withdraw from Iraq? When? How?

Email Print posted by satanisreal 05/20/2008 06:42:30 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
So it's 2009. A new president is in the White house and the people want results. The new president has promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq. In YOUR opinion, what does this entail? Personally, I am of the opinion that we have made progress and, as fucked up as it is over there ,and here, we need to finish what we stated. It's a moot point to argue why we are in Iraq and who is responsible. If we want respect from the rest of the world and from ourselves, we need to protect the innocent lives that are still trying to make it work. Many Iraqi citizens died after we bailed on them during the first gulf war. We have killed many more during this war and pulling out as soon as we can seems so irresponsible. So American. So typical of our disposable society. I do not believe this is a political problem. Logic should play a bigger role in our decision making rather than party lines.

UNITED WE STARE
< Old Skool hand sign for TYT | Jedi Church of America? >

Poll

How much love do you have for Iraq!
I want to hug them like a tree 20%
I want to hug them like a tree, and then sneak out the back door 10%
I just want to get the f#@K out, and I hate tree huggers! 30%
I want to play hacky-sack and hit the bong and....we have troops in Iraq? 10%
I'm into BBW's 30%

Votes: 10
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
withdraw from Iraq? When? How? | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)
Hans Blix (none / 0)
"Is it sensible to pull the US troops out of Iraq now?"


"I don't think anyone suggests one should pull out immediately, but I think that a phased withdrawal would be desirable, because only such a message will make the Iranians and the Iranian leadership and other groups involved in the current disturbances in Iraq, some say Shiads or Kurds are involved as well, realize that they own the problem. As long as you have a 150,000 troops in the country, various groups can try and persuade them to support their views. The moment they realize that they will be alone there is a better chance that they will pull themselves together. In my opinion the withdrawal should start within the next few years."

by toosinbeymen on 05/20/2008 07:58:35 PM EST

You Don't Think Anyone What? (none / 0)
Ron Paul suggested that we should leave Iraq immediately, and I (crazy nut bag that I am), agree with him whole heartedly. Oh yeah, he's been declared a biggot, not like the Clintons (who openly campaign for the poor appalachian hillbilly vote) or anything, but all the same, can't take anything he says seriously, right. We need to get out of Iraq, asap!

by gxttotten on 05/21/2008 01:06:53 AM EST

The good Doctor (none / 0)

Ron Paul was not so much declared a biggot as declared himself a bigot.

He used to publish (or at least collect the checks) for a racist newsletter in the 90s.  I live immediately next to part of Paul's district and have followed Dr. No for decades and can assure you he knew damn well what was said in this newsletter and allowed it to happen.  I saw an interview with him last year where he said essentially, yeah, I knew about all those things but I wasn't going to stop them, I was making money off it.  Nice principles.

He may have been right about the war but that doesn't mean he ain't crazy.  A broken clock is right twice a day.

Paul just raises money to campaign that then funnels it to friends and front organizations.  The whole damn campaign is a huge moneymaking scheme.  When he dropped out he said I'm not going to campaign anymore but its vital you keep sending the money.  Oh, and by my book!

The question I always have for Paul supporters is if he is so damn worried about the integrity of the Constitution why isn't he leading the charge to investigate and impeach the Bush/Cheney crowd?

Guys a clown. 

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 09:21:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Phased withdrawal. (none / 0)
It will provide the kick in the ass Iraq's gov't needs.

by jarett on 05/21/2008 03:48:18 AM EST

Equivalency Test (none / 0)
I want American troops to remain in Iraq for the same length of time they remained in Japan, Germany, Korea, Bosnia.

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 06:24:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
is that what you want? (none / 0)
how many American troops are in Viet Nam now? I forgot.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/21/2008 06:57:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tiny asks a history question. (none / 0)
"How many American troops are in Viet Nam now?"

The answer is zero. America hasn't forgotten which party started the Vietnam War, and which party ultimately surrendered Southeast Asia to the communists. 

