Ok, so the last 4 years the war has gone on and been a failure in achieving stated goals. America has spent over half a trillion dollars (so far) on the war and the burn rate is $200 million a day - not to mention the priceless cost of lives. And yet we have people who monotonously nod their hollow heads to the words "stay the course".
Whoa listen to this big shot. Just go ahead and slap us in the face with socialism.If Obama was the leader back when the American Revolution was going on. There wouldn't be any United States. War is bad. OF course its bad but an evil necessity. Let's start kicking ass and taking names. America is not a bunch of softies and left wing socialist such as the European Union nations. We are the United States built upon something no other country has or can get. And they are jealous and want it gone.
please keep in mind the next Prez doesn't take over until Jan '09, or when the North American Union could mess up elections. We have to use Dr. Paul's candidacy to push the "real" politics he's discussed for 30 years into the mainstream to get "real" change. We've got issues to deal with fast, and it doesn't hurt to explain to people in clear detail why they have to vote for him too... :-)
We may need to be there for decades to come. Leaving before the job is completed is not acceptable. There will not be a military solution, but the military needs to provide security for the political solution. I do not want that fool to be my Commander in Chief!
What job are you trying to complete - define what winning means? Staying there for decades almost implicitly means that there cannot be a "win". Traditional wars are won by surrender. This is a different war so the strategy needs to be different. If you think it's of for America to be in Iraq for decades, you lack common sense.
The terms for winning are clear. The central Iraqi government being able to provide their own security for their nation. The only thing the recent plan of more troops lacks is greater international support. If we accept defeat, the death toll will be far greater.
Ok, so you establish the terms for winning - now what about a timetable for winning? In a capitalist society, any projects requiring sponsor funding needs a timetable for delivery of results or they get no funding. The sponsors here are the American taxpayer. But there is NO timetable OR a change in strategy. It's just we will see how things go - unacceptable
That's so completely arbitrary. There are millions of differences between a military operation and a capitalist venture. You want to reconcile all of them before we ever use our military? Maybe we can win by going door to door selling vacuum cleaners. So what else did you hear Rosie O'Donnell say?
Where did I say reconcile everything? My point is when you get funding from sponsors - you need accountability - you know a system of checks and balances? not a system of denial and cowboy decision making.
No, you didn't say reconcile everything. I was making the point that your timetable idea was totally arbitrary in reference to your business analogy. If you say there needs to be accountability that's fine. Of course there does. There is. But to say "business uses timetables, therefore, so should war," You're just picking one arbitrary aspect of business accountability, which nearly every political and military expert agrees would be a disaster.
I agree the US did create the chaos in Iraq and has a responsibility to Iraq to see their course to stability. But it doesnt mean American occupation of their land is the best path towards that goal - and the results are there for everyone to see. Bush said the war would last 6 months - no. He said we have a coalition - no. He said Iraq had WMD - no. 3500 troops lost their lives for a failed foreign policy - don't continue down a failed path.
I'd like to see where he ever said it would last six months. From the very beginning he said it was going to be a long term commitment. We don't have a coalition because France, Russia, and China were trading with Iraq in violation of UN sanctions before the war.
Mate, check your facts - or read Lee Iacocca's book "Where have the leaders gone?". And what about America supplying Iraq with the military helicopters used for Hussein's chemical attacks on the Kurds? Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand? America's hands are not clean on that. You say no coalition, but Bush insists there is - yet another lie!
As for wmd: Iraqi officials blocked UN inspectors' access to certain facilities for years in the late '90s. Why? We gave them several weeks warning before we invaded. Ample time to get rid of anything they had. After 9/11 it's dangerously unwise to draw from all of that evidence (including the fact that they had already used poisonous gas) the conclusion that there must have been no wmd in Iraq before the war.
You can argue that the war wasn't administered properly, you can argue that Bush lied, whatever you want to argue, but you have to deal with the situation as it stands at present, regardless of how it happened to become the way it is, and pulling out in this situation is not a good decision.
