The Steamboat Pilot & Today

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In fact, we're so successful in Iraq, that they bombed the crap out of our Green Zone!

Nice to know you consider that a success, Bore! You reporting for Al Jazeera now?

"Rah, Rah, Rah! Go Team!!"

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

To decry the progress in Iraq simply because you oppose the Rebublican Party doesn't help the situation. You will advise that all the democrats out there vote democrat to foil what you have alway stated is a corrupt party. Your view is obviously anti-Republican. That is your choice.

Don't make you statements anti-common sence.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I oppose extremism in politics. I'm a registered Republican but even I see Iraq as still a mess. It was a mistake from the beginning. (In your other thread, you alleged how the Council would have acted if McCain had won in 2000...simply put, I don't think he would have invaded Iraq in the first place. he would have gone after Bin Laden and dealt with that, then turned attention where it was needed...maybe North Korea or Iran.) How do you extol the successes 2 days after a bombing to the degree we just experienced? How does that help any situation? That's like saying "Gee, hijacked planes just knocked over the Twin Towers today, but flying is safer than ever!" It's bad timing for that kind of statement to be attributed anywhere.

The Republican Party isn't corrupt...it's leaders and cheerleaders just don't care about what the rest of the party (or nation) thinks. Same with the Democrats. My view is anti-NeoCon.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And yet, you miss the forest and the trees themselves when extolling the economy. See every post I made calling you a hypocrite. Thanks for making my point once again.

The trend is definitely obvious: Bore is senile or has Alzheimer's.

"Rah, Rah, Rah!" Yep! Eat it Raw! That's the spirit we have here at Bush Administration High!

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All the Saddam / Al Qaeda stuff is already contradicted. You just chose to believe the first story before the intel was cited as being bad. We've already read the Senate Intelligence Report that disputed it. You just want to believe terrorists stories when you agree with them and not when recanted. (Eeeeeeek! Moral Equivalence!!! Get'it!!!)

Many Generals (most who were in Iraq) before Petraeus have said the Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. I'll go with the majority on that one. Are you calling them liars? Mighty noble of you to pick the General du Jour.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

Pleated mini in place. I ask you who would be there to deter the formation of new even more virulent terrorist training facilities if not the American Armed Forces?

I suppose you reccomend bringing in the Iranians to stabilize the country after we bug out.

Come on Matt Where is the logic in walking away from this when all we have to do is prove to the violent few that we are not going anywhere and they had better get used to it.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A few other statistics and observations
we should not have been there in the first place
this is not a war
it is an imperialistic OCCUPATION
it should have been handled diplomatically
but arrogance by the REPUBLICAN badministration of baby bush ( avengand warmonger cheney refused.
results
4000 Americans DEAD
30,000 Americans scarred and wounded
unknown 100's of thousands of Iraqis killed or wounded
US credibility with the world destroyed.
social and economic damage to Iraq. unknown at this time
damage to the US economy and bottom line
at least 500 billion and counting
before calling me a "surrendermonkey" or whatever other "dittohead" moniker you subscribe to, the fact is
we have nothing to surrender to or from.
this isnt a war
its an OCCUPATION

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

424 says
Come on Matt Where is the logic in walking away from this when all we have to do is prove to the violent few that we are not going anywhere and they had better get used to it.

thanks for reiterating that our presence is an OCCUPATION
and an unwanted one at that

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow! You believe the CIA? You mean the CIA that was headed by this guy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washin...

Uh-huh! Well, then- there ya go. Do you believe the message or the messenger?

424- There is as much logic in leaving Iraq as there was invading it in the first place: we just do it. Even Bore's "I'll believe the CIA" line is shot down, thanks to Tenet bashing the intel that was handled...while he was in charge. Thanks to this incredible blunder, Putin and Russia have more credibility in the world than the US does.

We're mired in Iraq now, thanks to an idiot policy of invading when we didn't need to. You can quote Bore's links, too, if you like. They have more holes than Swiss cheese and stink more than Limburger. It makes thinking Republicans look bad overall.

Posted by oofcboy (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

in 1985 I was asked to go undercover in central america but I was wounded with an Ak 47 by the Fmnl's and then I kind of layed low NO PANAMA for me.Sent me to the south pacific,thank goodness

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bore- The NYT article- sucks to be you since it was George Tenet...the guy in CHARGE of the CIA at the time we invaded Iraq, saying that it was handled wrong.