In 1975, the Democrat controlled Congress prevailed and forced America to surrender Vietnam to the communist Viet Cong. This is what happened next throughout Southeast Asia.
skulls
Likewise, America will long remember who surrendered the Middle East to al Qaeda.

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 11:10:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
oh zero (none / 0)
thats how many need to be in iraq to keep America safe . Im good at math bobotx.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/21/2008 11:29:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Memory (none / 0)

Does America remember which party started the war in Cambodia? (where the REALLY big pile of skulls was!!)

How about the war in Laos?

How about which party ran away from those wars?

Didn't Nixon run for president on surrendering to Viet Nam?  I wonder if folks remember that.

Also, its fascinating how people will remember "which party started" the war in Viet Nam almost half a century ago but you think they will be unable to recall which party (President and Congress) started the disaster in Iraq.

At the same time you seem to think people will fail to associate Nixon and the Republicans with leaving Viet Nam.

This whole post is just stupid and childish.

But to answer your question. No, I don't think who started or ended what war four and five decades.

I do think they will remember who started Iraq.

Ken, do you think people will remember who started and won World War II?

Entered and won World War I?

Started and won the Spanish-American War?

Yeah, me neither. 

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 12:21:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Vietnam history is crystal clear. (none / 0)
Here is the political party that started the war.

Here is the political party that surrendered the war.

The history of the war on al Qaeda will be equally clear.

George Bush started it.

Democrats will surrender it.

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 12:32:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You just keep spinning, Ken... (none / 0)

That's what you're good at.

So now you are going to run on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Treaty of Paris?

Awesome.  I feel the energy in the electorate now!  Look out Barak!

Even if you were telling the truth NOBODY GIVES A DAMN!!!!

Oh, this just in----- its 2008!

Ken do you really think anyone besides you holds the end of the Viet Nam War against the Democratic Party?  I am pretty sure anyone who believes this and cares ain't voting for Obama anyway so campaign away!

Oh and nice dodge on Laos and Cambodia because the Dems accepting the treaty negotiated by the highest profile employee in the Nixon administration (Henry Kissinger who won a Nobel Prize for it) after Nixon ran in 1968 on a "secret plan" to end the war is all people remember.

Why do you post this crap?  Its just makes you look stupid or crazy.  At best it makes you look about four decades out of touch. 

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 01:36:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
just reporting the facts (none / 0)
"Ken do you really think anyone besides you holds the end of the Viet Nam War against the Democratic Party?"

Hold on a second. Let me take another look at who historians hold responsible for the end of the Vietnam War. 

"The U.S. midterm elections in 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated by Democrats who were much more willing to confront the president on the war. Congress immediately voted in restrictions on funding and military activities to be phased in through 1975 and to culminate in a total cutoff of funding in 1976. On December 13, 1974, North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty by attacking into the South. When North Vietnam violated the 1973 cease-fire agreement and invaded the South again in 1975, Ford desperately asked Congress for funds to assist and re-supply the South before it was overrun. Congress refused. The U.S. had promised Thieu that it would use airpower to support his government. But, having been forbidden by law to assist South Vietnam, Ford was unable to act. The balance of power thus shifted decisively in North Vietnam's favor.

By 1975 the South Vietnamese Army faced a well-organized, highly determined and well-funded North Vietnam. Much of the North's material and financial support came from the communist bloc. Within South Vietnam, there was increasing chaos. Their abandonment by the American military had compromised an economy dependent on U.S. financial support and the presence of large numbers of U.S. troops."

OK then. I guess the answer is yes.

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 03:48:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
First things first (none / 0)

Loas, Ken?

Cambodia, Ken?

Crickets chirping. 

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 04:52:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's source problem (none / 0)

Also from Ken's source:

During the 1968 presidential election, Richard M. Nixon promised "peace with honor".

Nixon also pursued negotiations

Nixon also began to pursue détente with the Soviet Union and rapprochement with the People's Republic of China. (Fucking appeaser!!!)

Nixon's National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, continued secret negotiations with North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho. In October 1972, they reached an agreement.

