So, you didn't think Pelosi would try for a pull-out of Iraq?

[DeadPoolX 9]

Hold on a sec. As ET (Reinhard) has pointed many times before, if the UN is so corrupt and unreliable why doesn't the US remove itself from that organization? Secondly, it's a bit silly for you, Gary, to keep talking about corruption of the UN as a disclaimer meanwhile accepting that corruption exists in our government. You accept that even though we've had corruption, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The point that ET is making is that without international support for military action, the US is treading on dangerous ground, and the Bush Administration will further endanger our national security. Except in the case of an immediate and eminent threat against the US, we should NEVER use military force against another nation...period. You guys who are so keen to do that are scary...it's as if you enjoy causing bloodshed and destruction.

As the famous Republican President said (one of our best and a great WW2 general ):

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

How you guys interpret hatred of war as cowardice is beyond me, but perhaps you should be put out in the battle field sometime to get the taste out of your mouths.

Before I reply to Steven, I just need to ask: Why do these threads always seem to degenerate into grade school shouting matches? Can't we just have an intelligent debate like educated adults that merely disagree on some points?

Anyway...the reason that I think the U.S. remains in the UN (and keeps the UN's HQ in New York) is so it can watch over them and have a rather forceful say in the organization. From what I've gathered, a great many people dislike the United Nations on both sides of the fence, and wouldn't mind seeing us kick them out of the United States, and remove ourselves from their corrupted body. However, doing so would ultimately mean they would operate without the United States -- without the U.S. having a voice in the day-to-day goings on, and that might prove problematic down the line, especially for our allies (such as Israel) who depend on us. Granted, none of this data is scientifically gathered and I can't prove it one bit; however, what I've written is the "general feel" I've recieved from those I've met from different walks of life.

Corruption has always existed in the U.S. government. The Bush Administration is not the first, nor will it be the last, to have a corrupted political body. The United States is not alone in this either -- most other countries are just as corrupt, deep down inside the inner-workings of their government, as the U.S. government is as well. None of this makes it right, but that doesn't change the fact that it goes on.

I realize (and understand) what some of you on the left are saying about the Bush Administration. I can sympathize some, as I dislike the notion of any corruption taking place within the U.S. government. However, I also think that some here (and in the Democratic Party) have a blind hatred for Bush and that clouds their thinking.

Here's my take on the whole thing: Maybe going into Iraq wasn't the best idea anyone could've had. I agree with that. However, we're there now, and we need to take care of our mess, and clean it up properly. We can't just "up and leave" and tell the Iraqis "too bad, you take care of it!" To do so would be wrong and irresponsible while breeding terrible hatred. I think most of America agrees with that. So as unfortunate as it might be, the U.S. needs to stay for the long haul and work it out until the Iraqi people can take care of the situation themselves.

It's also important to note that the vast majority of U.S. soldiers and marines believe in this war, and feel they are doing the right thing by fighting it out. The U.S. also operated an entirely volunteer military. That is in stark contrast to Vietnam (a war that usually compared to this one), where many men were drafted and most hated every minute of it. This isn't to say "war is fun" or that these men and women wouldn't rather be home with their families. What I am trying to get across is that these soldiers and marines feel they are accomplishing something worthwhile.

As for the famous Republican President and World War II General, wouldn't that be Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower? I can't think of any other Republican President during that timeframe that would've been a General in the second world war.

[rclouse 0]

Maybe going into Iraq wasn't the best idea anyone could've had. I agree with that. However, we're there now, and we need to take care of our mess, and clean it up properly. We can't just "up and leave" and tell the Iraqis "too bad, you take care of it!"

The problem with just staying is the Iraqi government itself plays the insurgents against us to legitimize itself. The only way we'll get the Iraqi government to "stand up so we can stand down" is to put forth a concrete withdrawal schedule. Otherwise they'll continue to drag their feet, while hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis continue to die.

/blatantly stolen from Fareed Zakaria

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hold on a sec. As ET (Reinhard) has pointed many times before, if the UN is so corrupt and unreliable why doesn't the US remove itself from that organization? Secondly, it's a bit silly for you, Gary, to keep talking about corruption of the UN as a disclaimer meanwhile accepting that corruption exists in our government. You accept that even though we've had corruption, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The point that ET is making is that without international support for military action, the US is treading on dangerous ground, and the Bush Administration will further endanger our national security. Except in the case of an immediate and eminent threat against the US, we should NEVER use military force against another nation...period. You guys who are so keen to do that are scary...it's as if you enjoy causing bloodshed and destruction.

