Republican vs Democrat

[Jack Mehoff]

I hate election year politics.

here is Reality:

1. Doesn't matter who wins the presidency, we will be in Iraq for quite awhile.

2. Iraq has never been and will never be a Right vs Left issue in reality. Election year Rhetoric yes, Reality no.

3. We are in Iraq for many reasons that go far beyond WMD. We need to get out of Saudi Arabia and we need a foothold nearby because like it or not Saudia Arabian fanatics are the true enemy of peace.

4. we are kicking ass over there, what we are doing for Iraq is nothing short of spectacular. 20 years from now Ireaq will be like Germany and Japan, and they will have the USA to thank for it.


there is alot more, but i am spent

[UoUo]

Like japan ? never. you will thank to god if iraq will be like Poland in the next 50 years.
max : romania.



BTW : poland rule.

[ogukuo72]

Why not? Unlike Japan and Germany, Iraq is sitting on top of a huge oil reserves. With suitable application of Western expertise and genuine reforms in Iraq, who knows how far they can go?

[UoUo]

iraq will not be a westren country...it may be a country with gov that pro west....nothing else...

Just look on suadi arabia....huge stock of oil...but still - ****ty economy.

[Mortimer]

sounds like jack is a bit scared his beloved republicans won't be re-elected...

[Mortimer]

iraq will not be a westren country...it may be a country with gov that pro west....nothing else...

Just look on suadi arabia....huge stock of oil...but still - ****ty economy.

****ty economy? they don't have tax.....for staters

you may be right a little bit but they are very wealthy.

[UoUo]

If you cheack the % of the people that is rich you will find that most of the rich people there are in the gov' in 1 way or another...

Economy can't based on oil. simple as that.

[mocking_loudly_died]

I only vote for the "Three day weekend party".

You yanks need to get an American branch going. :D

[Mortimer]

is the 3 day weekend party only federal? i couldn't find them on the state ballot paper...well they only put their names and not their party :(

I TRIED!!

[Mark Sman]

Jack Mehoff's original post
para-phrased here
I hate election year politics.
1. Doesn't matter who wins the presidency, we will be in Iraq for quite awhile.
2. Iraq has never been and will never be a Right vs Left issue in reality. Election year Rhetoric yes, Reality no.
3. We are in Iraq for many reasons that go far beyond WMD. We need to get out of Saudi Arabia and we need a foothold nearby because like it or not Saudia Arabian fanatics are the true enemy of peace.
4. we are kicking ass over there, what we are doing for Iraq is nothing short of spectacular. 20 years from now Ireaq will be like Germany and Japan, and they will have the USA to thank for it.
There is alot more, but i am spent
end Parphrase

Is essentially correct
#4 Is highly debatable. If the democrats have their way in this election, we will do for Iraq what we did for Vietnam.

Eisenhower = good plan for Vietnam
Kennedy/Johnson = moronic f**k up
Nixon = game over

[NcDeuce]

I never always vote for one party. I always vote for the man who seems to have the best intentions and looks as if he would do the best job.

That said, it usually comes out to be Republican.

[Vance]

I never always vote for one party. I always vote for the man who seems to have the best intentions and looks as if he would do the best job.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Mr Clark seems like a nice guy, smart as well and he actually fought for his counrty and took some bullets to. I think this is one guy who would not be misled by spin.

[Mortimer]

I never always vote for one party. I always vote for the man who seems to have the best intentions and looks as if he would do the best job.

lol are you even old enough to vote?

[Seoulstriker]

Mr Clark seems like a nice guy, smart as well and he actually fought for his counrty and took some bullets to. I think this is one guy who would not be misled by spin.

you don't think so?

well, did you know that Clark supported invading Iraq, but when he was called upon to run for the nomination, he magically switched his position and is now against the Iraq war?

did you know he almost started WWIII? did you know that he was fired by Clinton's defsec?

clark is a douchebag and will never get the nomination. he is only in there to divert attention away from Dean so that Bush will win reelection. this would set up hillary for 2008. :|

[Mortimer]

Mr Clark seems like a nice guy, smart as well and he actually fought for his counrty and took some bullets to. I think this is one guy who would not be misled by spin.

you don't think so?

well, did you know that Clark supported invading Iraq, but when he was called upon to run for the nomination, he magically switched his position and is now against the Iraq war?

did you know he almost started WWIII? did you know that he was fired by Clinton's defsec?

clark is a douchebag and will never get the nomination. he is only in there to divert attention away from Dean so that Bush will win reelection. this would set up hillary for 2008. :|
got any any articles supporting these claims mr soulstriker?

and people are allowed to change their opinions, i do ...