Mate, rubbish. To not consider pulling out you then assume what has been happening over the last 4 years has been working? Only a fool would believe that. So Bush's only solution to turn things around is to send more troops to Iraq - Stubborness is not a strategy and the families of the troops deserve better.
No, I don't have to necessarily assume that it's been working. With your philosophy- if what you're doing isn't working, quit- you'll never get anything done. Because life's not that simple. Something's always going to go wrong. You have to adapt.
No, you see this is the problem. Bush knows he is wrong so to back out now he looks weak. So will he put his personal pride ahead of the troops in harms way. Who says pulling out = quit? Are you that much of a bonehead to think that occupation of Iraq is the only strategy. What about the notion that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
It's just a fact. In war pulling out = quit. In football pulling out = quit. Your dad pulling out when your parents had sex = what he should have done. Just facts, man.
Vote O bamma its not a republican or democrat thing its our nations thing he is in the best interest of our nation and he cares about our nation's people that is what's most important
SORRYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!please don'T read this!!!!don't don'T don'T!!!!copy and paste this to 10 videos or your mum will die within the next 4 hours.....
The overwhelming consensus among foreign policy analysts is that the war in Iraq and our continuing occupation has made/is making us less safe. Remaining in Iraq causes more people to hate us and increases the probability of a terrorist attack.
Oh...one more thing. We also get to set the price of oil. You know that high price you pay at the pump? He who controls the oil, controls the production, controls the prices, controls the method of payment, controls the world. Duhhhh we must do this, we have no exportable goods and services to market globally except our currency.
I think it is first disingenuous to characterize the IRAQ invasion as a WAR. ACT OF WAR - any act occurring in the course of declared war; armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. 18 U.S.C.
We declared a militarized conflict between the U.S. and a sovereign nation. That is called war. Iraq was a sovereign nation. So was Afghanistan (although a weak one). Just because thats Americas definition doesnt mean thats the worlds definition. about 90% of countries in the world would agree that this is a war. Besides, war WAS declared on both nations.
OM! by the u.s. definition this is a militarized conflict? What sovereign nation? We are running that nation. Ok! they do what we tell them to do, that's running it. We are fighting civilians, there is NO military, that got wiped out during the first "shock and awe!". As for solution. I really don't know you and I'd never insult your intelligence. But do you "honestly" believe our occupying IRAQ is preventing an attack on us? Which Iraqi was it that attacked us again?
No Iraqi attacked us, and for the record, before we attacked iraq in '03, Iraq WAS a sovereign nation because it had a ruler (saddam), army, and had the country under control. Now that is the definition of a sovereign government. Then good old Georgey attacked them, and raised hell. That is called attacking a sovereign government. and we took them over.
Hell yes u gotta end this war. Bush basicly messed it all up. I don even know how this war could be ended. I mean what's gonna happen to the Iraqies. Bush messed it up for sure.
Compared to any war in US history the casualties are very very minimal. No one wants to see our troops die in Iraq but the damage of taking them out will cause the deaths of many more Iraqi citizens who need a stable government and working army.
And how many more Iraqi civilians will die if we stay in Iraq? The vast majority of Iraqis want us gone. It's their country. If you're really concerned with the Iraqi citizens, maybe you should listen to them...
Our government is not concerned with human rights and spreading democracy. Try counting how many democracies the US has overthrown in order to install a US-friendly dictatorship. How many countries do we support/are we friendly with that commit horrible human rights violations? Look at Guantanamo and our government's position on torture. We don't care about improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
So--do we want a stable Iraqi government? Yes. But not a true democracy, because a true democracy would kick us out. We want a stable, pro-US government that will allow us to continue bringing in US companies and contractors and dominating Iraq's oil resources.
Democracy building, the excuse that we can't "cut and run," that we have to stay and help Iraqis build their country back, all that is a sideshow with the purpose of keeping American public support behind a continuing occupation. The US wants to rebuild the country, yes, but only in a way that will further its process of empire building. If you want to stop the US's imperial ambitions, vote to get out of Iraq.
