Iraq elections

[The Dad Fisherman]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

You just managed to piss off the last guy that was willing to listen to you here...









and before you go off on a tangent it was just a joke.

[RIJIMMY]

Skip, I believe when the GWB vs JFK talk was out of control, the names were censored in order to curb the postings. I think if I type the other guys name: John %$%$%$%$%$
It get edited too. lets see...

[RIJIMMY]

Yup, it does.

[chris L]

OH my God ! Now we have John Kennedy fighting with George Washington . Must be a HyAnnis thing


john put those 2 last names in the do not post list . Do to too many heated discussions . That only leads to fights .



All Polititions are liars !

[JohnR]

Originally posted by Skip N
"What if it turns out %$%$%$%$ was right, and we were wrong?"


Can someone tell me why we are not aloud to say the Presidents name on this site? why the hell does it always get blocked out? This is a wondeful site for some good discusssion but who's stupid idea was this to black out W's name on here? Must be a liberal run website This insults me.

It was my stupid idea to reduce the constant bickering from knuckle heads like you and Spence from turning a fishing site into a Left -v- Right rhetoric match (it apllies to JFK Senator as well). I was apparently worn about that. I also thought that maybe, just maybe, people from the opposing sides on these issues could DISCUSS these issues and support their points with fact instead of partlyline bullsheize. And the discssion isn't good - I feel like I'm listening to that clown Rush or listening to Hillary - BOTH wastes of the human gene pool.... Collin Powell for President...

You know people, and I'm going to pick on Spence and Skip in particular but this applies to more than a few people here. I would gladly have a brew or wet a line with you guys but I have seen little objective discourse between most of you (actually, Spence often starts off trying to be a little objective before the unraveling).

You know what is funny? We moderate independants generally shake our heads or laugh you ultra lefties and ultra rightys

[fishweewee]

b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h
b u s h

[ThrowingTimber]

...

[Raven]

moderate independant then...... yeah thats the ticket.....

right on John...i'll drink to That!

[DRMatus]

Its not worth the sacrifice that many soldiers have made as I believe it will never remain a democracy. The Iraqis have to want it for themselves and I do not believe that the majority of them want it bad enough to die for it as many of our own have. I believe it is being force fed to them by our government! Why is it up to the United States to spread democracy, even where it is not wanted or welcome?

As a fishing website, I generally agree that political debate belongs elsewhere. However, as an Iraq War veteran, I have to respond to the above quoted statement. I'll begin by describing how I viewed the events of election day.
I'll be the first to admit that I was less than optimistic about how the elections would unfold. Thankfully, I was wrong. The Iraqi people made it quite clear how much the freedom to vote means to them. While many Americans can't be bothered, these brave people risked their lives, emerged from the sheltered existence of their home lives, (something they have not been able to do in decades) and went to great lengths to cast their votes. Some walked 10-20 miles or more. I thought of the Iraqi Police, albeit they lacked training and discipline but they made themselves targets by working with us, and were damn proud to do so. I thought of the brave translators who worked for us. I thought of the informants who risked their lives to give us intel. In short, watching this election had a profound effect on me because it validated the efforts of those of us who served. It validated the efforts of the thousands of troops in Iraq now and those headed there. Most importantly, and this is something that most of you here can't fully appreciate; It validates the efforts of those who never came home. I know them by name and I know them by face and I always will.
A democracy in Iraq is important to every American. It goes beyond oil and the ability to have affordable SUVs. A self sustaining democracy is a tall order to fill and the Iraqi people have a long uphill battle ahead of them. In this election they have delivered a critical message that they are willing to work for it. This is a noble effort, discouraging at times, but nevertheless a noble effort.
Finally, I think many people, regardless of whether or not they support our troops, don't realize how damaging it is to suggest that this effort is not worth the sacrifice made by our armed forces. They serve to spread democracy, which in turn helps preserve the safety, security, and stability both at home and abroad, which makes our way of life possible.

[MakoMike]

DR,
Well Said!

[fishsmith]

I second that, well said DRMatus.

[The Dad Fisherman]

That was VERY welll said

[reelecstasy]

Very well said.

Also, Thank you.....................

[Bronko]

You ever fish up in the Mass area? I have to wet a line with you at some point.

[spence]

A fishing board is the perfect place to discuss politics. Where else can such a diverse group of people come together and share opinions? Nobody is forced to open a thread with an obvious subject...

I think it's very difficult to say a war isn't "worth it" while it's happening. History alone will determine this...

There was certianly a parallel here to Vietnam, a war of idiology which divided the country at the time. I don't need to add that Vietnam doesn't have a good place in history for obvious reasons. My hope is that Iraq is viewed much better, it will have to be a success of the Iraqi people.

You really do have to separate the troops from the civilian leadership as they are not one in the same. This is the main message of K33ry's Vietnam protests, it was true then and it's true today.

The Generals gave much warning about troop strength and security before the invasion which fell on deaf civilian ears. The legal framework which allowed abuse and toruture in Baghram, Abu Grahib and Gitmo was drafted by civilians not Generals.

It was civilian leadership that ordered our troops to not deter looting after the war, that disbanded the Iraqi army and that has controlled the Billions in mismanaged contracts.

Our troops really have nothing to do with any of this. They do as they're told, do the best job possible and try to get home alive. Put in that position I would behave exactly the same.

Regarding the recent vote.

Congress didn't give Buhs approval to wage war in the name of Liberty or Democracy, in fact the conditions were very specific. 1) Prove Saddam has WMD and 2) prove Saddam is teamed up with al Qaida.

Now we know that not only were both items completely false, but the bi-partisan Senate panel has largely concluded the evidence was never there to justify the Administration's claims in the first place. Congress was duped, led to war in a blur of overstated claims, reckless optimisim and 9/11 induced emotion.

This should disturb all Americans deeply, regardless of whether Iraq is "worth it" or not.

-spence

[Bronko]

The liberals have a new attack plan. It is a riot watching them discuss the war now, post election. God is mentioned at every turn. All of a sudden, God and faith are HUGE parts of the Democratic agenda. (since in their eyes" God" lost the election for them). Also there is a huge "support the troops" movement. The Barabar Boxers and Nancy Pelosis of the world assail the charachter of anyone associated with war planning or the B U S H cabinet, yet begin and end every tirade with, "I support the troops."

I personally don't think you can "support the troops" while attacking their commander in chief, attacking his staff, attacking their policy and ideology, railing against their presence in the area of combat, lamenting the loss of innocents, claiming they are doing their job under false pretenses, and minimizing the importance of the role they are playing.

[spence]

Yes, somehow Buhs appologists think it's unreasonable for Congress to expect a principal war architect to reconcile their statements and behavior. How demanding and partisan of them

Perhaps we would be better off as a Democratic nation if we just let our leaders act with impunity. There's zero chance they are not being honest and open with the American people right?

Blindly supporting a President regardless of their actions is not logical nor American. The notion that I personally can't support our troops while critisizing their leadership is patently absurd partisan rhetoric designed to insulate one from any reality.

God forbid we accept our mistakes and hold those where accountable when necessary

-spence