[achtung]

So first we piss of Turkey by reminding them of the genocide of the Armenians and now they're threatening to send troops into Northern Iraq.

Next Russia agrees to back Iran's nuclear program and back the country should it  be attacked.

Then we effectively piss of the Israelis by saying we want a Palestinian state NOW.

Oh and didn't we screw up some nuclear fuel deal with India?  Yeah...

Is there any way to fix this ****?

[Kosh]

Getting rid of Bush would be a good first step

[Windrunner]

Getting rid of Bush would be a good first step

[achtung]

Gotta wait until '08.

Trust me, I am looking forward to it.

[Colonol Dekker]

I'm not about lately, but i just had to pop in to >

Getting rid of Bush would be a good first step

See ya soon guys 

[jr2]

Preferably, replace him with someone who doesn't mind saying it like it is, even if that hurts 'important' members of certain political parties' credibility. 

*Sees hornets rising from their nest*

*Grabs can of Raid*

*Flicks lighter in front of stream* 

[Koth]

So first we piss of Turkey by reminding them of the genocide of the Armenians....

And you consider that a bad thing? Everybody is Germany this and that! Alright we committed genocide but so did Turkey! Anybody complaining about them? No!

[Mefustae]

So first we piss of Turkey by reminding them of the genocide of the Armenians....

And you consider that a bad thing? Everybody is Germany this and that! Alright we committed genocide but so did Turkey! Anybody complaining about them? No!

It's all well and good taking the moral high ground, but look at the big picture here: Turkey is a strategically necessary ally to the United States, and she's in a position to seriously complicate matters in Iraq at the moment (if that's even possible at this point ). There is quite literally nothing the United States can gain by condemning the Armenian genocide out of the blue like this, and can serve to only hurt matters at a really bad time.

Genocide is bad, well all know that. Arbitrarily damaging foreign relations with a valuable ally - and doing so in the middle of a diplomatically hairy situation - is both misguided and just plain idiotic.

If nothing else, Congress could have at least waited for a good time to demonstrate how "in touch" they are with humanitarian ideals. Heaven forbid they could do it in a way that would actually do something good, like outlawing torture as an interrogation method, but I guess they just can't think of anything better to do with all those excess car batteries than strapping them to the testicles of alleged enemy combatants.

[Hazaanko]

The whole Turkey and Israel thing is just a Democrat strategy.  They WILL NOT let there be ANY success in Iraq.  The whole thing makes me want to punch somebody in the face.  That congress could be SO STUPID to do something like this..... unbelievable.  The Democrats have never liked the Kurds nor the Israelis.... why?  Because they support the U.S.  But nooooOOOooooo we can't be nice to people who like us... we have to be globally neutral citizens.  We should give the same kind treatment to people who want to kill us and kill our allies.  Cuz its all about neutrality, right?

[NGTM-1R]

It's all well and good taking the moral high ground, but look at the big picture here: Turkey is a strategically necessary ally to the United States, and she's in a position to seriously complicate matters in Iraq at the moment (if that's even possible at this point ). There is quite literally nothing the United States can gain by condemning the Armenian genocide out of the blue like this, and can serve to only hurt matters at a really bad time.

You realize, of course, that an attitude such as this is pretty much what lead to the Holocaust, correct?

Turkey is full of ****, unless they seriously want to face up to the US in open warfare. Northern Iraq is the best part of the country to be in right now, the most stable, the most prosperous, the friggin' success story, if they honestly think the US Army is going to let them just walk in they deserve what happens.

Russia...I don't know what to make of that. If you'd actually been paying attention to stuff, the US hasn't pushed particularly hard on the subject. France and Germany have been making threats, though. If the US were to take a harder line perhaps Russia would back down. Besides, what are they going to do? Attack France when the Charles de Gaulle steams up the Persian Gulf and starts launching strikes on Iranian targets?

You say we want a Palestinian state like it's news or something. Where were you for the Dayton accords?

India was not, and is not, a friend of the US.

Next plz.

[BengalTiger]

Bush isn't as bad as we may think.