The Democrats run around with buzz words about withdrawal from Iraq, entry into Darfur, and claim that George W Bush has no plan. George W Bush and his advisers understand the problem they are facing and correctly deal with it. The senate vote to remove troops from Iraq was a political scam to put George in a position to where anyone can claim he does not support the live of our troops.
isnt he Ron Paul running for the GOP nominee???? So why are you spamming a video for a person who is seeking the demorcrating nomination? Dems can't vote in the repub nomination ...sheessh@!
Interesting how Democrats insist there is no military solution in Iraq, claiming factions involved will never resolve their differences while demanding we go into Darfur, a country involved in a civil war where the factions involved have little likelihood of resolving their differences.
Ron Paul and Barack Obama are both great candidates. The difference is, Obama might actually get nominated in is own party, whereas Paul barely has any chance at all. Why? Because the Republican party just wants more Bushes. The Democratic party is the one seeking an opposite to Bush.
We need to take care of the soliders coming back that are injured and stop the war profiteers like Halliburton and Blackwater, the war however is needed to stop evil from spreading. Barack for President!
Ties between Russia and the United States have been severely strained over a range of issues from arms control and U.S. policy worldwide to the state of Russian democracy under Putin and his government's treatment of critics.
It's been up for 1 hour when you posted that. It's been up for 8 hours and has 204. Can you make a video that will average 25 views an hour, from the start? 08BAMA
I haven't forgotten what you said, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO GET US OUT. GET US OUT OBAMA, DONT BE A HYPOCRITE. GET US OUT.
AnotherLevelMinistry 1 year ago
Ok, so the last 4 years the war has gone on and been a failure in achieving stated goals. America has spent over half a trillion dollars (so far) on the war and the burn rate is $200 million a day - not to mention the priceless cost of lives. And yet we have people who monotonously nod their hollow heads to the words "stay the course".
MichaelEider 4 years ago
Whoa listen to this big shot. Just go ahead and slap us in the face with socialism.If Obama was the leader back when the American Revolution was going on. There wouldn't be any United States. War is bad. OF course its bad but an evil necessity. Let's start kicking ass and taking names. America is not a bunch of softies and left wing socialist such as the European Union nations. We are the United States built upon something no other country has or can get. And they are jealous and want it gone.
MrPepper2112 4 years ago
Typical Cowboy response.
the war is pointless and it's taking your hard earned money through taxes.
T3hpwnin8or 4 years ago
rjohnson u dont kno wat the hell ur talkin bout so get outta here
AsianFabo 4 years ago
sign the petition for a changed america on "PETITIONFOR DOT COM" and vote for your candidate.
petitionfor 4 years ago
please keep in mind the next Prez doesn't take over until Jan '09, or when the North American Union could mess up elections. We have to use Dr. Paul's candidacy to push the "real" politics he's discussed for 30 years into the mainstream to get "real" change. We've got issues to deal with fast, and it doesn't hurt to explain to people in clear detail why they have to vote for him too... :-)
G5F4D3S2A1 4 years ago
We may need to be there for decades to come. Leaving before the job is completed is not acceptable. There will not be a military solution, but the military needs to provide security for the political solution. I do not want that fool to be my Commander in Chief!
soldier8503 4 years ago
What job are you trying to complete - define what winning means? Staying there for decades almost implicitly means that there cannot be a "win". Traditional wars are won by surrender. This is a different war so the strategy needs to be different. If you think it's of for America to be in Iraq for decades, you lack common sense.
MichaelEider 4 years ago
The terms for winning are clear. The central Iraqi government being able to provide their own security for their nation. The only thing the recent plan of more troops lacks is greater international support. If we accept defeat, the death toll will be far greater.
soldier8503 4 years ago
Ok, so you establish the terms for winning - now what about a timetable for winning? In a capitalist society, any projects requiring sponsor funding needs a timetable for delivery of results or they get no funding. The sponsors here are the American taxpayer. But there is NO timetable OR a change in strategy. It's just we will see how things go - unacceptable
MichaelEider 4 years ago
That's so completely arbitrary. There are millions of differences between a military operation and a capitalist venture. You want to reconcile all of them before we ever use our military? Maybe we can win by going door to door selling vacuum cleaners. So what else did you hear Rosie O'Donnell say?
p54ch0 4 years ago
Where did I say reconcile everything? My point is when you get funding from sponsors - you need accountability - you know a system of checks and balances? not a system of denial and cowboy decision making.