On January 15, 1973, Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action against North Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam" were signed on January 27, 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. A cease-fire was declared across North and South Vietnam. U.S. POWs were released. The agreement guaranteed the territorial integrity of Vietnam and, like the Geneva Conference of 1954, called for national elections in the North and South. The Paris Peace Accords stipulated a sixty-day period for the total withdrawal of U.S. forces. "This article," noted Peter Church, "proved … to be the only one of the Paris Agreements which was fully carried out."

The Paris Peace Accord, agreed between communist Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger, and reluctantly signed in January 1973 by President Thieu, produced a ceasefire and allowed for the exchange of prisoners of war. Later that year the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, but the Vietnamese negotiator declined it saying that a true peace did not yet exist in Vietnam.

So apparently Ken read all of that and then decided the Democratic Congress inaugarated in January of 1975 ended the war.  Someone should write a psych thesis on this guy. 

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 04:59:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
nice picture, ken (none / 0)

It illustrates our handiwork. The viet-cong, on the heels of losing 2 million citizens and army regulars in a brutal protracted conflict with the greatest power the world has ever seen, had to go in and fight pol pot to stop the genocide. What was america doing? We supported the khmer rouge on the thin rube that they were anti-communist. Let's be clear. I don't like the viet cong. I don't like communists. My wife's family suffered untold calamity at the hands of these people (viet cong), who know and care nothing for values like freedom of expression etc. You'll bring out your shallow republican talking points and tell me I'm an America-hater. No I love America, but I do hate stupid foreign policy.

My biggest problem with the republicans, especially the current ones, is their inability to grasp the magnitude of human loss and sorrow in the wake of bad decisions like the invasion of Iraq. As this beautiful and horrifying photograph illustrates, bluster and ideology have real consequences for real people, families and children alike. It used to be that conservatives talked about the unintended consequences of grand policies by governments with the best intentions behind them. Where did they lose their way on this basic and wise conservative instinct? 

by hazmat on 05/21/2008 04:20:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Warning (none / 0)
Ken is about to claim to be Vietnamese.

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 04:53:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fact check (none / 0)

This picture is of skulls from the Cambodian genocide.

See this link 


by bfaul on 05/21/2008 05:44:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
he knows (none / 0)
Ken is arguing the cost of our non-involvement, conflating two separate issues as his neocon masters have taught him.

by hazmat on 05/21/2008 05:57:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And that is why your party is going to lose. (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 05/21/2008 09:35:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My question.... (none / 0)
is my concern. There is plenty of blame to go around I am convinced that yellowcake is a synonym for gulf of Tonkin, but I am concerned that there will be many, many more deaths and rapes and a reversal of what little headway has been made, if we pull out too abruptly. Regardless of why we are there, in my opinion, now is the time to show ourselves and the rest of the world that even though we are fucked up and corrupt, we also have a huge heart and a backbone. 

by satanisreal on 05/21/2008 02:24:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Equivalent to what? (none / 0)

Do you think they would have kept people stationed in any of those places for any length of time if troops were being shot down or blown up at the rate of 800+ dead per year and a rate of 6000+ wounded per year?

Do you believe we would have kept troops at any of these places at a cost of $100+ billion per year?

Korea alone would have cost in excess of  $5,000,000,000,000 in today's dollars, and that is direct costs only and excludes care for the wounded and subsistence for the families of the casualties.

A much closer equivalence would be Germany's occupation of Yugoslavia, or France, or any one of the occupied countries where it was opposed by a vigorous resistance.  

I'm curious, at what point in this 50 year occupation with all the extra deaths and the enormous number of wounded and mourning family members do you actually pay a personal price?  Are you prepared to leave your family and fight and die for this occupation?  Are you prepared to pay with the death of your son?  Are you ready to pay extra taxes for it?  Are you prepared to see the United States descend into a depression?