As the famous Republican President said (one of our best and a great WW2 general ):

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

How you guys interpret hatred of war as cowardice is beyond me, but perhaps you should be put out in the battle field sometime to get the taste out of your mouths.

Before I reply to Steven, I just need to ask: Why do these threads always seem to degenerate into grade school shouting matches? Can't we just have an intelligent debate like educated adults that merely disagree on some points?

Anyway...the reason that I think the U.S. remains in the UN (and keeps the UN's HQ in New York) is so it can watch over them and have a rather forceful say in the organization. From what I've gathered, a great many people dislike the United Nations on both sides of the fence, and wouldn't mind seeing us kick them out of the United States, and remove ourselves from their corrupted body. However, doing so would ultimately mean they would operate without the United States -- without the U.S. having a voice in the day-to-day goings on, and that might prove problematic down the line, especially for our allies (such as Israel) who depend on us. Granted, none of this data is scientifically gathered and I can't prove it one bit; however, what I've written is the "general feel" I've recieved from those I've met from different walks of life.

Corruption has always existed in the U.S. government. The Bush Administration is not the first, nor will it be the last, to have a corrupted political body. The United States is not alone in this either -- most other countries are just as corrupt, deep down inside the inner-workings of their government, as the U.S. government is as well. None of this makes it right, but that doesn't change the fact that it goes on.

I realize (and understand) what some of you on the left are saying about the Bush Administration. I can sympathize some, as I dislike the notion of any corruption taking place within the U.S. government. However, I also think that some here (and in the Democratic Party) have a blind hatred for Bush and that clouds their thinking.

Here's my take on the whole thing: Maybe going into Iraq wasn't the best idea anyone could've had. I agree with that. However, we're there now, and we need to take care of our mess, and clean it up properly. We can't just "up and leave" and tell the Iraqis "too bad, you take care of it!" To do so would be wrong and irresponsible while breeding terrible hatred. I think most of America agrees with that. So as unfortunate as it might be, the U.S. needs to stay for the long haul and work it out until the Iraqi people can take care of the situation themselves.

It's also important to note that the vast majority of U.S. soldiers and marines believe in this war, and feel they are doing the right thing by fighting it out. The U.S. also operated an entirely volunteer military. That is in stark contrast to Vietnam (a war that usually compared to this one), where many men were drafted and most hated every minute of it. This isn't to say "war is fun" or that these men and women wouldn't rather be home with their families. What I am trying to get across is that these soldiers and marines feel they are accomplishing something worthwhile.

As for the famous Republican President and World War II General, wouldn't that be Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower? I can't think of any other Republican President during that timeframe that would've been a General in the second world war.

It's refreshing to have a reasonable conversation without it being reduced to the rhetoric that keeps getting pumped out.

I'm growing weary of those who support Bush and his policies as they continually label those who disagree as either cowards ('cut and run' slogan), anti-American (see Marc's threads), or unpatriotic. I know these guys here aren't just pulling these labels out of their head. They indoctrinate themselves from a narrow selection of resources for their political news and opinions (just ask Marc what he reads or listens to - my guess is that listens a lot to Savage and O'Reilly). I actually read stuff from the Cato Institute, The American Conservative and other publications. I don't listen to any of the political pundits (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Ingram). On the occasion that I have listened to them, I can hear exactly where the guys here who support Bush get their rhetoric from. So we go on and on with these labels and baseless rhetoric and these threads get reduced down to nothing with substance. We'll never find common ground nor ever arrive at a better understanding of each other's views that way.

Labels such as 'cut and run' are nothing but baseless ####### deliberately used as a diversion from the real issue. It's not withdrawal...it's 'cut and run', 'cut and run', bawk, bawk, bawk... mindless garbage and intellectual dishonesty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd put my trust in that body over Bush any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The UN may be less than perfect but it ain't nearly as crooked or dangerous as Bush and the bunch he assembled at 1600 Penn Ave.

How else am I to interpret this statement? So please spell it out for this dumb republican, would you really rather see the UN calling the shots for the US?

Why do you seem to think that the UN should cater directly to the interests of ONE of its member countries?

Many nations = many self-interests

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Labels such as 'cut and run' are nothing but baseless ####### deliberately used as a diversion from the real issue. It's not withdrawal...it's 'cut and run', 'cut and run', bawk, bawk, bawk... mindless garbage and intellectual dishonesty.

Zackly!