hillary or osama er bama....

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I think the decision for more troops makes sense, especially with the must cooperate clause. The extra troops will be used to free up more troops for Baghdad. The explaination of clearing key neighborhoods of weapons and then staying and not allowing insurgents back in(they have another fancy name for it) sounds very reasonable.

However, I think it will fail because "we" are too far down the hill now to climb back. The Iraqi government is clearly pro Shiite and is showing signs of not cooperating (this is our out) which will lead to the eventual pullout within 2-3 years based on what I have read. Saudi Arabi and othe pro Sunni governments will make sure the Shiites dont get complete control via bloodshed. The Iraqis will have to suffer much more until the Shiites realize they must come to the table because of immense suffering. The Sunnis will suffer greatly with the Shiite gov. in power allowing death squads to take out neighborhoods that are Sunni dominated and will spill the blood via their own insurgent groups supplied by the aforementioned governments, and possibly our government after we get clear.
The Arabs and Iranians will have to get this solved eventually.

My take.

Now if the Shiites in power decide to get rid of Sadr somehow and have had enough and do cooperate with us in trying to form a coalition government that splits oil revenue fairly and agrees to fairly crack down on the insurgent groups from both religious factions we will be in for longer than 2-3 years no matter who is elected. ONe cannot pullout if the situation actually starts to improve. But... I dont think the people in power have suffered enough directly to cooperate for peace.

So in conclusion: Give it a try, assess cooperation, leave because I dont think their will be cooperation. A total pullout will not allow the outside parties mentioned to solve the situation. It will be in the interest of both the Arab States and Iranians, to get the problem solved after we leave.

Pgardn,
That was a bit long winded, but I agree with a couple of things you said.
Yes, agree that it will fail. Cooperate for peace? Keep dreamin'.
Leave? It's now or later.
So, are the lives that we continue to throw into that firestorm buying time before there's an admission? And, what IS the "mission da jour"?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

the only thing that really jumped out at me in this thread is this stuff about the women marching...how would this lead to a death, assault, etc? who is that woman, and where did she get these ideas??

welll, i looked up that person, and read the entire article that she wrote. glad i did, since the brief line that was quoted made her sound nuts.

not so nutty sounding when you read the rest. i'm against gun control myself.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

welll, i looked up that person, and read the entire article that she wrote. glad i did, since the brief line that was quoted made her sound nuts.

not so nutty sounding when you read the rest. i'm against gun control myself.

Danzig,
This might amaze you...I'll just say that I own 68 "guns". Flintlocks to shotguns, sniper rifles and pellet poppers.
Guns are good.
It's the people that own the other ones that scare me.
I don't have a need for assault weapons nor machine guns though.
Heck, didn't David kill a guy with a sling and a round river stone once?
Just my take...if someone really wanted to kill others, it could be done with a knife, a polonium popper, or maybe some fertilizer bought at the farm supply.
Ask Terry Nichols.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Danzig,
This might amaze you...I'll just say that I own 68 "guns". Flintlocks to shotguns, sniper rifles and pellet poppers.
Guns are good.
It's the people that own the other ones that scare me.
I don't have a need for assault weapons nor machine guns though.
Heck, didn't David kill a guy with a sling and a round river stone once?
Just my take...if someone really wanted to kill others, it could be done with a knife, a polonium popper, or maybe some fertilizer bought at the farm supply.
Ask Terry Nichols.

That's all true but owning a gun just makes it easier than say using a knife or rock. This is not an issue that will be solved by government regulation, but America's "love affair" with the gun is troubling and related to a similar view of violence in general...showing some dude killing five people on TV is cool but showing a naked woman is porn...that logic always escapes me! The issue can only be resolved, as with poverty, bigotry and the like, by fundamental change in the collective mindset. Still, I think government has a responsibility to keep weapons under control...I mean, does the average house need an automatic weapon for "self-defense", I'd sorta like a flame thrower or rocket launcher myself...and tanks are cool! My own personal nuke...there is an idea!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Indeed!

Sorta the way you have trouble with context! Gotta give you props for that one though...lol!