MichaelEider 4 years ago
No, you didn't say reconcile everything. I was making the point that your timetable idea was totally arbitrary in reference to your business analogy. If you say there needs to be accountability that's fine. Of course there does. There is. But to say "business uses timetables, therefore, so should war," You're just picking one arbitrary aspect of business accountability, which nearly every political and military expert agrees would be a disaster.
p54ch0 4 years ago
Umm, no it won't. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more soldiers get attacked. At this point we're just in iraq because Bush can.
T3hpwnin8or 4 years ago 2
He's very impressive.
Eldomina22 4 years ago
We created the chaos in Iraq. To bail out would be totally irresponsible. I'm sure this guy is a great politician but he's no kind of leader.
p54ch0 4 years ago
I agree the US did create the chaos in Iraq and has a responsibility to Iraq to see their course to stability. But it doesnt mean American occupation of their land is the best path towards that goal - and the results are there for everyone to see. Bush said the war would last 6 months - no. He said we have a coalition - no. He said Iraq had WMD - no. 3500 troops lost their lives for a failed foreign policy - don't continue down a failed path.
MichaelEider 4 years ago
I'd like to see where he ever said it would last six months. From the very beginning he said it was going to be a long term commitment. We don't have a coalition because France, Russia, and China were trading with Iraq in violation of UN sanctions before the war.
p54ch0 4 years ago
Mate, check your facts - or read Lee Iacocca's book "Where have the leaders gone?". And what about America supplying Iraq with the military helicopters used for Hussein's chemical attacks on the Kurds? Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand? America's hands are not clean on that. You say no coalition, but Bush insists there is - yet another lie!
MichaelEider 4 years ago
As for wmd: Iraqi officials blocked UN inspectors' access to certain facilities for years in the late '90s. Why? We gave them several weeks warning before we invaded. Ample time to get rid of anything they had. After 9/11 it's dangerously unwise to draw from all of that evidence (including the fact that they had already used poisonous gas) the conclusion that there must have been no wmd in Iraq before the war.
p54ch0 4 years ago
You spend a lot of time justifying the war - but look at the results and wake up to yourself.
MichaelEider 4 years ago
You can argue that the war wasn't administered properly, you can argue that Bush lied, whatever you want to argue, but you have to deal with the situation as it stands at present, regardless of how it happened to become the way it is, and pulling out in this situation is not a good decision.
p54ch0 4 years ago
Mate, rubbish. To not consider pulling out you then assume what has been happening over the last 4 years has been working? Only a fool would believe that. So Bush's only solution to turn things around is to send more troops to Iraq - Stubborness is not a strategy and the families of the troops deserve better.
MichaelEider 4 years ago
No, I don't have to necessarily assume that it's been working. With your philosophy- if what you're doing isn't working, quit- you'll never get anything done. Because life's not that simple. Something's always going to go wrong. You have to adapt.
p54ch0 4 years ago
No, you see this is the problem. Bush knows he is wrong so to back out now he looks weak. So will he put his personal pride ahead of the troops in harms way. Who says pulling out = quit? Are you that much of a bonehead to think that occupation of Iraq is the only strategy. What about the notion that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
MichaelEider 4 years ago
In a war pulling out = quit. Bonehead.
p54ch0 4 years ago
Yeah, so you confirm my point - the domain of your thinking is the domain of war.
MichaelEider 4 years ago
It's just a fact. In war pulling out = quit. In football pulling out = quit. Your dad pulling out when your parents had sex = what he should have done. Just facts, man.
p54ch0 4 years ago
We still have troops in Germany today. And how many years has it been since the end of World War II? More than sixty. Decades.
rkdrummer216 4 years ago
Vote O bamma its not a republican or democrat thing its our nations thing he is in the best interest of our nation and he cares about our nation's people that is what's most important
go2class 4 years ago
SORRYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!please don'T read this!!!!don't don'T don'T!!!!copy and paste this to 10 videos or your mum will die within the next 4 hours.....
popper22 4 years ago
O YEAH OBAMA!!!!