I ask this because you're asking an awful lot of hundreds of thousands of strangers when you say "I want to stay in Iraq as long as Korea and Germany".

by bfaul on 05/21/2008 06:20:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's all I ask. (none / 0)
I want Barack Obama to openly admit that he is bringing all the troops home one Day One. I want him to declare that America will give the Middle East to al Qaeda. I mean the whole damn enchilada. I want him to say that the world's most powerful military can't get it done, and we're bring everyone back to the U.S. Furthermore, all future wars will be fought with Blackwater, and financed with an excise tax on the rich. Actually, this would be preferable to having to deal with the likes of you.

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 07:32:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow thats scary (none / 0)
ALQ taking over and all. You posting on your black berry in your backyard bunker?

by Chinese Democracy on 05/21/2008 09:18:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What are you afraid of? (none / 0)

You always dodge the question.  What are you prepared to sacrifice personally?

I'm unimpressed with your willingness to sacrifice other people's lives and well being. 

by bfaul on 05/21/2008 10:38:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I thought I was clear. (none / 0)
Ben Stein has long advocated the rich paying for the War on Al Qaeda with a special tax levied on the top 3% of earners. I happen to agree with this proposal.

Furthermore, I think that all front line combat positions should be held by Blackwater mercenaries.

Then you don't have anything to say about the war.

You're not paying for it.

All of the participants are volunteers.

All of the combat people are lowdown mercenaries.

If we could make such arrangements, would you be so kind as to shut the hell up?

Kindest Regards,
Ken

by KenTX on 05/21/2008 11:42:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
not a terrible idea on the surface (none / 0)
but there is a reason that people who can manage it raise there own armies instead of hiring mercenaries nowadays.

by richardshort2001 on 05/21/2008 11:50:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
actually (none / 0)
its a terrible idea on the surface.

by hazmat on 05/22/2008 01:22:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Didn't we do this already (none / 0)

Mercenary army blah blah blah what happens when China offers them more money blah blah blah fall of the Roman Empire blah blah raping our women blah blah beholden to no law and so forth?

I seem to recall it being a pretty serious troll-pounding. 

by ProfRich on 05/22/2008 01:57:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ahhhh (none / 0)
that was the deja vu I was feeling.

by richardshort2001 on 05/22/2008 02:05:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, we already did it. (none / 0)
It ended up with unanimous agreement that Bill Clinton is a rapist.

by KenTX on 05/22/2008 02:20:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you gotta hand it to him (none / 0)
he's a trooper.

by hazmat on 05/22/2008 02:21:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
trooper (none / 0)
Actually, Clinton's troopers turned on him up in the end.

by KenTX on 05/22/2008 02:34:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And still (none / 0)

nobody cares.

I'm sure 10 years from now some obsessed person will be out there going on and on about what a retard Bush was and constantly linking to you tube "food on you family" videos on some random forum somewhere. However, no one else will care.

Viva la Blue Dress!!!! 

 

by z1p101 on 05/22/2008 02:45:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
There is no war (none / 0)
Its an occupation that is making us less safe

you know what you can do with your regards

by Chinese Democracy on 05/22/2008 12:44:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
tiny, please (none / 0)
You need to get over this unhealthy obsession.

You're like a crazed stalker, minus the charm.

by KenTX on 05/22/2008 12:52:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
There is no war (none / 0)
Its an occupation that is making us less safe destabilizing the region and weakening our standing on the world stage

Why dont ben stien and his conservative prick buddies pony up the trillion bush already spent. There is no way to make up for the thousands of lives lost...  do you tell the families of the guys killed they where volunteers so they need to shut the hell up?

why dont you go fuck your troll self. Im sure your wife wont.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/22/2008 12:50:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's an answer (none / 0)
The question was:  What are you willing to sacrifice personally?  I read your reply above and the answer is clear:

Nothing.  Your solution is to make someone else pay for someone else to fight.  It's not exactly an admirable position but it's the one I expected.  I'm not even going to bother discussing the subject of mercenaries with you.

"Then you don't have anything to say about the war."

Republican Democracy at work.  Keep dreaming. 

"You're not paying for it."