That's what you get for not reading links, even the ones you provide. Swiss & Limburger for you again!

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oofcboy,

Thank you for the work soldier. I was driving an cracker box all over Germany in 1985. I had it easy and I know it.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

Why would I quote sbvor?

He takes the time time to provide the data to back up his statements. Even you take the time to post links to what you consider credible reference. Between you two and a few others there is plenty of linkable research material around for all of us to review. Heck I even posted a link or two on this site.

I will speak for myself, sbvor will do the same,

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

Do think our credibility around the globe will improve if we pull the troops out of Iraq?

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It might, but it will take a while. Our "Coalition of the Willing" keeps abandoning us, too. If we're the only ones in the world thinking what we're doing is right, I'm not so psyched about what we're doing. Saddam and Hitler thought they were doing right things and look where that got them. Isn't that how democracy works? The majority make the rules? Evidently, not in the United Nations. We just said "F'em" and bombed Iraq against the Security Council's wishes. How does that spread the democratic process? It doesn't.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

424
sbore starts these threads to feed his own ego and promote his political agenda, not to educate us, the huddled masses.
when he gets called out on one thread he starts another.
if you havent noticed ,the majority of his links are the same, he even copies and pastes his copy and pastes. notice he did not dispute my position, he just uses it to point to one of the rolls of toilet paper written by his boy/girl? friend colter.
whatever he says or pounds on is not going to change my mind (or anyone else's) and whatever I say wont change his, the only difference is that I know that but he still doesn't get it.
I have stated my position above, and I dont plan on debating it here to feed some blowhard's ego.
I'll let my vote do the talking for me, just as I'm sure you all will.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kiel
shades of Firesign! LOL!
I'm Magna Cum Laude at Commie Martyrs myself!

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SBC,
I am well aware of sbvor’s posting activities. As I am of yours, Matt’s id’s, .... We all live here. We all read the threads. You post to promote your position as do we all. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.

I won't attempt to change your mind. For me to consider changing the position of someone as entrenched in the (Hear you go Matt, I will actually quote sbvor) “surrender monkey” train of thinking is a fools errand.

I will attempt to discuss debate and argue issues with anyone. This increases my understanding of opposing viewpoints. At times I may even find merit in opposing arguments. I don't subscribe to any one specific political pundit, paper or blog. I read as many as it takes for me to achieve some understanding of the truth. Then I make a politically based statement. You’ve read my statements. You know my argument. Debate the topic at hand or my statements with me.

You can play name calling rockem sockem ideologies with whoever you want, just leave me out of it.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

In this country that is precisely how that works, not the case for a majority of humans on this planet. Don't get me wrong, if the democrats elect a president while in office he will be the commander and chief. I will bleed to make sure the flag behind his desk has red stripes on it. (Paraphrasing MI3)

If the forces are pulled out of Iraq I will be asking oofcboy about how to quickly increase my stock of firearms. That fight will not go away if we walk away from the sandy land of Iraq. It will follow our retreating army to our shores.

The League of Nations was pretty cool. They out and out stated they were pro-democracy and willing to fight for it. UN smacks of pandering far too often. One of my deep seated fears is a one world government. "Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely." We need a group of nations that are democratic with capitalist free markets. By definition they would be the brightest flame and draw everyone else to us from desire. Those who don't get left in the cold with no light to figure there own way. I wonder how many socialist states would succeed.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 9, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Too...far...gone...

Look who's talking. LOL! What? Another pesky windmill??? Git'it!!

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

You completely side stepped addressing the legality of our invasion of Iraq. To take a stance that simply advocates an anti war sentiment without regard to the consequences of no action at all falls more clearly into the windmill tilting category.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

424- Where in the UN statement did the line item : Ok to invade Iraq with military forces to effect regime change" come to light in any of the wording. For some reason, I'm missing that in all the "Decides" that they have in that statement.

And why didn't more US Sec. Council countries hop on our bandwagon if War was understood?

Quote the exact words in the resolution, please, and not from 1990, but from 2002 Resolutions. The link Bore provides says NOTHING about military invasion unless you go back to 1990.