Pearl Harbor made the US join WW II, kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Germans and Italians and we are all happy they did it, because China and Australia aren't a Japanese province, and Europe isn't a Nazi state today (being born in Poland, I'm VERY thankful that the US joined the war).
The WoT, although looks bad in the media, cost us (from day 1 untill today) the men and resources that would be used in...
5-6 weeks in the Western Europe front alone.
It's just that a news report about US soldiers taking pictures or playing soccer with Iraqi kids doesn't make a sensation.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are a lot worse than we may think- calling ILLEGAL immigrants 'citizens' and talking about giving them a right to vote is one thing (having to legally live 8 years in Chicago to become a US Citizen- this hurts me a bit).
Their pacifist theory of co-existence with people who understand only terror and strengh (suicide bombers anyone?) will only lead to escalation of violence, just as Chamberlain's 'appeasement' led to WW II.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, as the Ancient Romans used to say.

What I'd like to see is a Republican POTUS, and a rep. majority in congress. Now is not the time to care about illegal immigrants or to talk to terrorists.

[Ace]

Preferably, replace him with someone who doesn't mind saying it like it is, even if that hurts 'important' members of certain political parties' credibility. 

*Sees hornets rising from their nest*

*Grabs can of Raid*

*Flicks lighter in front of stream* 

Funny, isn't that what people like you said Bush was?

Well you got what you wanted, now reap what you sow.

Take responsibility for your own mindset and worldview's consequences for a change.

[Unknown Target]

By removing a strategic ally from the Iraq war, the Democrats are hoping to force Bush's hand and get a withdrawal going. As to Turkey going into Iraq, it looks like Bush is trying to smooth things over by giving them leeway to head their troops in, as long as it's not a massive amount of them, according to the AP.

[Kosh]

Pearl Harbor made the US join WW II, kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Germans and Italians and we are all happy they did it, because China and Australia aren't a Japanese province, and Europe isn't a Nazi state today (being born in Poland, I'm VERY thankful that the US joined the war).

It's worth noting that because of Hitler's strategic blundering Germany had won, then turned around and lost before the US even declared war. There was a documentary called "how hitler lost the war" and also a book called "lost victories" by former field marshal Von Manstein. As for Italy, they surrendered before the Allies invaded them, not like they were great allies to begin with.

calling ILLEGAL immigrants 'citizens

Bush did that.

Their pacifist theory of co-existence with people who understand only terror and strengh (suicide bombers anyone?) will only lead to escalation of violence, just as Chamberlain's 'appeasement' led to WW II.

It is also worth noting that much of this can be directly linked to actions the US itself has done. 9/11 was the ending link of a chain that goes all the way back to when the US overthrew the democratic government of Iran in the 50's and installed the Shah (if you don't believe me google "operation ajax").

But this situation is hardly like Europe in 1938. Germany was a strong, advanced industrial state with an axe to grind with the other western european powers, this is not the same thing.

What I'd like to see is a Republican POTUS, and a rep. majority in congress.

We had both not too long ago, and the results were disasterous. The republicans lost their majority in congress for good reasons.

[IceFire]

Bush isn't as bad as we may think.

Pearl Harbor made the US join WW II, kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, Germans and Italians and we are all happy they did it, because China and Australia aren't a Japanese province, and Europe isn't a Nazi state today (being born in Poland, I'm VERY thankful that the US joined the war).
The WoT, although looks bad in the media, cost us (from day 1 untill today) the men and resources that would be used in...
5-6 weeks in the Western Europe front alone.
It's just that a news report about US soldiers taking pictures or playing soccer with Iraqi kids doesn't make a sensation.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are a lot worse than we may think- calling ILLEGAL immigrants 'citizens' and talking about giving them a right to vote is one thing (having to legally live 8 years in Chicago to become a US Citizen- this hurts me a bit).
Their pacifist theory of co-existence with people who understand only terror and strengh (suicide bombers anyone?) will only lead to escalation of violence, just as Chamberlain's 'appeasement' led to WW II.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, as the Ancient Romans used to say.

What I'd like to see is a Republican POTUS, and a rep. majority in congress. Now is not the time to care about illegal immigrants or to talk to terrorists.

Just to be clear...Pearl Harbor stirred the US as a nation to go to war against both Germany and Japan but Roosevelt and most of the US intelligence community was already "at war" almost two years before Pearl Harbor and that the chief instigator of this, Roosevelt, was a Democratic president. 

Republicans...Democrats...neither really have a monopoly on declaring or fighting wars.  Just looking briefly at some of the major US conflicts and who was leading at the time and you'll see there really isn't one party that can claim ownership (and the Democrats score for better or worse for World War I, II, Korean War, and Vietnam).  What the Republicans have done really well in the last 10 years is brand themselves as the party that is "tough" and "can fight wars" and "protect America" and really its been a fantastic job on the part of the people they have employed but history is a little less clear.  The right sort of leadership, regardless of party, will get whatever jobs need doing done in the best possible manner.