[Seoulstriker]

Mr Clark seems like a nice guy, smart as well and he actually fought for his counrty and took some bullets to. I think this is one guy who would not be misled by spin.

you don't think so?

well, did you know that Clark supported invading Iraq, but when he was called upon to run for the nomination, he magically switched his position and is now against the Iraq war?

did you know he almost started WWIII? did you know that he was fired by Clinton's defsec?

clark is a douchebag and will never get the nomination. he is only in there to divert attention away from Dean so that Bush will win reelection. this would set up hillary for 2008. :|
got any any articles supporting these claims mr soulstriker?

and people are allowed to change their opinions, i do ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lawler091803.asp






The serial-primary method used by our parties to pick presidential nominees is chaotic and unpredictable. Everyone knows that party elites have no real power any more, and nobody really knows how our involvement in Iraq and the stock market will look next year. Candidates also sometimes self-destruct because of personal foibles that would not be clear this early in the campaign. Nonetheless, predictions must be made.

Some facts that are probably facts: All the Democratic candidates except Dean and Clark are stillborn. They will be wiped off the map by crushing defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean is the candidate of the most-articulate faction in the party — the upper middle-class, bourgeois-bohemian (bobo) crowd. He appeals to West Wing fantasies and Vietnam antiwar nostalgia, and especially to those on the Left who believe that Clinton demoralized the real (as opposed to the new) Democratic party. He presents himself effectively as an "outsider"; he has the image that perennially suckers primary voters. And he really is an outsider; he would radically reform the Clinton-dominated party establishment. It's hard to see how he wouldn't do very well among the disproportionally bobo (and very white) primary electorates of Iowa and New Hampshire.

That doesn't mean that Dean can get nominated, much less elected. Bobo candidates (such as McGovern or even Dukakis) don't fare well in general elections. They exaggerate the nation's cultural divisions, and so they rally regular guys with no strong partisan affiliations to the Republicans. George W. Bush, one of the most-regular (including religious) guys ever to the president, would have a strong personal advantage over the smug and snotty Dean. More than that, African-American voters don't like bobos; Clinton — who speaks with the cadence of a populist black preacher — won because he understood that so well. Ethnic Catholic northern, and white Protestant southern voters — still a large part of the party's electorate — also are repulsed by the intellectual elitism — including the lack of patriotism — of what was until recently called "yuppie scum."

So it seems to me that all Clark needs to do to prevail after the first couple of primaries is to be the viable alternative to Dean and be enthusiastically endorsed by both Clintons. And Bill and Hillary are clearly raising their visibility with that job in mind. They are the Democratic establishment, and they can't risk having a nominee they can't control. On Bill's word, African-American voters will flock to Clark as the alternative to the bobo, and the pro-choice Catholics (Democratic Catholics) will have found one of their own. Clark will remind many gullible Democrats of the pseudo-integrity of West Wing's Catholic — President Bartlet, and a new fantasy will develop. (Clark, like Bartlet, was also a professor economics for a while!) Clark is also more of an outsider than Dean; he has no political experience at all! And all astute Democrats will choose him over Dean as the man who could really beat Bush, as more a Clinton than a McGovern. Clark is actually Clinton with some Eisenhower added; it's hard to accuse a general of lacking personal courage or ignoring issues of natural security. Lieberman, the national-security candidate at this point, will endorse Clark when he drops out fairly early in the primary season. Clark, more than Clinton, will be a formidable candidate in the south.

Clark has to be regarded as the favorite for the nomination, and it would be a mistake at this point to regard him as an underdog in the general election. The main stumbling block to his success would be Hillary entering the race. As far as I can tell, her judgment is that the risk for her at this point is too high. She surely secretly hopes for a narrow Democratic defeat next year to clear the way for her in 2008. But political results can't be engineered that precisely, and don't be surprised if she doesn't adopt the amazingly low-risk strategy of making herself available as Clark's running mate. That would make her the presumptive nominee in either 2008 or 2012, depending on the general's skill and fortune.

Why would the senator give up her all the influence that comes from having a safe seat from one of our largest states? The former First Lady could hardly be fulfilled as a mere senator; her real ambition is to be president. And whomever Clark picks as his vice-presidential candidate — if the ticket is elected — would have immediate advantages in the struggle to succeed him. Hillary can't count on that person not catching on. And no insider Democratic senator has won the party's presidential nomination under the present primary-nomination system. If Mrs. Clinton wants to be president, she'll want to be on the Clark ticket.

