Alberto Gonzalez

[The King]

I think its so ridiculous how the media is so liberal and muniputalive. I don't want to ramble on, just post one thing.

Yeah 8 federal attorneys were fired, that's politics. You wan't your people in office with you to get your parties views in action. Its not necessarily fair, but it happens. You know Clinton did it too... but that didn't get any attention because republicans arent complete assholes and understand how politics work and didn't try to take every opportunity to make their competitors look bad.

CLINTON FIRED EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL ATTORNEY....93 OF THEM, NO BIG DEAL APPARENTLY...
clinton fired all of them as one of his first things after being elected into office
just think of shit like that before you just believe what the news says, because every news channel except fox news is a lot of biased liberal bullshit. Edited August 28, 2007 by The King

[garykainz]

thank you

[The King]

thank you

didn't expect any support from someone living in Boulder haha, that place is like liberal capitol of the world.... it's ridiculous

you know they refused to fly the american flag at the library there in case someone got offended?

[garykainz]

well, i don't hail from boulder, i just go to school there. born and raised in Arvada.

you know they refused to fly the american flag at the library there in case someone got offended?

that doesn't surprise me in the least Edited August 28, 2007 by garykainz

[MechAnt]

From what I understand, Gonzales fired them for his own agenda rather than just cleaning up like Clinton. Then again, I still agree that firing only 8 got him in shit deep trouble is BS

[The King]

From what I understand, Gonzales fired them for his own agenda rather than just cleaning up like Clinton. Then again, I still agree that firing only 8 got him in shit deep trouble is BS

And you don't think Clinton firing every single one and getting his own people in there wasn't for his agenda?

Your damn right these 8 were fired because of the agenda. They were working against the rest and slowing everything down. I don't think it should be fine to do it, but I just hate how no one cared when clinton fired about 12 times as many of them

[nestormakhno]

I think its so ridiculous how the media is so liberal and muniputalive. I don't want to ramble on, just post one thing.

Yeah 8 federal attorneys were fired, that's politics. You wan't your people in office with you to get your parties views in action. Its not necessarily fair, but it happens. You know Clinton did it too... but that didn't get any attention because republicans arent complete assholes and understand how politics work and didn't try to take every opportunity to make their competitors look bad.

CLINTON FIRED EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL ATTORNEY....93 OF THEM, NO BIG DEAL APPARENTLY...
clinton fired all of them as one of his first things after being elected into office
just think of shit like that before you just believe what the news says, because every news channel except fox news is a lot of biased liberal bullshit.

The Clinton comparison doesn't factor in the fact that Gonzales is a scumbag. Also, Clinton never terrorized a feeble old man to get his way, but that's just my humble opinion.

[boulderkid303]

The Clinton comparison doesn't factor in the fact that Gonzales is a scumbag. Also, Clinton never terrorized a feeble old man to get his way, but that's just my humble opinion.
[/quote]


True that.

I hail from Boulder by the way, and I am not an intense liberal. I am open to both ends, but I vote Dem. And I will be Supporting Barack!

Also-have either of you 2 from Colorado been down here in Boulder to the hookah-house? I work there, deff check it out.

[Sonthert]

I think its so ridiculous how the media is so liberal and muniputalive. I don't want to ramble on, just post one thing.

because every news channel except fox news is a lot of biased liberal bullshit.

Whenever I hear that type of statement, I am reminded of the story that sometime in summer 1940, during the battle for France, Adolf Hitler complained that Hermann Goering was too much of a "liberal".

I guess if a person is a right-wing extremist, the news stations beyond Fox would seem to have a left-wing bias. In real, human, terms that statement is absurd. If you evaluate the News stations objectively, using News agencies from all over the world as a measuring stick, the news agencies in the US all have from a slight right-wing bias to an extreme right-wing bias. What that really consists of typical Fox propaganda that simply tries to frame and control people's political views. If CNN has a left-wing bias, than whatever is to the left of them is just wackos. Of course, in terms of people around the world, that isn't the case at all.

[newsman]

Yeah 8 federal attorneys were fired, that's politics.

The justice department is not something that should not be politicised. It's sole purpose is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. That's it. Politics should not enter into any of the workings of the department. If the firings were not politically based, why has no one been able to give an acceptable reason why the 8 attornies were fired in the first place?

That being said, I can only celebrate the fact that another member of the worst administration in US history is going down in flames. Thankfully, this eight year nightmare, known as the Bush presidency, is coming to an end.

[The King]

Yeah 8 federal attorneys were fired, that's politics.