[Danzig]

but somer, i could use the same logic to attack the right to free speech. i mean, what use is hate speech? shoudldn't the govt regulate hate speech--after all, it might inflame someone to do something illegal...

owning a gun is a right. it is regulated in that a felon can no longer own one. much like a convicted felon has no right to freedom--he must spend time in jail.
but gun control affects those of us who are law abiding. after all, a law breaker isn't going to suddenly feel compunction about breaking a gun law--laws against thievery don't stop him from robbing someone. you think he would hesitate over a gun law?
and you might not want to own an automatic, but someone else may. just like i may not feel the need to march in a protest, while someone else does.

i read once about a country on the african continent who banned guns. they still had a high murder rate--everyone offed each other with machetes.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

but somer, i could use the same logic to attack the right to free speech. i mean, what use is hate speech? shoudldn't the govt regulate hate speech--after all, it might inflame someone to do something illegal...

owning a gun is a right. it is regulated in that a felon can no longer own one. much like a convicted felon has no right to freedom--he must spend time in jail.
but gun control affects those of us who are law abiding. after all, a law breaker isn't going to suddenly feel compunction about breaking a gun law--laws against thievery don't stop him from robbing someone. you think he would hesitate over a gun law?
and you might not want to own an automatic, but someone else may. just like i may not feel the need to march in a protest, while someone else does.

i read once about a country on the african continent who banned guns. they still had a high murder rate--everyone offed each other with machetes.

That's why I said that government can't solve this problem! Hate speech is regulated to a point as if it leads directly to violence, it is excluded. Holmes' example of yelling fire in a crowded theater etc. In the end, it really doesn't matter if you own a gun (or I get my rocket launcher)...what matters is what we do with them...what we feel we have the right to do! Government will never take the place of personal responsibility...I'm not an existentialist but Sartre was right that we are each responsible for our actions (called free will)...still some common sense controls are not the end of freedom...unless you like the idea of me having that rocket launcher!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That's all true but owning a gun just makes it easier than say using a knife or rock. This is not an issue that will be solved by government regulation, but America's "love affair" with the gun is troubling and related to a similar view of violence in general...showing some dude killing five people on TV is cool but showing a naked woman is porn...that logic always escapes me! The issue can only be resolved, as with poverty, bigotry and the like, by fundamental change in the collective mindset. Still, I think government has a responsibility to keep weapons under control...I mean, does the average house need an automatic weapon for "self-defense", I'd sorta like a flame thrower or rocket launcher myself...and tanks are cool! My own personal nuke...there is an idea!

Somerfrost,
I hear you.
Government regulation will be about as successful with imposing morality as it has been with imposing "democracy".
And, to put you mind at ease, I use mine for food gathering and plinking at cans on fenceposts.
Gun control is not the answer. There are too many threats for those that see them as such, and too many ways to murder others, however that might be justified.
In my next life, I'll be sure to ask Jim Jones, Adolph H, and G Dub what they were thinking...if I end up in the same place.
Maybe you can answer this one....what's the difference between an RPG, an IED, or "smart bombs" from thirty thousand feet up, or a cruise missle coming from a ship twenty miles off the coast?
I really don't know.
Some goverments talk against one and condone another. Very confusing to me. Dead is dead.

ps...the other guy is on my ignore...not much he has to say to me makes sense. Tell him if you can. Thanks.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
I hear you.
Government regulation will be about as successful with imposing morality as it has been with imposing "democracy".
And, to put you mind at ease, I use mine for food gathering and plinking at cans on fenceposts.
Gun control is not the answer. There are too many threats for those that see them as such, and too many ways to murder others, however that might be justified.
In my next life, I'll be sure to ask Jim Jones, Adolph H, and G Dub what they were thinking...if I end up in the same place.
Maybe you can answer this one....what's the difference between an RPG, an IED, or "smart bombs" from thirty thousand feet up, or a cruise missle coming from a ship twenty miles off the coast?
I really don't know.
Some goverments talk against one and condone another. Very confusing to me. Dead is dead.

ps...the other guy is on my ignore...not much he has to say to me makes sense. Tell him if you can. Thanks.