[Kosh]

What the US needs is not partisan politics based on chest-thumping and rhetoric, but actual serious reform. The problem is neither party is willing to do this (as serious change = political suicide), which will only make America's problems worse.

[IPAndrews]

Are you saying democracy doesn't work? 

[jr2]

Preferably, replace him with someone who doesn't mind saying it like it is, even if that hurts 'important' members of certain political parties' credibility. 

*Sees hornets rising from their nest*

*Grabs can of Raid*

*Flicks lighter in front of stream* 

Funny, isn't that what people like you said Bush was?

Well you got what you wanted, now reap what you sow.

Take responsibility for your own mindset and worldview's consequences for a change.

That's not what I meant at all... I think Bush's policies (well most of them) are pretty good.  It's just he's too nice... the President should be more careful to be sure he gets his reasons behind his policies across to the public.  And those who try to twist or ignore the facts should be flamed after a few warnings.  (No, I don't mean bawled out... I mean logically have their arguments shredded on national broadcast, and then their motives called into question if the circumstances deem it prudent.)

[Hazaanko]

**BREEEEE** **BREEEEE**  Rant Alarm **BREEEEE** **BREEEE** (potential bad language)

  It is indeed about the individual administration elected to the executive office.  Good write-up, IceFire.  Kosh: You're missing a very important point.  The Shah of Iran situation was extremely stable and was the best it had ever been until Carter came into presidency, and cut all support from the Shah, effectively turning it into a terrorist state.  There are more factors to it, however.  A very large portion of it is _how_ the war is fought (including how it is "sold").  Many of you have probably had that job where you're told to accomplish a task, and are given certain rules regarding it.  We've had rules that made sense... and we've had rules that were complete bull****.  Rules that caused nothing to get done most of the time, but following them will get you "good marks."  Its the inherent system of a bureaucracy.  Even being in a high-up position, those rules are freaking HARD to change.  It takes personal experience in the field and an intimate understanding of WHY the rules are there, and when it really is good to break them.  [off-topic, but that is one reason the Americans and some of their allies were so incredibly effective in WWII as opposed to the Germans.  Sure, the Germans were the best trained in the world, but they didn't know how to adapt and be resourceful.  They were so stuck on following the chain of command that when **** went down, everything fell apart.]
  Today, the United States Military is in the same dilemma in that regard that the Germans had in WWII.  The soldiers fighting over there can't lift a ****ing finger to save their own life or that of an Iraqi without getting it cleared all the way back to congress.  All of this because why???  Bureaucracy and politics.

  Here's my opinion... take it or leave it; Bush worked miracles with the economy post 9/11.  That goes entirely unsung.  Of course, for the MSM, the only good news is bad news.  I was and still am a strong supporter of the War in Iraq.  But I've got serious issues with how Bush and congress handled it (sure, ok **** happens in war all the time - no war has ever come close to being fought perfectly).  But I'm pissed because the same mistakes they made are the ones that are ALWAYS being made in this new world political atmosphere.  Example: Now unfortunately I don't know enough about the events leading up to the Vietnam war to say whether I agree with the justification or not... but that is besides my point.  Once the U.S. got into Vietnam, support was cut right from under them.  They were, essentially, not ALLOWED to succeed.  They weren't given the equipment or reinforcements they needed.  Who do I blame?  Yes.... the Hippies.  And say what you want about that war itself, but because the troops were pulled, millions of Vietnamese (yes millions) were killed within days by the Vietcong.  Again, justified or not... it was an extremely poorly fought war.  Bureaucracy and politics.

P.S. jr2 - Bravo.  We're falling further and further away from democracy.  We need to be having REAL DEBATES.

[Kosh]

The Shah of Iran situation was extremely stable and was the best it had ever been until Carter came into presidency, and cut all support from the Shah, effectively turning it into a terrorist state.

So the massive public uprisings against a brutal dictatorial regime were because of Carter?

off-topic, but that is one reason the Americans and some of their allies were so incredibly effective in WWII as opposed to the Germans.  Sure, the Germans were the best trained in the world, but they didn't know how to adapt and be resourceful.  They were so stuck on following the chain of command that when **** went down, everything fell apart.

The German army's problem was that after the defeat of France Hitler assumed total and absolute control over absolutly everything they did. Why? He didn't trust his generals. The Germans were quite resourceful, when they were allowed to be.