Again- all this was also led up through bad intel. You and Bore can choose to ignore newer intel that disputed the old- that's up to you.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What Bore forgot to print in his "quote" of Res. 678 was this part:

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States COOPERATING WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF KUWAIT to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area"

Sooooo...the Government of Kuwait was behind our reason to attack this time, right? Nice little omission there. If I remember correct, Kuwait didn't have anything to do with it this time.

Once again- thanks for providing the link that disputes what you say.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

424
I was speaking of sbore when I spoke of blowhard, not you. bore's only motivation is to push his political agenda in every discussion and to infer that anyone who disagrees with him is the stupidest person on the planet. Not exactly the right way to convince someone of your position. He reminds me of the Kristen Wiig character Penelope
http://tallfreak.com/2007/04/06/penelope...
he has to outdo everyone to feed his ego. Pathetic.
I appreciate your comments because you can reasonably see both sides and debate rationally without an agenda. bore could learn from you ( but alas he wont)

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bore- The Kuwait cooperation was there in 1990 because of Iraq invading Kuwait to annex it. That didn't happen this time around.

Nice try. Keep reliving the past.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt and SBC
Reviewing;
United Nations S/2003/215
Security Council
Provisional
7 March 2003

Are you seriously questioning the wisdom of shutting this guy down?
The US, Spain and Britain reported to the UN all the breaches of previous UN resolutions that the UN had chosen to ignore. They (The UN) pandered to this monster. Ask me why I liked the league of Nations better.

We shut this guy down when he marched on Kuwait because they are an ally of ours. The enemy of my friend is my enemy. The Kuwaitis know this that is why they choose to side with the US in a decidedly anti-American region. Saddam and his government were even more anti American than Iran and that is saying something. At least Iran makes some show of attempting to comply with the nuclear non proliferation treaties.

How long do you allow a man who blatantly gasses the population along the border of his own country, randomly fire scud missiles into neighboring countries and subjugates his own people through fear campaigns to stay in power?

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kuwait wasn't attacked this time, so the resolution was old and not in step with current happenings at the time. It should have been negated from any 2002 resolutions since our reason for going in had nothing to do with Kuwait this time.

Otherwise, I'm sure that some old resolutions would allow us to march right back into North Korea and the rest of the world will stand behind us on that one, too, right?

As for leaving Saddam in power...no, we didn't have to. What we had to do was finish the reason we went into Afghanistan, capture Osama, have him corraborate any ties to Iraq, THEN turn our attention there. How long do we leave a despot in power? I don't know: ask Fidel Castro, or his brother.

As for Iran and non-proliferation...have you actually been reading the news lately? That's right- the US is skeptical about uranium enrichment. Hopefully, that doesn't bite anyone on the a$$ in another decade.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ummm...when DID Bin Laden accept safe haven in Iraq? And we still haven't captured him. You might have missed that part of history. (Going back to the "IF you had a wheel, you'd be a wheelbarrow" frame of mind, I see.)

And since the UN was going off of flawed intel that we helped laud (go back and see that George Tenet statement)...makes me think that they would have rethought resolutions had the proper intel come forward at the beginning.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

S/2003/215 directed attention to the flagrant disregard for disarming Iraqi forces and other blatant infractions that continued against UN resolutions up until the day Saddam was removed from power.

The only reason we don't just march into North Korea is that they are in the dieing throws of their socialist government’s lifespan. The North Korean government has stripped the bones and sucked the marrow out of bones of their people. It is only a matter of time before they implode. We simply have to make every effort to insure it’s not a nuclear implosion.

Korea or Cuba are not launching Scuds into their neighbors population centers. They are communist nations and we have learned from experience that the socialist experiment is doomed to failure. We simply wait.

The possibility of Iran not only already having a supply of enriched uranium is present. It takes a great deal of time for a small installation to produce usable weaponized uranium. They have had the time and facilities to produce a small amount. The fact to note is that it doesn't take much to build a devastating device.