Dead is dead...I agree! In the end, all that seems to matter is which side you are on.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
So, are the lives that we continue to throw into that firestorm buying time before there's an admission? And, what IS the "mission da jour"?

If we just up and pulled everyone right now DTS, you think that will save more innocent people from dying? You appear to care about lives lost. If we just pulled out, do you have any idea how many INNOCENT Iraqis get slaughtered? The ones without the guns?

We made a mess. We have a responsibility to at least try and stabilize in some manner before we get out. And this is a last ditch effort. Once the other parties know we are leaving, and they feel in a position of strength, slaughters will occur. If they feel it has gone on long enough, and enough insurgent groups are decapitated, fewer will die.

But it would be an attrocity to pull out immediately. And if this last effort goes terribly bad, we still might have an attrocity. But no guilt will be associated with cut and run, letem get slaughtered. Maybe I care about a wider range of people than you.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That's why I said that government can't solve this problem! Hate speech is regulated to a point as if it leads directly to violence, it is excluded. Holmes' example of yelling fire in a crowded theater etc. In the end, it really doesn't matter if you own a gun (or I get my rocket launcher)...what matters is what we do with them...what we feel we have the right to do! Government will never take the place of personal responsibility...I'm not an existentialist but Sartre was right that we are each responsible for our actions (called free will)...still some common sense controls are not the end of freedom...unless you like the idea of me having that rocket launcher!

well, that's true. i just don't think owning the gun itself should ever be a crime. after all, a drunk can have his car--it's not a crime til he tries to drive it.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i read once about a country on the african continent who banned guns. they still had a high murder rate--everyone offed each other with machetes.

And on the other side, there's Great Britain, with strict gun control:Here are some stats:

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

<<The official figures for gun crime in England and Wales in 2002/03 were announced in January 2004. There were a total of 24,070 firearm offences of which 57% (13,822) involved air weapons, the highest number of offences ever. The largest increase in offences was seen with imitation firearms for which there was an annual increase of 46% to 1815 offences.

The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death.

In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

Between 1993-1999, gun deaths in the United States have declined 27%. (SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm, WISQARS, National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, accessed March, 2002.)

In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides. (SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

Of all suicides, 57% occurred by firearm (SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, accessed March, 2002.)

In 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries. (SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States: Crime in the United States 2000: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice; 2001.)>>

To put it in statistical comparison:

<<Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun>>


Danzig, most of the gun control stuff I've read concerns smart guns, background checks, limits on numbers you can purchase and waiting periods. What's wrong with that? Face it, a gun, specifically a handgun, exists for no other purpose that to kill someone. You don't go hunting with handguns. You don't go hunting with automatics. They exist to kill humans. That's it. The only reason. Shouldn't they be more carefully regulated?

People scream and yell about right to own firearms, and yeah, I'd not support anything banning a person's hunting equipment. But no one on the side of the right to own firearms appears even the slightest bit interested in addressing the fact that 80 people per day die due to firearms in this country, and I'll wager the number of murders due to a criminal shooting someone he doesn't know is not 80 per day. None of you seem interested in doing anything to address the fact that accidental shootings and family assaults far outnumber the lives saved due to someone actually managing to kill an intruder in their homes.

Do I support banning firearms outright? Hell, no. But do I support making them harder to obtain? Sure do. A gun should not be an impulse buy, ever. Yes, criminals will still get them. But right now more law-abiding people are dying due to firearms accidents and attacks of passion of their own making than are preventing crimes in their homes and that's not right.

And Danzig, what makes that woman detestable in her rant about the march is that she is using a fear tactic, rather than providing any kind of intelligent commentary on why these women are wrong. How many of those marchers do you think lost a child, a friend, a spouse in a firearm accident? And here she is, telling them it's going to be their own fault when they get raped. What kind of intelligent discourse is that? What kind of spokesperson for a right to own firearms is that? You really want someone like that speaking for you? Bleah, say I. You can have her.