I would still be paying for it, so would you.  If you don't believe this you are naive.  I don't feel like trying to explain why this is so to you, nor do I see the point.

"If we could make such arrangements, would you be so kind as to shut the hell up?"

You can easily get me to shut up - sign up, go on over, and I promise to refrain from responding to your views on the war.  I'll even send you care packages and I'll make sure that anyone who argues with you on this forum knows you're overseas putting your ass on the line.  Unless you do that, I'll make sure and help make them aware that you have not, are not, will not.

by bfaul on 05/22/2008 10:16:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's a little information for you. (none / 0)
I'm in that top 3%, which means I would be paying for the war.

Blackwater mercenaries would be fighting the war.

People like you would be on the sidelines, still cheering for the enemy.

by KenTX on 05/22/2008 10:57:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Conservatives are the enemy (none / 0)

by Chinese Democracy on 05/22/2008 11:01:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Finally, the truth comes out. (none / 0)
You've perfectly stated the position of American liberals:
 
"Al Qaeda is not the enemy. Conservatives are the enemy."

You always knew it, but you're just now willing to admit it. You would be willing to lose any war if it meant defeating Republicans in the next election. In fact, you would be delighted to assist the enemy during time of war for political gain.

I must say that you're more honest than bfaul. He is still unwilling to admit his treason. And yet he wonders why I hold him in such contempt.

by KenTX on 05/22/2008 11:19:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Treason???? (none / 0)

Did Bfaul reveal the name of undercover operatives in a time of war becuase the operatives husband told the truth about the governments lies and then abuse the power of the government to cover it up?
Cuase if he did, that motherfucker needs to be strung up!!!!

Shut the fuck up trying to talk about treason you hack. 

by ProfRich on 05/22/2008 12:01:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lesson on the Constitution. (none / 0)
The reason that Fitzgerald never indicted anyone for outing the identity of Valerie Plame is because she was no longer covert the moment Cheney declared her declassified.

I love this 90 second exchange between Tim Russert and Dick Cheney. Pay particular attention to the last 15 seconds. How do you like Cheney's cute little smile?

What this means is that Dick and George and their trusted henchmen had the legal authority to declassify and expose the identity of Valerie Plame. This is why there was no underlying crime, and why nobody was ever indicted by Pat Fitzgerald.

Did you follow that, pea brain?

by KenTX on 05/22/2008 12:13:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey dumbass (none / 0)
Someone was indicted by Fitzgerald.  For covering up a crime (obstruction of justice)  It was in all the papers.  Guess Rush didn't cover it.

by ProfRich on 05/22/2008 12:38:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Allow me to reiterate. (none / 0)
"The reason that Fitzgerald never indicted anyone for outing the identity of Valerie Plame..."
 
And then I went onto explain the whys and wherefores.

Now then, would you care to offer your own explanation for why Fitzgerald never indicted anyone for outing the identity of Valerie Plame?

If you can't, then it proves how ignorant you are.

Note that the chess clock was struck at 11:51 am.
you dumb ass

by KenTX on 05/22/2008 12:53:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He is a Republican after all (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 05/22/2008 07:42:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Haven't you posted this EXACT comment before? (none / 0)

by Spencer on 05/22/2008 02:53:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Have I posted this comment before? (none / 0)
You're damn straight, Skippy!

It's like running a play in football that can't be defended. It's always a good idea to run the play again, later in the game.

Here you have Dick Cheney telling Tim Russert that he has the Executive authority to declassify the covert status of Valerie Plame, and expose her identity anytime he gets a fuckin' hankerin'! And he's laughing while he's talking!

Here's the Democrat response to Dick Cheney's assertion.

So I'm developing a youtube repetoire for your entertainment. Anytime somebody says the words "Valerie Plame", BOOM!, they get a double dose of Dick Cheney, right between the eyes.