[Mortimer]

hey and btw...what the hell is with your name??

Seoul is the capital of South Korea.......

so you mean soul?

[Seoulstriker]

hey and btw...what the hell is with your name??

Seoul is the capital of South Korea.......

so you mean soul?

nah. the reason why my nickname is seoulstriker is because when i was playing F/A-18 Hornet Korea 6 years ago, i was the first person in the online community to start using Seoul, South Korea as a bombing/target range. ;)

[Mortimer]

forgive my dunkeness but i don't think there is anything in that article backing up your claims......

lol yeah i thought it was something like that

[Seoulstriker]

forgive my dunkeness but i don't think there is anything in that article backing up your claims......

lol yeah i thought it was something like that

oh. i thought that you were talking about my claim that the introduction of clark into the democratic nomination process was false. there is plenty of information of what kind of person clark is.



here is a tidbit:


General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Friend of Bill's (FOB) is considering a run for President of these United States. In an AP report of 29 June, former-President William Jefferson Clinton stated that Wesley Clark would make a fine president, if he ran. After all, what are friends for? There is also a grassroots campaign effort to "draft Wesley Clark" for president which states, "We believe America needs a new president. One who can be a voice for common sense and moderation in these dangerous, uncertain times. One with the unquestionable leadership and foreign policy credentials necessary to win in 2004. We believe that General Wesley Clark might just be – the one. That is why we are trying to convince him to seek the Democratic nomination for president."

Let us look at what kind of a president Wesley Clark would make according to CounterPunch of November 12, 1999, "The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994.

"At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, CounterPunch delved into the military career of General Wesley Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks derived from the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast.

"With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, 'a horse's ass.' Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the Nato command two months early."

This is the guy who received the Kosovo Campaign Medal after having been granted a waiver, although according to an article in Stars and Stripes (European addition), no one seems to know who granted the waiver in time for the general to get the first medal awarded. Even though he led the international alliance in its 78-day blitz against Yugoslavia, the waiver was necessary because General Clark's service did not meet the criteria for the award which required service in the actual theater of operation. It appears that Clark made no effort to secure similar waivers for the thousands of service personnel who supported the effort from bases outside the combat zone.

On 17 July 2001, General Wesley Clark was confronted in an often heated exchange by his critics at Border's book store where the general was promoting his book, Waging Modern War. Although one of the axioms of Clark's book is that, "A Political Problem Cannot be Solved by Military Force," what he practiced and advocated in Kosovo was just the opposite. When confronted with questions about the misuse of air power and grossly exaggerating the results as exposed in a Newsweek article titled Kosovo Cover-Up of 15 May 2000, targeting civilian targets as stated by Sen. Joe Lieberman, and consorting with KLA terrorists such as Hashim Thaci and Agim Ceku, General Clark's replies were always the same: the questioner was wrong, Sen. Lieberman was wrong, and Newsweek was wrong. "I went to the presentation very much opposed to everything Clark stood for, but it wasn't until I heard him speak and answer questions that I realized how dangerous a man like this is," writes Col. George Jatras, USAF (Ret).

'THE GUY WHO ALMOST STARTED WORLD WAR III'

In Waging Modern War, General Clark wrote about his fury upon learning that Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo, before British or American forces. In the article "The guy who almost started World War III," (Aug. 3, 1999), The Guardian (U.K.) wrote, "No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War."

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. The Times of London reported on 23 May 2001 in an article titled, "Kosovo clash of allied generals," that "General Sir Michael Jackson [was] told that he would have to resign if he refused to obey an order by the American commander of Nato's forces during the Kosovo war to stop the Russians from seizing control of Pristina airport in June 1999."

If General Clark had had his way, we might have gone to war with Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War and we certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an ill-conceived ground war

In his article titled, "A Long, Tough Job," which appeared in the Washington Post on 14 September, Clark writes, "And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.

"Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity."

"Rely on international law"? Clinton and his gangsters broke every international law on the books regarding Yugoslavia. "Evidence must be collected?" Evidence of what? The Serbs certainly did not have weapons of mass destruction; nor did they attack us first; nor were they ever a threat to us. His words ring hollow.

You can read "Wes" Clark's letter to the National Albanian American Council of 1 November 2002, in which he says, "Let's stay in touch." For an American general who was supposed to be impartial in a civil war, it is no secret that Clark is the Albanian lobby's fair-haired boy. And why not? He delivered Kosovo to them.