[Danzig]

i didn't say i was her fan. nor do i need anyone to speak for me.

as for what guns you can own....gun owners feel any restrictions on what guns to own (or which are useful) is the same type of chipping away at a fundamental right as any limits on free speech. my husband i and subscribe to playboy for example--many would argue about it's 'usefulness'. what it comes down to is taste.
as for not hunting with a handgun, that isn't true. since you have to get your target very close when using a handgun, some hunters feel it's more of a challenge to use one rather than a shotgun or rifle. then there's the rifle i use. some would say it's more than i need--that i could easily shoot a deer with a shotgun. that's true, i could. also, i own several rifles--but wouldn't one be enough?critics say...sure--i only take one at a time. depends on where i'm hunting at that time and place.

my husbands grandfather left his old colt .25 to my husband. should we have to give that up, because some idiot decides to commit a crime with a handgun?

you can't own a gun if you're a convicted felon, or have a history of mental illness.

as for giving rights only to hunters--that isn't what the constitution says.

ultimately laws are followed by the law abiding. so any controls put in place would only affect those who aren't part of the problem!!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

If we just up and pulled everyone right now DTS, you think that will save more innocent people from dying? You appear to care about lives lost. If we just pulled out, do you have any idea how many INNOCENT Iraqis get slaughtered? The ones without the guns?

We made a mess. We have a responsibility to at least try and stabilize in some manner before we get out. And this is a last ditch effort. Once the other parties know we are leaving, and they feel in a position of strength, slaughters will occur. If they feel it has gone on long enough, and enough insurgent groups are decapitated, fewer will die.

But it would be an attrocity to pull out immediately. And if this last effort goes terribly bad, we still might have an attrocity. But no guilt will be associated with cut and run, letem get slaughtered. Maybe I care about a wider range of people than you.

Pgardn,
You pose some interesting questions.
Answer to the one about innocent Iraqis getting slaughtered...last I read, the Johns-Hopkins one... seems to me that 650,000 should be more than enough to pay back for 9-11, even though the Iraqis weren't involved. Lancet's numbers are similar.
Heck, lets just kill a couple of hundred thousand more if it make you and Dubby sleep better. It's a "just cause" after all.
Question number two...Pat, I didn't make this mess...geesh, I didn't even vote for that dictator/err loser/err war criminal,,,nyuk, nyuck. I wish he's go hunting with his vice president. That would solve some problems.
Question three...Do you really believe there is any more that can be done to "stabalize" that debacle? If you do, good luck on that. Let me tell you, I believe in the Easter bunny too. Let's just throw a few more thousand American kids at this. They believe as well. Dorothy was told how to get home, remember? Click your heels three times and repeat, I wish I was home, I wish I was home.
And another answer..."cut and run" was the label that the failed administration accused others of (Murtha, and others that could see through the charade and labels), those that had some sense to speak against the insanity.
You might not agree with me. Many don't. More do lately (70%).
I can't wait for the World Court to begin the trials.
The rest of the world is onto the "game". They'll want answers too.
As I've said before, genocide is easily justified. It still doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
You pose some interesting questions.
Answer to the one about innocent Iraqis getting slaughtered...last I read, the Johns-Hopkins one... seems to me that 650,000 should be more than enough to pay back for 9-11, even though the Iraqis weren't involved. Lancet's numbers are similar.
Heck, lets just kill a couple of hundred thousand more if it make you and Dubby sleep better. It's a "just cause" after all.
Question number two...Pat, I didn't make this mess...geesh, I didn't even vote for that dictator/err loser/err war criminal,,,nyuk, nyuck. I wish he's go hunting with his vice president. That would solve some problems.
Question three...Do you really believe there is any more that can be done to "stabalize" that debacle? If you do, good luck on that. Let me tell you, I believe in the Easter bunny too. Let's just throw a few more thousand American kids at this. They believe as well. Dorothy was told how to get home, remember? Click your heels three times and repeat, I wish I was home, I wish I was home.
And another answer..."cut and run" was the label that the failed administration accused others of (Murtha, and others that could see through the charade and labels), those that had some sense to speak against the insanity.
You might not agree with me. Many don't. More do lately (70%).
I can't wait for the World Court to begin the trials.
The rest of the world is onto the "game". They'll want answers too.
As I've said before, genocide is easily justified. It still doesn't make it right.