Look for more of these youtube clips. They are very effective thread killers. Hell, if they shut Rich up, they'll shut anybody up.

by KenTX on 05/22/2008 07:57:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
treason (none / 0)
I'm glad you brought this up, Ken. While our troops are sacrificing their lives oversees for love of country, your president is collaborating with the chinese communists to torture people. You fucking commie sympathizer. When you're finished shitting on the constitution let us know. Real Americans want their country back. Even the white ones.

by hazmat on 05/22/2008 12:15:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
but innocent victims aren't volunteers (none / 0)
Sure, this changes the face of war, but what about the "collateral damage" that occurs in every battle?  If we are to go in this direction, we might as well have sports be the battleground and reduce the amount of suffering associated with our international disagreements.  Nuclear weapons are the obvious choice of countries who won't have the resources to fight a huge army.  That seems the inevitable end if we keep using violence to solve problems.  This is why I want a president who will try diplomacy first.  Really try!!  I grew up with presidents who believed in diplomacy--both republicans and democrats.  It was only when Bush arrived on the scene that we began to get the "don't talk to our enemies" thing.  Right?

by desertpear on 05/22/2008 12:44:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
he won't care about this (none / 0)

You're being way to generous, desertpear, in assuming this guy cares anything about collateral damage. 


by bfaul on 05/22/2008 02:31:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
it does seem (none / 0)
That KenTX likes to ignore any questions that might require him to respond thoughtfully.  Too bad, because we both agree on at least one thing--high oil prices, lol.  I would like to hear what his answer is.  I'm not a big lover of humans, but I tend to think that violence begets violence, and I'd rather see the nukes kept in their silos.

by desertpear on 05/22/2008 08:39:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
boom bust cycle (none / 0)
"That KenTX likes to ignore any questions that might require him to respond thoughtfully.  Too bad, because we both agree on at least one thing--high oil prices, lol.  I would like to hear what his answer is." 

I'm asked numerous questions in this forum, and I do my best to address all honest questions.

Most people don't know that oil has historically followed a boom-bust cycle. The free market eventually corrects the problem. High prices encourage conservation. People get tired of paying $200 to fill up the tank of their Lincoln Navigators, so they switch to a Prius.

High prices also encourage exploration and production. When oil companies start dropping drill string into every known reserve, the rate of production skyrockets.

At some point, the supply curve overtakes the demand curve, and then the bust cycle begins again, and prices drop like a rock.  
boom-bust

by KenTX on 05/23/2008 01:41:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Did I read this right? (none / 0)

Ken really said

" I'm asked numerous questions in this forum, and I do my best to address all honest questions."

Wow.  Is this really his best? Because it sucks.

I suppose he thinks the word "honest" saves him here but why don't you be honest?

Cambodia and Laos come to mind recently.  What states go with what party wins.  Should rape be illegal? Should it be investigated?  What do we do when China outbids us for our mercenary army?  Did you just miss all those quotes in the Viet Nam wiki entry on Nixon and Kissinger ending the war? If we compare present times to the WWII who are we analogous to? Was Ann Coulter born a woman?

I guess by "honest" question you mean question Rush hasn't told you how to answer yet, huh? 

Ridiculous 

by ProfRich on 05/23/2008 02:07:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
appreciate it (none / 0)

The question was actually about collateral damage though.  You seemed to be insinuating that war can and should be used as a tool for foreign policy, and that we could use paid mercenaries to do the dirty work, but I was curious how you feel about the innocent people who die in those wars or the increasing threat of nuclear retaliation from radical players who have nothing to lose.

The media and politicians are completely screwed when they omit talking about the benefits of high iol prices.  It encourages conservation, AND research into alternatives.  Unfortunately, it does affect the poor more than the rich in the short term.  In the oil shortage of the 1970s, there was a huge movement to manufacture small automobiles and conserve gasoline.  We are only just beginning to see the benefits of the higher prices now. 

by desertpear on 05/23/2008 05:51:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
first time since the 1970s (none / 0)

People have begun to reduce their use in the USA for the first time since the 1970s oil crisis. 
link

by desertpear on 05/23/2008 06:22:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
withdraw from Iraq? When? How? | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: