1) Does this change anyone's thoughts about the whole Iraq/al Qaeda link? Libs speak up and let me know (No, not in the interest of flaming you out, but in the interest of discussion). I know that there is no substantive link of Qaeda being in Iraq before the war, but putting the whole war justification arguement aside, does this change anything now that they are there?

 

2) Kerry: Is it me or is anyone else out there asking themselves why Kerry had taken it upon himself to call the parents of Berg to offer sympathies and thoughts? This makes me sick. Do you think if he wasn't running for President he would of called the parents of Berg? This is glorified ambulance-chasing in my book.

 

3) What to do with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? You can't publicly kill him, lest you get painted as a war crime monger, but a lifetime sentence plus 25 years seems too tame. I say when the US captures him (and yes, of course they will) the Feds let it leak that we captured him but never disclose what happened. That way when the CIA inflicts a cold, sadistic, elongated death that involves bamboo shoots, a car battery, some pliers and hydrochloriic acid the Arab world will be left to wonder not if he died, but how horrifically he died.

1) From what I've read and connections I've made I think there was a very small if any presence of al-qaeda before we invaded Iraq. Why do I say this? Iraq was led by a relatively secular leader. It seems to me you are searching for viable reasons to be in this war. The barrel of possible excuses have almost run dry, so know you'd like to think we are fighting al-qaeda, which WE brought to the country. However, if this is not what you are trying to say, then I'm not really sure if we should stay now that al-Qaeda is there. I don't think we will catch them in Iraq. We jsut started Cold War part 2 in my opinion. Islam vs Christianity or the West vs. the Arab world. Either way its just another reason for the military industrial complex to continue and I hate it.

 

2) He's as much a politician as GW. I never see you posting the political moves he's making. How about wandering the country raising millions of dollars while Rumsfeld travels to Iraq to give morale? We could both go on an on about these types of things. Was it political? Maybe, maybe not. The more important question. Who cares?

 

3) At first, I answered yes to this question in my mind. But I am very against killing of any kind, and I think the best option in this case is a public capture scenario. Show the world we are not animals and give the man a fair trial.

 

 

 

And in the interest of discussion what is your current justification for this war? Can you justify this war anymore? Even my Republican friends think its now a mistake.

1) From what I've read and connections I've made I think there was a very small if any presence of al-qaeda before we invaded Iraq. Why do I say this? Iraq was led by a relatively secular leader. It seems to me you are searching for viable reasons to be in this war. The barrel of possible excuses have almost run dry, so know you'd like to think we are fighting al-qaeda, which WE brought to the country. However, if this is not what you are trying to say, then I'm not really sure if we should stay now that al-Qaeda is there. I don't think we will catch them in Iraq. We jsut started Cold War part 2 in my opinion. Islam vs Christianity or the West vs. the Arab world. Either way its just another reason for the military industrial complex to continue and I hate it.

 

2) He's as much a politician as GW. I never see you posting the political moves he's making. How about wandering the country raising millions of dollars while Rumsfeld travels to Iraq to give morale? We could both go on an on about these types of things. Was it political? Maybe, maybe not. The more important question. Who cares?

 

3) At first, I answered yes to this question in my mind. But I am very against killing of any kind, and I think the best option in this case is a public capture scenario. Show the world we are not animals and give the man a fair trial.

 

 

 

And in the interest of discussion what is your current justification for this war? Can you justify this war anymore? Even my Republican friends think its now a mistake.

1) Agree 100% Al-Qaeda did not have any links to Iraq. Now, of course, it is a happy hunting ground. We've created the best conditions for them to come here and multiply.

 

2) What Shamrock said. If he wants to kiss ass for his political gain, he is just doing the same ol' thing all politicians do. Bush is a master on that.

 

3) Disagree with Shamrock. This is a known and self-proclaimed terrorist. He needs to be "terminated" one way or another. However, if we are lucky enough to capture him alive, I won't say execute him, but a public trial with Arab translation ought to help teaching a lesson of integrity and respect for human life, that so many of these people lack (terrorists, not all arabs).

putting the whole war justification arguement aside, does this change anything now that they are there?

That's like saying, "Now that I lit my house on fire, don't you think it is smart to let the firemen take out the fire?"

 

Of course, but there is still no justification for the war.

 

2) Kerry: Is it me or is anyone else out there asking themselves why Kerry had taken it upon himself to call the parents of Berg to offer sympathies and thoughts?

 

Kerry us definately riding this for all it is worth. I had a congresswoman call me up after a letter of mine made the top quotation in time magazine...so as a politician it does not surprise me.

 

3) What to do with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? You can't publicly kill him, lest you get painted as a war crime monger, but a lifetime sentence plus 25 years seems too tame. I say when the US captures him (and yes, of course they will) the Feds let it leak that we captured him but never disclose what happened. That way when the CIA inflicts a cold, sadistic, elongated death that involves bamboo shoots, a car battery, some pliers and hydrochloriic acid the Arab world will be left to wonder not if he died, but how horrifically he died.