1. Payback? You think W tried to payback Iraq by killing citizens that had nothing to do with 9/11 (not that anybody in Iraq did)? Unlike what many Republicans and yourself believe, I was told we went into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction, not retribution for 9/11. As no weapons were found in the coming days after the invasion, the Al-Q excuses, get rid of a madman excuse became the primary reason for going in. But I never heard of any payback by body count.

2. I did not make the mess personally myself either. I repeat, I did not vote for George Bush (for rather selfish reasons concerning my father, rip, and cell research for Alzheimers). But DTS, you live in this country as I do. WE made the mess. Like it or not. It is OUR responsibility.

3. Yes. I believe there is the possibility of establishing some order in Baghdad as I stated before using the tactics stated before which could lead to some sort of interim government as I stated before. However I do not believe it is probable, as I stated before. But we as a nation cannot "pull out immediately" as we will have an assurred blood bath. As a citizen of this country, leaving without trying is as morally wrong as anything we have done so far. (Treatment of innocents by some of OUR soldiers, changing OUR reasons for going in after intervention, leaving OUR soldiers in harms way because of knowingly underestimating the number of troops we would need because the public could not stomach it).

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i didn't say i was her fan. nor do i need anyone to speak for me.

as for what guns you can own....gun owners feel any restrictions on what guns to own (or which are useful) is the same type of chipping away at a fundamental right as any limits on free speech. my husband i and subscribe to playboy for example--many would argue about it's 'usefulness'. what it comes down to is taste.
as for not hunting with a handgun, that isn't true. since you have to get your target very close when using a handgun, some hunters feel it's more of a challenge to use one rather than a shotgun or rifle. then there's the rifle i use. some would say it's more than i need--that i could easily shoot a deer with a shotgun. that's true, i could. also, i own several rifles--but wouldn't one be enough?critics say...sure--i only take one at a time. depends on where i'm hunting at that time and place.

my husbands grandfather left his old colt .25 to my husband. should we have to give that up, because some idiot decides to commit a crime with a handgun?

you can't own a gun if you're a convicted felon, or have a history of mental illness.

as for giving rights only to hunters--that isn't what the constitution says.

ultimately laws are followed by the law abiding. so any controls put in place would only affect those who aren't part of the problem!!

So, the 80 people killed every day, most of whom are killed by up-to-that-point law-abiding citizens, don't matter to you? Most deaths by gun in this country are accidental shootings or suicide. Most people murdered are murdered by someone they know.

To give a hypothetical- a man, clearly angry about something, walks into a gun store and wants to buy a revolver. Is it responsible of the government to say the clerk is legally able to sell him a revolver and bullets on the spot? Or is it more prudent to say he can purchase the gun, but must wait three days to pick it up? Or fill out the application and then come back in three days to buy the gun? A gun should never be a "heat of the moment" purchase, and yet, right now, it can be.

The thing with guns is, they make it easier to kill because they distance the person holding the gun from the person being fired on. People just aren't as likely to kill with a knife (some do, for sure, but it's much rarer). What is wrong with instituting a waiting period, for example?

I think the big problem with the gun issue is that this is a big country, and the area you live in is very different from the area I live in. Here people have shot each other over cases of road rage (I'm not exagerrating). I have a friend in Orlando whose father threatened another man with a gun because the guy swiped his parking spot. And this fellow is a law-abiding citizen, clearly, because he's allowed to own a gun. Cities are different. Out in the country, it's easy to look at it as a case of the government trying to take away freedoms, but in the city, it's more a case of wanting the government to do something to stop kids shooting themselves with their daddy's pistol. And I don't know what the solution is because both sides can be very extreme in their views (though I would give the tip of the hat to the pro-gun side, who seem to view any attempt to make acquiring handguns more difficult as tantamount to banning them. Automatics. Yeah. Why not grenades and bioterror weapons, while we're at it? I mean, if the criminals are going to get them anyway, why shouldn't the law-abiding be allowed to have them, right?)