Iraq needs to succeed in order to insert an ally of no little power into the region. We don't need another Saudi Arabia here. We need a Democratic government with a capitalistic free market. With a standing army of free men and women willing to fight for their own interests freedom will survive. Until they can do this we need to assist them.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

424- Maybe you also missed where Russia is looking more and more Communist again and thriving because of it. It seemed Democracy was what put it in a bind. China is thriving also and I'm pretty sure their still Commies, too. How is Korea in it's "dying throws?" Kim Jong Il seems to be controlling the majority of talks.

So, since 1991...no, even 1998 when Inspectors were kicked out...when did Saddam bomb Kuwait...or anyone- up until we invaded in 2003?

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CIA- You believe them, right? But you disbelieve Tenet...they guy who ran the CIA during all this? The same Tenet Bush gave the Pres. Medal of Freedom? The same Tenet who contradicted Bush's motives about Iraq?

This ex-CIA Director George Tenet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tene...

As for your 9-11 Commission report...we already know that it was disputed upon new finding in the Senate Intel Report that you said is dishonest...all because a Terrorist didn't lie...then lied about not lying. Wow. But Tenet is a liar, right? You believe the terrorist before the ex-CIA Director?

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

Wow

Russia is looking more communist? Point me to the news or data backing that one up please.

Il controls one thing only, the north Korean military machine. That is the pup chewing on the bones I mentioned earlier.

China is thriving, and growing. They have today a more capitalist approach, to the Chinese economic model. As with a democratic government introducing capitalism into new areas the introduction of capitalism will have a similar effect. So as I indicated to SBC in another post, Have a Coke and a smile ;-)

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From:
http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2008/...

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard)
March 19, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio......

See pgs. 60-95ish. Post-War intel said Pre-War intel stunk and was a stretch, in layman's terms.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your answer was "it's partisan" and "I believe the 1st thing the terrorist said, not the 2nd."

So you pull up the "National Review" site...a bastion of partisanship. Nice counter!

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmmm...here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Pu...

"On December 4, 2007, at Harvard University, Mikhail Gorbachev credited Putin with having "pulled Russia out of chaos" and said he was "assured a place in history", "despite Gorbachev's acknowledgment that the news media have been suppressed and that election rules run counter to the democratic ideals he has promoted".[207] Nevertheless, on January 28, 2008, Gorbachev in his interview to Interfax[208] "sharply criticized the state of Russia’s electoral system and called for extensive reforms to a system that has secured power for President Vladimir V. Putin and the Kremlin’s inner circle."[209] Following Gorbachev's interview The Washington Post's editorial said: "No wonder that Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union's last leader, felt moved to speak out. "Something wrong is going on with our elections", he told the Interfax agency. But it's not only elections: In fact, the system that Mr. Gorbachev took apart is being meticulously reconstructed."[210]

In its January 2008 World Report, Human Rights Watch wrote in the section devoted to Russia: "As parliamentary and presidential elections in late 2007 and early 2008 approached, the administration headed by President Vladimir Putin cracked down on civil society and freedom of assembly. Reconstruction in Chechnya did not mask grave human rights abuses including torture, abductions, and unlawful detentions. International criticism of Russia’s human rights record remains muted, with the European Union failing to challenge Russia on its human rights record in a consistent and sustained manner."[211] The organization called President Putin a "repressive" and "brutal" leader on par with the leaders of Zimbabwe and Pakistan.[212]"

And this part:

"On February 8, 2008, Putin delivered a speech before the expanded session of the State Council headlined "On the Strategy of Russia's Development until 2020",[94] which was interpreted by the Russian media as his "political bequest". The speech was largely devoted to castigating the state of affairs in the 1990s and setting ambitious targets of economic growth by 2020.[95] He also condemned NATO's expansion and the US plan to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield and promised that "Russia has, and always will have, responses to these new challenges".[96]"

Should we wait for Putin to come back and bang his shoe?

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ummm...the links I provided were...wait for it...News Links!!! They pointed you where? To the actual Senate Committee PDF!!

Here: is this non-Mainstream enough for you?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2755...

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My turn for a link!

http://www.international.ucla.edu/articl...

I clipped the telling statement from a decidedly sensationalistic piece.

"But by and large the election results in 2003 and 2004 match both previous opinion polls and exit polls pretty closely. And not even the political opposition in Russia really claims that Putin and his allies aren't extremely popular or that their representation in the parliament isn't justified by the actual views of the voters."

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 10, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

***sigh*** PDF's can't be cut & paste. Read the Senate Report Pgs. 60-95-ish. The Post War findings on Saddam/Al Qaeda were exaggerated and unfounded for the most part.

You just can't see it because...well...because of who you are.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

Your stance is anti-war that on a general basis is laudable.

Your accusation of mismanagement of the entire scenario leading into the occupation of Iraq and subsequent call for withdrawal is anti-human. The quagmire you state we are sinking into is no place to leave those who can not swim.

We now know there was faulty if not out and out incompetent Intel on the link issue. We also know this beast needed to be put down. His destabilizing effect on the region was a candle in a fuse factory. That we should have invaded in the first place, you can debate until the cows come home.

What we do now will shape the world to come.

Posted by contrarian (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

snore,
STOP SCREAMING!!!!!!!!!
DO YOU THINK WE CAN'T HEAR YOU FROM HAYDEN????????
EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE A CERTIFIABLE IDIOT, WRITING IN ALL CAPS WILL NOT CHANGE THAT.
CHILL DUDE. TAKE YOUR WIFE OUT TO DINNER AND RELAX.
BUT STOP YOUR IDIOTIC ALL CAPS WRITING YOU FREAKIN MORON.

Posted by contrarian (anonymous) on April 10, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now, where was I?

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 11, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did I just hear a vein in someone's temple pop online? Amazing! And I think the word you were looking for was "coronary," not "corollary."

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 11, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

That is not argument it is simple contradiction.

Posted by kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) on April 11, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"No it wasn't."

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 11, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And to my over emotional sister who cried crocodile tears when I needed real support, I bequeath not one red cent and a

Boot to the head.

Posted by oofcboy (anonymous) on April 11, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I ll just go frag me some monsters,and will check up on you children later.OUT

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 11, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The End of Jihad
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/...
When the United States invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003 it destabilized the whole Middle East. The American military had taken over the one Arab state with plenty of oil and a large population. Washington threatened to overthrow the governments of Iran and Syria. The first Shiite government to hold power in the Arab world in 800 years was soon installed in Baghdad. The entire region was engulfed by a tidal wave of anti-Americanism.

Posted by elk2 (anonymous) on April 12, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SBVOR, that's the thing about Bush follower's you are just that, followers. GWB has never uttered an intelligent word, much less made an intelligent decision. Are you out of your mind???

Posted by elk2 (anonymous) on April 12, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not a follower, I think it just makes sense, don't invade the WRONG country and KILL many thousands of innocent people. Face it, The guy (GWB) needs a map. He didn't even know where Iraq was until Dick and Karl told him.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 12, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is precisely why Dick, Karl, and dear old Dad are his advisers. They know where to go and who to go after.

Posted by elk2 (anonymous) on April 12, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thanks , I needed a laugh today. No offense sbvor, you are interesting however most of your facts come from links. How does that make your thoughts original? I bet you love Rush too don't you. He's a drugged out hate monger.

Posted by elk2 (anonymous) on April 12, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, my nephew is in Iraq fighting for you. Just thought I'd give you something to smile about.

Peace Out!

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 13, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

US infrastructure crumbles, but lets rebuild Iraq instead
Democrat Blames Weak Economy on Iraq War
Sunday April 13, 2:26 am ET
By Will Lester, Associated Press Writer
Democrat Blames Iraq War for Weak Economy, Wants Money Directed to Pressing Needs in US
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080413/democrats...

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker failed to offer a plan to change direction in Iraq and redeploy our troops," Yarmuth said. "Instead, they offered more of the same, with U.S. troops and taxpayers paying the price."

The U.S. government has spent "more than half-a-trillion dollars" in support of the war effort, while that money could be spent on pressing needs in this country, he said.

"Across America, our roads and bridges are crumbling and are in desperate need of repair, yet taxpayer dollars are being squandered on an Iraqi government that is riddled with waste, fraud and corruption," Yarmuth said.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 13, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bloodiest week this year for U.S. troops
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/13/2008 12:20:19 AM MDT
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci...

BAGHDAD — A roadside bomb killed an American soldier Saturday in Baghdad, capping the bloodiest week for U.S. troops in Iraq this year.

Clashes persisted in Shiite areas.

At least 13 Shiite militants were killed in the latest skirmishes in Baghdad's militia stronghold of Sadr City, the U.S. military said. Iraqi police said seven civilians also died in fighting, which erupted Friday night and tapered off Saturday.

The U.S. military said the American soldier was killed in a blast Saturday morning in northwestern Baghdad but did not say whether Shiite militiamen were responsible. The death raised to at least 19 the number of American troops killed in Iraq since last Sunday. The Associated Press

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 13, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yup
a forest littered with dead Americans

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SBC,

Do you believe pulling all our troops out of Iraq will lead to a more peaceful future for the people of Iraq and Americans?

Posted by spukomy (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

424, I wish more people would ask themselves that question.
Follow-up would be; Do you think terrorists won't attack us on our soil (again) if we pull our troops?
Then; If we pull out, then get attacked again, should we take it lying down?
Or should we go to war with the Islamic Extremist Terrorists that have vowed a holy Jihad on America?

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bore
nice picture of your last family reunion
424, spuk
these crappy war blogs dont do anyone any good, I got my opinion, you got yours, blablabla,
Mr Natural, what does it all mean?
Don't mean shiite!
http://www.zubeworld.com/crumbmuseum/nat...
got that correct.
doesnt matter what you or I say,what will eventually come to pass is not in our hands.
proselytizing your point ( whatever it may be) will not change the outcome.
I've stated my opinion . its all I really want to say.

Posted by contrarian (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sbvor,
So, you're actually holding yourself out as someone who understands women? How have you done in that department?

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thread,
I would also like to say that I have been referring to this forum to my peers friends and family in conversations and correspondence. This has brought about much discussion and debate. I wish to point out that the SP&T blogosphere is now read by readers in Texas, North Carolina, Kansas and California. I suggest that no matter you position on any one subject you do the same. Never underestimate the power of the written word. “The pen is mightier than the sword”
I invite descent and debate as it will only serve to bring the truth to light.

Posted by spukomy (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SBC, Gotta differ with you. These aren't blogs, and they do raise questions. Just wondering, do you think the Islamic Extemist Terrorists will attack us again if we pull out of the sand?

You claim; "what will eventually come to pass is not in our hands." Do you leave your future up to fate?

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

spuk
if they want to they will attack us whether or not we are occupying Iraq.
what I said was no matter what we yak about here, it isnt going to influence what the powers that be will ultimately do.
why havent we done what should have been done in the first place, captured or killed bin laden? probably would have saved a bunch of lives on both sides and elevated our status with the world.
oh wait, bin laden doesnt have millions of barrels of oil in his pockets.

you dont believe in fate?
the fork in the road? the road not taken?
where would you be now if your had made just one different choice in your life?

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Memo to Petraeus & Crocker: More Laughs, Please
http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/...
I can’t look at Petraeus — his uniform ornamented like a Christmas tree with honors, medals and ribbons — without thinking of the great Mort Sahl at the peak of his brilliance. He talked about meeting General Westmoreland in the Vietnam days. Mort, in a virtuoso display of his uncanny detailed knowledge — and memory — of such things, recited the lengthy list (”Distinguished Service Medal, Croix de Guerre with Chevron, Bronze Star, Pacific Campaign” and on and on), naming each of the half-acre of decorations, medals, ornaments, campaign ribbons and other fripperies festooning the general’s sternum in gaudy display. Finishing the detailed list, Mort observed, “Very impressive!” Adding, “If you’re twelve.”
Never in this breathing world have I seen a person clog up and erode his speaking — as distinct from his reading — with more “uhs,” “ers” and “ums” than poor Crocker. Surely he has never seen himself talking: “Uh, that is uh, a, uh, matter that we, er, um, uh are carefully, uh, considering.” (Not a parody, an actual Crocker sentence. And not even the worst.)

must be taking lessons from our "illustrious" Treas. Sec "stuttering" Hank Paulson.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Um, thought I might, ahhh post a link in reference to my, uhhhm, feeling about the, ahh, Isolationism I, uh, see developing in the US today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy3fJ8Nmz...

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it both
do you want me to post John Stewarts assessment too?
petraeus and crocker are both stooges for the badministration, as are bernanke and p-p-p-p-paulson.
guess you whined enough to the SPT to get back huh?

