<p>bluebayou: That’s a straw man. Obviously Reid and Pelosi should (in my opinion) defund the war. But the fact that they don’t does not in any way change the facts of the arguments against the Republicans with regards to that issue.</p>
<p>Yeah, yeah, everyone voted FOR the war, way back when. But the important question now is, What do we do about Irag now?</p>
<p>Apparently, under the leadership of General Petraeus, we’re just going to go ahead and win. Much to the chagrin of the Democrats, I might add.</p>
<p>what is WINNING again in this war…anyone?</p>
<p>sjmom, please explain to me how we “WIN” this war…did we win in afghanistan…appears, not</p>
<p>and then we are rattling sabors to Iran, so three wars…</p>
<p>1of2:</p>
<p>How can that be a straw man? If the war was wrong, why not just declare victory and leave, NOW? The House of Representatives is in charge of EVERY funding bill. Why doesn’t Pelosi lead and cut the defense department’s funds to just the minimum to bring our boys home?</p>
<p>Last I checked the Taliban is gone, there are free elections, the university is opened to women again. Burkha’s are not mandatory, stoning no longer occurs, people can worship other religions…etc</p>
<p>We are not rattling sabers to IRAN. It is called diplomacy.</p>
<p>Maybe you check out the facts about How Hussein ruled, the Iraqi’s openly admit life is hard right now, but they are returning to even the worse areas again.<br>
Do you even remember that Hussein used people as human shields? Have you hheard the stories of how the Iraqi soccer team was tortured by is son for losing. How his sons would rape women. How Hussein killed his own son-in-laws? How he stole billions of $$$ from the oil fr food program while his own citizens were starving, should I go on</p>
<p>So was the purpose of the war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam?</p>
<ol>
<li>I didn’t think it was. </li>
<li>We accomplished that several years ago. Why are we still there?</li>
</ol>
<p>BTW, </p>
<p>Bayou thank you. I have stated that exact fact that the congress makes the funding bill, and that if this war is so offensive than call, write, email demand your congressman to stop it. If the dems are so much better than why haven’t they.</p>
<p>I know eventually this will be brought up, so I will beat everyone to the punch…Bush has a low approval rating…guess what the congress has a lower rating by 11% points (26%).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not everyone. Ron Paul didn’t. Along with 5 other Republicans (don’t know who they are).</p>
<p>from [Ron</a> Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul]Ron”>Ron Paul - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good question. Guess they’re not any better after all, are they. Hillary and Obama are both starting to sound like most of the Republican candidates. The only Democrat I know of who voted against the war is Kucinich. (There may have been others, that I don’t know about.)</p>
<p>Ah, I would love to see a cross-party ticket of Paul/Kucinich! (I know, silly dream)</p>
<p>We are there for stabilization…</p>
<p>So when will we have “won” the war?</p>
<p>And why is this our problem?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the correctness of what the Republicans do is in no way related to the correctness of what the Democrats do. I think the Republicans are wrong about the course America should take in the war. That perception is absolutely unrelated to what I think of the Democrats’ view on the war.</p>
<p>Which is why when I say “the Republicans are advocating the wrong course in the war” and you say “yeah, but so are the Democrats” it’s meaningless. I wasn’t comparing the two, merely stating an opinion about the Republicans. I think many of the Democrats are ALSO advocating the wrong course in the war (and the Congressional leadership is being utterly spineless and politicking around when they shouldn’t be), but that wasn’t what we were discussing.</p>
<p>Either way, my point wasn’t the war, it was the ludicrous failure of epic proportions that is the War on Drugs. So I’m not really debating with you. ;)</p>
<p>I’m with 1of42 on the ‘war on drugs.’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless you can show such a post, please don’t put words into my posts – it never happened.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My acting is not very good, but I never said that either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reads: “You say the war is wrong, but the Democrats aren’t ending the war even when they have the authority, so it can’t be.”</p>
<p>Correct me if I’ve read into that wrongly with a fixed statement, but my point was that what the Democrats think has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion on the war in Iraq.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, if you’d read what you *quoted<a href=“!!”>/i</a> you would see I said “acted” not “said”, which are two very different things. Of course you didn’t say it, merely implied it by the tone, structure and content (or lack of certain content) in your posts.</p>
<p>oh, so you are able to ascertain my implications not but what I post but what I don’t post (“lack of content”)? Wow, I’m impressed!</p>
<p>btw: I’m rather old and my eyes are worse than my acting. :)</p>
<p>I don’t know what you guys are talking about…</p>
<p>Anyway, back to Giuliani…how is this news impacting his campaign?</p>
<p>Basically, when someone says “Republicans tell people how to live your lives” and then you respond with a bunch of examples of the Democrats doing the same, and argue with the points people raise vis a vis the Republicans, the implication is that you don’t think they (Republicans) tell people how to live their lives.</p>
<p>stabilization…hmmm…didn’t we make it less stable? didn’t we basically open all the borders, infuse the area with cold hard cash, help start a civil war, bring in mercenaries, ruin the infrastructure…</p>
<p>as for afghanistan, do some research= the taliban is NOT gone, the opium trade is growing by leaps and bounds, women DO NOT have much more rights</p>
<p>and WHY did Bush veto the funding for stem cell research- because some see a stem cell as coming from a fetus and thus a life…its that same thinking that wants those same people to ban abortions</p>
<p>some people are smart enough to realize the same thinking is the basis for BOTH view points…imagine that</p>
<p>go read some right to life (yeah right) website- its all about when life begins to them that is the basis for not wanting to fund stem cell research and to ban abortions</p>
<p>to not make that connection is naive</p>