Gun violence here is a very different thing than where you are. Maybe it's the poverty, maybe it's the tensions of so many people living in such close quarters, I don't know. But every New York City mayor in recent memory, Dem and Repub alike has been in favor of gun control (Rudy switched after he went on the national campaign trail, but while he was actually mayor, he was very much in favor), and I think that comes from seeing what an unrestricted gun ownership policy can do in this kind of environment.

So, Danzig, what would you propose to cut down on the 80 lives, many of those children, who die from gunshots every day? I propose mandatory background checks and waiting periods of a minimum of three days, for starters.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

What are the weak points in the 80 deaths study (or the weak points in citing the 80 deaths number)?

Well, first ones I can think of (and they're vaild) is that it doesn't divide the 80 people into cause of death- homicide, accidental death or suicide. And the figure is from a few years' back (not unusual in statistics, which usually take some time to compile). But it's a fair criticism.

Here's a fairly balanced look at gun violence in the US. Interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

I still fail to see what's wrong with a mandatory waiting period.

[Danzig]

there already are background checks, already a waiting period. you have to clear the check before getting a gun, altho if it takes more than a few days to show there's a problem, then you have only up to 72 hours to make them wait--part of the innocent til proven guilty thing i guess.

as for the problems--i'd say it's lack of education, just like any other problem facing society.

and please, just because i don't believe in gun control--don't portray me as being uncaring.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

1. Payback? You think W tried to payback Iraq by killing citizens that had nothing to do with 9/11 (not that anybody in Iraq did)? Unlike what many Republicans and yourself believe, I was told we went into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction, not retribution for 9/11. As no weapons were found in the coming days after the invasion, the Al-Q excuses, get rid of a madman excuse became the primary reason for going in. But I never heard of any payback by body count.

2. I did not make the mess personally myself either. I repeat, I did not vote for George Bush (for rather selfish reasons concerning my father, rip, and cell research for Alzheimers). But DTS, you live in this country as I do. WE made the mess. Like it or not. It is OUR responsibility.

3. Yes. I believe there is the possibility of establishing some order in Baghdad as I stated before using the tactics stated before which could lead to some sort of interim government as I stated before. However I do not believe it is probable, as I stated before. But we as a nation cannot "pull out immediately" as we will have an assurred blood bath. As a citizen of this country, leaving without trying is as morally wrong as anything we have done so far. (Treatment of innocents by some of OUR soldiers, changing OUR reasons for going in after intervention, leaving OUR soldiers in harms way because of knowingly underestimating the number of troops we would need because the public could not stomach it).

Pgardn,
You might be completely correct. I'll know more after Tues night's State of the Union. I doubt that the dems will show spine in response, however, plenty of good Americans are going to show up in DC on Sat. Maybe just to reaffirm their votes on Nov 7, 2006.
So...here are my responses:
1. The justification for the invasion has changed more often than I change underwear. Seems that the outcome will be decided by the Shia...al Sadr had something decisive to say today...doubt it gets US press. google BBC.
Revenge was certainly sold at the beginning of the debacle...see also: Dixie Chicks, Freedom Fries, "rag-head", 9-11 connects.
2. Reparations. Powell said, "We broke it, we own it." The reconstruction can only happen after some "stability is restored. Alas, it won't happen while our military remains in presence. Yes, we made a mess.
3. I might be way out by saying this, but Iran is the big winner here. The Saudis will have their say. Israel is as victim as the US is. Both countries don't come to the negotiations from a position of strength. We'll have to see how the Saudi's play their cards. They have their oil to play against Iran's and Iraq's...which the Iranians will gain control of.
Heck, there's always the nuke option...already floated by our guys.
These are dangerous times...and here the thread is about handgun control...
Go figure.

[Danzig]

not quite sure how it got into that subject dts...and one of those topics that always seems to generate strong emotion.

but like so many other things--it's not the object that is the danger. it's the person holding it.