

Like throwing money at every social problem with new federal government programs? Insanity indeed!

McClellan was a general, not the Secretary of War. Presidents have fired their generals many times; not so with the Secretary of War (Defense since 1947).

You don't need a guide. Just find someone who's been up there before and go with them. You just need to know how to dress properly (layered, no cotton), keep hydrated and have map and compass skills. That's about 10 pages of Freedom of the Hills.

Mt. Adams is no less serious than Camp Muir. If you're worried about the hazards (white out, etc), I'd recommend places like Granite Mountain, Dickerman, Mailbox Peak, 3-Fingers etc - beginning in May or June. But you can get hurt (or killed) on these peaks too.

Try looking here

Yes, in 1986 That is incredible. You really have a friend? is this spray? jizzy, stfu!

Yeah, baby, in there at #1!!

you don't need to ask questions like that. just ask for official documents from *everyone* and have a mechanism in place in the federal government where credentials are checked. SSNs are unique per citizen - a simple thing to maintain in a database (and check against) -- Stephen

meth dealer?

Employers have to take payroll deductions and send them to the federal gov't using these SSNs. The federal gov't knows what SSNs are valid or not (i.e. officially issued to a living person) Every job I have ever worked has required me to provide a SSN on day 1. It would easy to enforce a "validation" mechanism for this number if it is not already done.