General Clark brags about the fact that not one solder was killed under his command. Even though the Serbs had every opportunity to kill American soldiers, I contend that the Serbs did not want Americans to die at their hands. This was illustrated when Sgt. Christopher Stone of Smiths Creek, Michigan, upon his release, left a note to his prison guards thanking them for treating him with "dignity and respect." The Pentagon declined to release a copy of Stone's note, but a copy was made available to The Associated Press (5 May 1999). The note ended with "Thank you, you are very kind" and "God help you."

Col. David Hackworth, in his 1999 commentary Defending America, wrote of Clark: Known by those who've served with him as the Ultimate Perfumed Prince, he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die.

Col. Jatras writes that "General Clark is the kind of general we saw too often during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in a position of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the security of our nation. That it happened once again we can thank that other Rhodes scholar from Arkansas."

In this writer's judgement, what this guy is positioning himself for is the VP slot with Hillary running for President. It would be a marriage made in Hell...a Hell for all of us.

Knowing all the above, why would anyone want as president or VP a guy who was willing to start World War III for the sake of his own ego and self-importance?



there is more.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Seoulstriker I take it from your reply that your a Republican. I really thought you Americans would take a shine to an all American war hero, I read the bit about him starting WW3, very interesting guy indeed he really does have a sense of humour, maybe the Christian Fundies will vote for him they always harping on about Armageddon.

[96B]

Jack I got news for your brother, if a Democrat wins the White House next year you can best believe we will be out of Iraq or at least have pulled much of our forces out within a year or so afterwards. They all seem to think that having a bunch of UN troops running around is a better idea because we need to "internationalize" the effort when in reality the whole point of it is to lessen the numbers of American casualties and throw the UN's soldiers in the crosshairs while not necessarily reaching the objectives.

2004 Presidential Election: Unless Iraq has completely gone to hell and the ENTIRE country is in total chaos, the only major issue the Democrats will be able to run on will be the economy and if it keeps up what it is doing now, they will not have any solid issue to run on and will have not a chance at winning. The American people know that Republicans are much stronger with national security and military issues, so Iraq is hard for them to argue. Out of all of the Democratic candidates I personally like Lieberman but it seems as though he is out matched in this one.

By the way, pulling American forces out of Iraq mission not accomplished would be the biggest mistake in foreign policy since Vietnam. It would send a message to all terrorists all over the world that America can be intimidated and will pull out when attacked like this. Terrorism would surely rise all over the world.

[Deuterium]

There IS only one candidate that could beat George Bush and that is Al Sharpton. He is the only man with vision and personal fortitude to take on the tough issues. His track record shows that, unlike al the other candidates, he is not controlled by corrupt big businesses, special interest groups, and corrupt politicians that run amuck in the Democratic Party. Al can make a speech not filled with lies like the rest of the pact continuously do, but instead filled with hope and vision of a new America. Al will mop the floor with Clark's "record". GO AL GO!!!!

http://sharpton2004.meetup.com/members/






paraody

[budanski]

http://users.rcn.com/emerald.eyes/sharptondryer.jpg

Al Sharpton: Curled, Rested and Ready for '04






parody

[duck]

By the way, pulling American forces out of Iraq mission not accomplished would be the biggest mistake in foreign policy since Vietnam. It would send a message to all terrorists all over the world that America can be intimidated and will pull out when attacked like this. Terrorism would surely rise all over the world.

Yep, and if it's up to Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Bolton and Rummy, the pullout from Iran, Syria and Lebanon will be a hot issue two years from now. Well, maybe the draft is re-instituted by then.

[Seoulstriker]

By the way, pulling American forces out of Iraq mission not accomplished would be the biggest mistake in foreign policy since Vietnam. It would send a message to all terrorists all over the world that America can be intimidated and will pull out when attacked like this. Terrorism would surely rise all over the world.

Yep, and if it's up to Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Bolton and Rummy, the pullout from Iran, Syria and Lebanon will be a hot issue two years from now. Well, maybe the draft is re-instituted by then.


the democrats have no plan for america. they just want to do the opposite of what Bush wants to do. :|

[NcDeuce]

By the way, pulling American forces out of Iraq mission not accomplished would be the biggest mistake in foreign policy since Vietnam. It would send a message to all terrorists all over the world that America can be intimidated and will pull out when attacked like this. Terrorism would surely rise all over the world.

Yep, and if it's up to Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Bolton and Rummy, the pullout from Iran, Syria and Lebanon will be a hot issue two years from now. Well, maybe the draft is re-instituted by then.


the democrats have no plan for america. they just want to do the opposite of what Bush wants to do. :|

Fo' shizzle.