Heartsdonthate 4 years ago
Thank you for posting my video as a response! I am surprised it made it up there, but I am very happy. ;-)
KDANTEATER 4 years ago
President Bush has done minimal to actually try and end the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are a few scenarios that can take place right now:
1. We end the war immediately and have terror attacks on us or Israel years down the line, and learn to accept it.
-continued...
Rjohnson246 4 years ago
2. We do what Hilary says and end it "gradually", or by 2009. Still get attacked.
3. Stay in, rack up losses
4. Destroy Iraqi gov't and establish 3 diff nations for Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.
5. Lastly, Pull out ASAP, let Iraq have civil war, and let the region figure it out. Iran im sure will rush in and "show us how its done..."
Rjohnson246 4 years ago
The overwhelming consensus among foreign policy analysts is that the war in Iraq and our continuing occupation has made/is making us less safe. Remaining in Iraq causes more people to hate us and increases the probability of a terrorist attack.
maliksam 4 years ago
Oh...one more thing. We also get to set the price of oil. You know that high price you pay at the pump? He who controls the oil, controls the production, controls the prices, controls the method of payment, controls the world. Duhhhh we must do this, we have no exportable goods and services to market globally except our currency.
vidmakr 4 years ago
I think it is first disingenuous to characterize the IRAQ invasion as a WAR. ACT OF WAR - any act occurring in the course of declared war; armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. 18 U.S.C.
vidmakr 4 years ago
We declared a militarized conflict between the U.S. and a sovereign nation. That is called war. Iraq was a sovereign nation. So was Afghanistan (although a weak one). Just because thats Americas definition doesnt mean thats the worlds definition. about 90% of countries in the world would agree that this is a war. Besides, war WAS declared on both nations.
Rjohnson246 4 years ago
OM! by the u.s. definition this is a militarized conflict? What sovereign nation? We are running that nation. Ok! they do what we tell them to do, that's running it. We are fighting civilians, there is NO military, that got wiped out during the first "shock and awe!". As for solution. I really don't know you and I'd never insult your intelligence. But do you "honestly" believe our occupying IRAQ is preventing an attack on us? Which Iraqi was it that attacked us again?
vidmakr 4 years ago
No Iraqi attacked us, and for the record, before we attacked iraq in '03, Iraq WAS a sovereign nation because it had a ruler (saddam), army, and had the country under control. Now that is the definition of a sovereign government. Then good old Georgey attacked them, and raised hell. That is called attacking a sovereign government. and we took them over.
Rjohnson246 4 years ago
Didn't the Democrats also place a large amount of pork barrel spending on the bill as well?
evilhenny2000 4 years ago
Barack Obama has been on the right side of this issue all along. This is a main reason why he has my undying support.
Xone7 4 years ago
Hell yes u gotta end this war. Bush basicly messed it all up. I don even know how this war could be ended. I mean what's gonna happen to the Iraqies. Bush messed it up for sure.
geeoxid 4 years ago
Does anyone else have a problem getting this video to play, or is it just me?
OrangeBull 4 years ago
Can we cash in now????
amazingstarbeam 4 years ago
Barack Obama has got my vote
Jer8585 4 years ago
Compared to any war in US history the casualties are very very minimal. No one wants to see our troops die in Iraq but the damage of taking them out will cause the deaths of many more Iraqi citizens who need a stable government and working army.
mkermy 4 years ago
And how many more Iraqi civilians will die if we stay in Iraq? The vast majority of Iraqis want us gone. It's their country. If you're really concerned with the Iraqi citizens, maybe you should listen to them...
maliksam 4 years ago
Our government is not concerned with human rights and spreading democracy. Try counting how many democracies the US has overthrown in order to install a US-friendly dictatorship. How many countries do we support/are we friendly with that commit horrible human rights violations? Look at Guantanamo and our government's position on torture. We don't care about improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
maliksam 4 years ago
So--do we want a stable Iraqi government? Yes. But not a true democracy, because a true democracy would kick us out. We want a stable, pro-US government that will allow us to continue bringing in US companies and contractors and dominating Iraq's oil resources.