 

Hang him like the nazis after nuremburg (sp?).

I also thought I would add this:

 

Berg's father said Thursday his son was someone who simply wanted to "help people, not to hurt anyone." "He was not disrespectful of danger, he just didn't recognize danger in people," Michael Berg said. "The al Qaeda that killed my son didn't know what they were doing. They killed their best friend. Nick was there to build Iraq, not to tear it down."

 

 

So, Berg contacted Kerry, not the other way around.

Fish Fillet you have entered Shamrock's no spin zone!

Im pretty much in concurrence with shamrock.

 

This is what Pat Buchanan wrote:

 

A time for truth

 

 

With pictures of the sadistic sexual abuse of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison still spilling out onto the front pages, it is not too early to draw some conclusions.

 

The neoconservative hour is over. All the blather about "empire," our "unipolar moment," "Pax Americana" and "benevolent global hegemony" will be quietly put on a shelf and forgotten as infantile prattle.

 

America is not going to fight a five- or 10-year war in Iraq. Nor will we be launching any new invasions soon. The retreat of American empire, begun at Fallujah, is underway.

 

With a $500 billion deficit, we do not have the money for new wars. With an Army of 480,000 stretched thin, we do not have the troops. With April-May costing us a battalion of dead and wounded, we are not going to pay the price. With the squalid photos from Abu Ghraib, we no longer have the moral authority to impose our "values" on Iraq.

 

Bush's "world democratic revolution" is history.

 

Given the hatred of the United States and Bush in the Arab world, as attested to by Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, it is almost delusional to think Arab peoples are going to follow America's lead.

 

It is a time for truth. In any guerrilla war we fight, there is going to be a steady stream of U.S. dead and wounded. There is going to be collateral damage ? i.e., women and children slain and maimed. There will be prisoners abused. And inevitably, there will be outrages by U.S. troops enraged at the killing of comrades and the jeering of hostile populations. If you would have an empire, this goes with the territory. And if you are unprepared to pay the price, give it up.

 

The administration's shock and paralysis at publication of the S&M photos from Abu Ghraib tell us we are not up to it. For what is taking place in Iraq is child's play compared to what we did in the Philippines a century ago. Only there, they did not have digital cameras, videocams and the Internet.

 

Iraq was an unnecessary war that may become one of the great blunders in U.S. history. That the invasion was brilliantly conceived and executed by Gen. Franks, that our fighting men were among the finest we ever sent to war, that they have done good deeds and brave acts, is undeniable. Yet, if recent surveys are accurate, the Iraqis no longer want us there.

 

Outside the Kurdish areas, over 80 percent of Sunnis and Shias view us as occupiers. Over 50 percent believe there are occasions when U.S. soldiers deserve killing. The rejoicing around every destroyed military vehicle where U.S. soldiers have died should tell us that the battle for hearts and minds is being lost.

 

Why are we so hated in the Middle East? Three fundamental reasons:

 

 

 

Our invasion of Iraq is seen as a premeditated and unjust war to crush a weak Arab nation that had not threatened or attacked us, to seize its oil.

 

We are seen as an arrogant imperial superpower that dictates to Arab peoples and sustains regimes that oppress them.

 

We are seen as the financier and armorer of an Israel that oppresses and robs Palestinians of their land and denies them rights we hypocritically preach to the world.

 

Until we address these perceptions and causes of the conflict between us, we will not persuade the Arab world to follow us.

 

What should Bush do now? He should declare that the United States has no intention of establishing permanent bases in Iraq, and that we intend to withdraw all U.S. troops after elections, if the Iraqis tell us to leave. Then we should schedule elections at the earliest possible date this year.

 

The Iraqi peoples should then be told that U.S. soldiers are not going to fight and die indefinitely for their freedom. If they do not want to be ruled by Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr or some future Saddam, they will have to fight themselves. Otherwise, they will have to live with them, even as they lived with Saddam. For in the last analysis, it is their country, not ours.

 

The president should also offer to withdraw U.S. forces from any Arab country that wishes us to leave. We have already pulled out of Saudi Arabia. Let us pull out of the rest unless they ask that we remain. Our military presence in these Arab and Islamic countries, it would seem, does less to prevent terror attacks upon us than to incite them.

 

A presidential election is where the great foreign-policy debate should take place over whether to maintain U.S. troops all over the world, or bring them home and let other nations determine their own destiny. Unfortunately, we have two candidates and two parties that agree on our present foreign policy that is conspicuously failing.

 

 

Interesting. I dont agree with Buchanan on most of this. Just find it interesting that he would declare this a failure and a blunder.

Im pretty much in concurrence with shamrock.

 

This is what Pat Buchanan wrote:

 

 

 

A time for truth

 

 

With pictures of the sadistic sexual abuse of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison still spilling out onto the front pages, it is not too early to draw some conclusions.

 

The neoconservative hour is over. All the blather about "empire," our "unipolar moment," "Pax Americana" and "benevolent global hegemony" will be quietly put on a shelf and forgotten as infantile prattle.

 

America is not going to fight a five- or 10-year war in Iraq. Nor will we be launching any new invasions soon. The retreat of American empire, begun at Fallujah, is underway.

 

With a $500 billion deficit, we do not have the money for new wars. With an Army of 480,000 stretched thin, we do not have the troops. With April-May costing us a battalion of dead and wounded, we are not going to pay the price. With the squalid photos from Abu Ghraib, we no longer have the moral authority to impose our "values" on Iraq.

 

Bush's "world democratic revolution" is history.

 

Given the hatred of the United States and Bush in the Arab world, as attested to by Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, it is almost delusional to think Arab peoples are going to follow America's lead.

 

It is a time for truth. In any guerrilla war we fight, there is going to be a steady stream of U.S. dead and wounded. There is going to be collateral damage ? i.e., women and children slain and maimed. There will be prisoners abused. And inevitably, there will be outrages by U.S. troops enraged at the killing of comrades and the jeering of hostile populations. If you would have an empire, this goes with the territory. And if you are unprepared to pay the price, give it up.

 

The administration's shock and paralysis at publication of the S&M photos from Abu Ghraib tell us we are not up to it. For what is taking place in Iraq is child's play compared to what we did in the Philippines a century ago. Only there, they did not have digital cameras, videocams and the Internet.

 

Iraq was an unnecessary war that may become one of the great blunders in U.S. history. That the invasion was brilliantly conceived and executed by Gen. Franks, that our fighting men were among the finest we ever sent to war, that they have done good deeds and brave acts, is undeniable. Yet, if recent surveys are accurate, the Iraqis no longer want us there.

 

Outside the Kurdish areas, over 80 percent of Sunnis and Shias view us as occupiers. Over 50 percent believe there are occasions when U.S. soldiers deserve killing. The rejoicing around every destroyed military vehicle where U.S. soldiers have died should tell us that the battle for hearts and minds is being lost.

 

Why are we so hated in the Middle East? Three fundamental reasons:

 

 

 

Our invasion of Iraq is seen as a premeditated and unjust war to crush a weak Arab nation that had not threatened or attacked us, to seize its oil.

 

We are seen as an arrogant imperial superpower that dictates to Arab peoples and sustains regimes that oppress them.

 

We are seen as the financier and armorer of an Israel that oppresses and robs Palestinians of their land and denies them rights we hypocritically preach to the world.

 

Until we address these perceptions and causes of the conflict between us, we will not persuade the Arab world to follow us.

 

What should Bush do now? He should declare that the United States has no intention of establishing permanent bases in Iraq, and that we intend to withdraw all U.S. troops after elections, if the Iraqis tell us to leave. Then we should schedule elections at the earliest possible date this year.

 

The Iraqi peoples should then be told that U.S. soldiers are not going to fight and die indefinitely for their freedom. If they do not want to be ruled by Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr or some future Saddam, they will have to fight themselves. Otherwise, they will have to live with them, even as they lived with Saddam. For in the last analysis, it is their country, not ours.

 

The president should also offer to withdraw U.S. forces from any Arab country that wishes us to leave. We have already pulled out of Saudi Arabia. Let us pull out of the rest unless they ask that we remain. Our military presence in these Arab and Islamic countries, it would seem, does less to prevent terror attacks upon us than to incite them.

 

A presidential election is where the great foreign-policy debate should take place over whether to maintain U.S. troops all over the world, or bring them home and let other nations determine their own destiny. Unfortunately, we have two candidates and two parties that agree on our present foreign policy that is conspicuously failing.

 

 

Interesting. I dont agree with Buchanan on most of this. Just find it interesting that he would declare this a failure and a blunder. That is a great piece... We do have little options do we?

 

 

Someone, somewhere needs to take a stand, nip it in the butt and do the right thing once and for all, but I'm afraid that this will never happen.

Wow, I thought this guy was a nut. Interesting stuff.

You don't watch the McLaughlin group too much, do you?

 

He's good there with several others. I don't agree with his stance on immigration though.

You don't watch the McLaughlin group too much, do you?

 

He's good there with several others. I don't agree with his stance on immigration though.

Don't watch TV dood. I am going to see Troy tonight, however and I'm expecting a bomb. :confused

Troy has to be awesome. I mean, how can you screw that up!!!

 

All I watch on TV is baseball and the mclaughlin group. It is really a good show in my honest opinion.

i agree Soriano.

 

& Pat's always been a little off the deep end, but some of his "isolationist" based views are pretty refreshing actually, since no one else ever seems to say them.

Buch is one of my faviorate guys to listen too...

 

Even though his conservative side shows at times, he's not afraid to go against the grain. I really though he would have have been good for The Reform Party in 2000.