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its like watching us all post to ourselves, weird!

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/200804...

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins , a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.

The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq ) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East ," the report continued.
To read the report:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Paper...

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Partisan opinion in an election year from a left wing perspective.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

42
good job channelling bore
thanks for not calling me a bleeding heart fascist liberal commie pinko pimp.
that way I'll listen to what you say.
probably wont agree with you tho
LOL

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't agree with everything sbvor said but I did find some of his statements to be accurate.

We don't have to agree. That is the great thing about this sight and the reason I post. A debate on this issue will only bring more information to the table.

As is every single posters right.

My belief that walking away from Iraq, at this stage in the game will only cause more damage in the long run, stems from my understanding of the events leading up to this point in time. I am a bit of a history and human nature buff.

I try not to fall to name calling in an argument, it belittles the argument not the person you attack.

Are you stating that your opinion is not partisan and politically motivated?

Or

Do you think that pulling our troops out of Iraq will secure a safer future for Americans?

Posted by spukomy (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SBC, You've touched on something sbvor could never understand. His demeanor is so abrasive that you want to shoot the messenger. I wasn't immune to his fascist/pinko ranting either. Even when I agreed with him, it was still difficult to stomach the way he carried himself. Guess he never heard of catching more flies with honey. Hopefully we can enjoy a more civil dialogue now.

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the problem with bore is that he has a political agenda and all of his arguments were aimed at placing blame for all of society's ills on "Dims" i.e. any one whose political persuasion was not his.
It did not make for any reasonable discussion.
He also feels that we are beneath him intellectually and that our opinions were just fodder for his superior intelligence. Funny what over education will do for a person.
And as has been stated in his bio,
http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2008/...
He will never win a Nobel Peace Prize. LOL

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 22, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I suspect none of us will ever win the nobel peace prize.

What we can do for our mutual benefit is listen to each other, consider the information and debate the issues in the hopes of a greater understanding of the events unfolding around us.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the words of Thomas Paine

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shame on Bush media machine

By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/25/2008 09:42:41 PM MDT
http://www.denverpost.com/popular/ci_905...

For years, the Pentagon has gone to enormous effort to secretly groom a small army of on-air military analysts to manipulate public opinion on the government's war on terror.

The propaganda machine, exposed in a New York Times story Sunday, is a reprehensible example of how far the Bush administration will go to counter dissent and prop up its policies.

The message management and the utter failure of television news operations to properly vet supposed "independent" analysts combined to present an irrationally positive take on the Iraq war.

The Times story shows how the Defense Department targeted a group of retired military officers, giving them VIP treatment as they were offered "facts" that were really a carefully filtered version of reality.
These analysts were flown to places such as Guantanamo Bay, brought in for audiences with top military brass — including meetings with then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — at least 18 times.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the analysts were remarkably adept at conveying the administration's "talking points" in subsequent appearances on network and cable news shows.
At times, according to one Pentagon public relations specialist, "We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You'd look at them and say, 'This is working,' " according to the Times. The analysts who dared criticized the administration lost their special access.

And the Beat goes on.

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 29, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now Conscience,

Were you a little fearful that readers would bypass clicking your link, knowing that you have a definite tilt to the left when it comes to political debate? Is that perhaps why you cut and paste the article into your post?

Would that kind of post falls into exactly the same type of cut and paste you used to lambaste sbvor for?

Is there no Democrat media machine hard at work fostering an appetite for that left handed fare we get to here?

Posted by steamboatsconscience (anonymous) on April 29, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

never said that I didnt learn anything from bore!
turnabout is fair play!
plus I dont usually paste the whole article, just the "highlights"
bore would be proud of me
whatcha think of our new buddy joe?

Posted by 424now (anonymous) on April 29, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wouldn't put it past sbvor and I have to admit there is some sentance structure and tone in the first few posts that are remenant of my favorite right wing writer pilot. Alas there were multiple personas downed in the last sortie. HunterDog I found a little more willing to debate on occasion and still there is a nagging wonder if there is a new member to this blogosphere.

Hey it could even be Matt in there with a second persona out of spite!

I suspect that time will tell and Joe never will.