maliksam 4 years ago
Democracy building, the excuse that we can't "cut and run," that we have to stay and help Iraqis build their country back, all that is a sideshow with the purpose of keeping American public support behind a continuing occupation. The US wants to rebuild the country, yes, but only in a way that will further its process of empire building. If you want to stop the US's imperial ambitions, vote to get out of Iraq.
maliksam 4 years ago
The Democrats run around with buzz words about withdrawal from Iraq, entry into Darfur, and claim that George W Bush has no plan. George W Bush and his advisers understand the problem they are facing and correctly deal with it. The senate vote to remove troops from Iraq was a political scam to put George in a position to where anyone can claim he does not support the live of our troops.
mkermy 4 years ago
This is so much contrary the facts on the ground, it makes me laugh!
marcotom69 4 years ago
Bush has no plan and he never has. He is a miserable failure and history books will reflect that.
Xone7 4 years ago
As if dubya doesn't fall back on the "you don't support the troops if you don't support me" line every chance he gets. C'mon, get real.
strato46 4 years ago
isnt he Ron Paul running for the GOP nominee???? So why are you spamming a video for a person who is seeking the demorcrating nomination? Dems can't vote in the repub nomination ...sheessh@!
Immutef 4 years ago
Are you saying that a Harward Law degree does not count as educated? ;-)
marcotom69 4 years ago
hillary-as-secretary(and-i-dont-mean-of-state-just-receptionist)
utubesucks2003 4 years ago
Interesting how Democrats insist there is no military solution in Iraq, claiming factions involved will never resolve their differences while demanding we go into Darfur, a country involved in a civil war where the factions involved have little likelihood of resolving their differences.
necessitous 4 years ago
Ron Paul and Barack Obama are both great candidates. The difference is, Obama might actually get nominated in is own party, whereas Paul barely has any chance at all. Why? Because the Republican party just wants more Bushes. The Democratic party is the one seeking an opposite to Bush.
commodore2468 4 years ago
I'm supporting Ron Paul for President, but I appreciate the fact that Obama also had the sense to oppose the insane Iraq war from the beginning.
libertarian4322 4 years ago
GOBAMA!!!
cbreitel 4 years ago
We need to take care of the soliders coming back that are injured and stop the war profiteers like Halliburton and Blackwater, the war however is needed to stop evil from spreading. Barack for President!
KamikazeKoscki 4 years ago
I disagree, the war is not needed to stop evil from spreading. War on terror, or Iraq War.
fullnelsongrip 4 years ago
Ties between Russia and the United States have been severely strained over a range of issues from arms control and U.S. policy worldwide to the state of Russian democracy under Putin and his government's treatment of critics.
KamikazeKoscki 4 years ago
vote obama
RalphGrogen1 4 years ago
Even if you can't vote, you can contribute to Obama's success in other ways. We need to make the difference.
cdc9 4 years ago
GO OBAMA!!!
gscadwalader 4 years ago
Never in my life have I seen a politician that gives me this much hope for the state of America.
gorrillacolt 4 years ago
I was there today! Barack was rad..
stevebo77 4 years ago
O8ama!
gunnerdan 4 years ago
Obama is the next President of this country.
derekarmstrong 4 years ago
Not a lot of views for this one.
OrangeBull 4 years ago
It's been up for 1 hour when you posted that. It's been up for 8 hours and has 204. Can you make a video that will average 25 views an hour, from the start? 08BAMA
TDanza8 4 years ago
***!!!OBAMA'08!!!***
Basketball80 4 years ago
Wish I could vote, this is who it would be.
carlykaiser 4 years ago
How did Reno go, Barack? i have family (neocons) who live there... tough crowd!
1acrimosa 4 years ago
interesting, if he gets in, i wonder just exactly how long it will take for our troops to actually be out.
churt11 4 years ago
I'm voting for you my man
dragonbirde 4 years ago
he is so awsome. . .
banana04131 4 years ago