reddogblitz

Get technical why don't ya? They don't still make helicopters and weapons systems? Your statement might be right, but still doesn't negate my point? Surely you're not saying defense contractors do not have a vested interest in when the US goes to war, are you?

I misspelled Northrop-Grumman, sue me. Bell Helicopter is no longer a company? Really? That's odd, because they're hiring https://textron.taleo.net/careersection/bell/jobsearch.ftl?lang=en.

To a degree. The uniform makers and food and construction companies etc would. The defense contractors make the big money when they sell expensive armaments to the government which they then blow up and need to buy more. War is way more profitable than a bigger army in peace time.

That hasn't happened, so really it's a moot point. I'll play along however to be a good sport. Even if Saddam had those WMDs (allegedly), it's not reason enough for the kind of war we waged on Iraq IMHO Didn't buy that argument then and still don't. So if we find weapons buried for 15 years I still won't vote for Hillary because I dislike her for other reasons like her fakeness for example. 1 1/2 years ago she hawled in $1,600,000 for chumming up with and sucking up to Chase, Goldman Sachs, etc and today she is for the little guy and against the rigged system (in part perpetuated by the very same banks she chummed up with and took scads of cash from). Her whole avoiding the Freedom of Information Act with her personal eMail server doesn't help her case with me either.

Our current defenses seem to be adequate, it's not that. With a draft everyone in America faces the possibility that if we go to war, they would have to go or their brother/sister/Mom/Dad/son/daughter/husband/wife etc. Now it's just a small minority of the population that has to worry about this. It's too easy to drum up war hoopla and support without everyone having a personal stake in it. If we had not had the draft in Viet Nam who knows how much longer it would have gone on? Not to mention now, our troops are serving 4 or 5 tours in Iraq/Afganistan. When we had a draft it was unusual for someone to do more than 2. Of course the Boeing, Bell Helicopter, and Northrup Grummonds of the world like it as is.

I was trying to figure out if that was a Poz or a Spikes jersey. I have a Spikes jersey like that. But, it could be Poz ... We need to bring the draft back.

Good point. But if we did that, we'd probably have to shut down PPP. Is there a particular question you have in mind? I'll do my best to answer it.

????? Why do you keep asking me thiese what ifs? We were lied to by Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld into (some) believing SH was somehow a threat to us. They sold us hard. WMDs, violating UN Sanctions, he works with Osama, mushroom cloud, tried to kill my Dad, he's gonna give a nuke (within days, not months) to a terrorist. etc. Common sense should tell anyone that if someone is trying to sell something that hard, it's BS. As far as WMDs go, even if he had 'em, wasn't reason enough to attack a sovereign nation IMHO. A lot of countries have WMDs. Why don't we attack them too?

Except that didn't happen, so who cares?

Where is this documented?

For your vote maybe, but not for mine. 150+ congress members voted against the war. How were they able to see through "faulty intelligence" while the majority like Hillary and Joe did not.? People like Lincoln Chaffee, Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, Patty Murray, and Louise Slaughter made the right decision. Perhaps they were doing their job and their due diligence? Like maybe reading the classified documents instead of making their decision for political reasons? Past performance is the best predictor of future actions. Joe and Hillary blew it last time on a very important decision. Any reason to think their decision making is better now?

My mention that Senator Biden voted for the Iraq War just like Senator Clinton, was not a rationalization for Hillary. Rather, it was noting that Biden is no better at least on this regard. IMHO, a vote for Iraq is a deal breaker. I WILL NOT be voting for either one. Reading Bernie's comments in your post, he was right on every point. As far as if he has a chance, I think he does. Especially if Hillary implodes and Bernie gets the young and new voters and re energizing other like Barack did.

Joe voted for the Iraq War just like Senator Clinton did.

So an email about seeing Santa is government business but planning Chelsea's wedding and her Mom's funeral weren't? At least now we know what her email address was. I had always thought it was ChillyHillyXXX69@BillsPlace.com. OK. I have known women named Santa before. So maybe that is legit. But again, an appt with your hairdresser is government business?

Blue Dress Eli Manning Russel Wilson Colin Kaepernick EJ Manuel Blatant cheaters need not apply.

If the intention of the photo of Old Sparky was that mentally ill people should be killed, then I agree. Having been through the mental health system with a family member with mental illness, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Part of it is just that mental illness treatment has a low success rate. It's not nearly as easy to diagnose/treat as the pharmaceutical companies lead us to believe. It's light years behind physical health care IMHO.

And those with health insurance are shooed out the door the day after their health insurance runs out.

ISIS's God is telling them the same thing.

I do agree with you that Iraq would still be somewhat stable if we had left 100,000 or maybe even only 50,000 there. However they would still be getting IED attacks from insurgents no matter how long we stayed. We would be viewed as unlawful invaders to the Iraqi people just as the Germans were viewed by the French for a very long time. No matter where we invade, we're gong to have to leave eventually. And when we do, what happens is predictable. I just don't want to see it happen again. Seems you want to double down. If we were to go with your strategy, we would be better off to just to take it over and stop fooling around. Install 100.000 or more troops and turn it into the 51st state, New Texas. We keep the oil, money etc. But at what expense? Not worth the money and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of human lives IMHO. To you maybe it is. To me, it's not.

You like to bring up this power vacuum thing. Seems to me that often when we stick our nose in where it doesn't belong we just end up creating a vacuum that gets filled by guys at least as bad if not worse than the ones we took out. I use Iraq as Exhibit A and Libya as Exhibit B. We'd like to do the same to Syria as well.

Can you provide a link to it please? I believe I've explained my side to you as well. I don't mind dong it again, but evidently you do.

I will later when I have time. In the meantime I'd like you to explain exactly how a policy of American military intervention has worked for the betterment of the world and to our benefit. I look back at many of our previous entanglements and fail to see any benefit. ie. Iraq, Libya, Viet Nam, Iraq again, Grenada, Lebanon ... Add into that that we're often lied to to get support for these entanglements as well. Gulf of Tonkin lie to get us to go all in on Viet Nam and WMDs/nukes/link to Al Queda etc to get us to invade Iraq. So when these things come up, we should be very skeptical IMHO. The first casualty of war is the truth.

Sadly, yes.

What did you calling me the L-word have to do with torture?

What's a MID? I don't recall involking it.