The justice department is not something that should not be politicised. It's sole purpose is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. That's it. Politics should not enter into any of the workings of the department. If the firings were not politically based, why has no one been able to give an acceptable reason why the 8 attornies were fired in the first place?

That being said, I can only celebrate the fact that another member of the worst administration in US history is going down in flames. Thankfully, this eight year nightmare, known as the Bush presidency, is coming to an end.

I'm not saying its okay, I'm just saying how I hate the fact that when clinton did something so much more extreme, no one cared because the rupublicans didn't drill and harass the guy and put it all over the news

[The King]

I think its so ridiculous how the media is so liberal and muniputalive. I don't want to ramble on, just post one thing.

because every news channel except fox news is a lot of biased liberal bullshit.

Whenever I hear that type of statement, I am reminded of the story that sometime in summer 1940, during the battle for France, Adolf Hitler complained that Hermann Goering was too much of a "liberal".

I guess if a person is a right-wing extremist, the news stations beyond Fox would seem to have a left-wing bias. In real, human, terms that statement is absurd. If you evaluate the News stations objectively, using News agencies from all over the world as a measuring stick, the news agencies in the US all have from a slight right-wing bias to an extreme right-wing bias. What that really consists of typical Fox propaganda that simply tries to frame and control people's political views. If CNN has a left-wing bias, than whatever is to the left of them is just wackos. Of course, in terms of people around the world, that isn't the case at all.

Alright, well you can't compare our government to the rest of the world's gov's when we are comparing parts of our against each other. I don't care if CNN looks conservative to some ultra liberal country on the other side of the world. The fact is on a USA "measuring stick", CNN is definately not in any way on the right wing side, FOX news is.... most of the media leans liberal in american terms...except they don't lean liberal, they are so far liberal and I think news should be unbiased, and let people make up their own minds. What's happening is our country gonna rot because of today's youth not looking any deeper than what comes out of a CBS newscaster's mouth.

News isn't what it should be, even when they don't state any opinions, all you hear about it you know, 4 more american troops have died.... They never say a infantry division killed a group of 30 terrorists... if the media would back the fuck off and let these generals do their job the right way without having to worry what the media will say next, the war could have been won easily... shit look at like WW2... I mean Germany was a fucking powerhouse compared to Iraq, difference is back then we had a high moral homefront and fought battles the right way. War isn't pretty, its an ugly, sad thing... prolonging it by trying to fight while still playing nice just risks more american lives

[azcoyote]

HEY what ever happened to Pancho Gonzales? I really liked him. Anyway. I find it amusing that anyone would now say that republicans in congress took it easy on Clinton. Does anyone remember what's his name, Ken Star? He came up empty handed after squandering millions of tax dollars on a series of "investigations" that were little more than a witch hunt. If what Gonzales did was no big deal, why did he perjure himself rather than tell the truth. Clearly he was aware what he did was very, very wrong. He should be thrown in jail for contempt of congress until he answers openly and honestly to the legislative branch.

Another distinction - it's one thing to appoint Federal prosecutors at the beginning of your term. Quite another to hold an axe over there heads and chop away if they don't tow the party line. Clinton never did anything comparable to that.

To make this really comical, consider the first name floated out there as a replacement - Michael Chertoff. 'Nuff said.

[Sonthert]

I think its so ridiculous how the media is so liberal and muniputalive. I don't want to ramble on, just post one thing.

because every news channel except fox news is a lot of biased liberal bullshit.

Whenever I hear that type of statement, I am reminded of the story that sometime in summer 1940, during the battle for France, Adolf Hitler complained that Hermann Goering was too much of a "liberal".

I guess if a person is a right-wing extremist, the news stations beyond Fox would seem to have a left-wing bias. In real, human, terms that statement is absurd. If you evaluate the News stations objectively, using News agencies from all over the world as a measuring stick, the news agencies in the US all have from a slight right-wing bias to an extreme right-wing bias. What that really consists of typical Fox propaganda that simply tries to frame and control people's political views. If CNN has a left-wing bias, than whatever is to the left of them is just wackos. Of course, in terms of people around the world, that isn't the case at all.

Alright, well you can't compare our government to the rest of the world's gov's when we are comparing parts of our against each other. I don't care if CNN looks conservative to some ultra liberal country on the other side of the world. The fact is on a USA "measuring stick", CNN is definately not in any way on the right wing side, FOX news is.... most of the media leans liberal in american terms...except they don't lean liberal, they are so far liberal and I think news should be unbiased, and let people make up their own minds. What's happening is our country gonna rot because of today's youth not looking any deeper than what comes out of a CBS newscaster's mouth.

News isn't what it should be, even when they don't state any opinions, all you hear about it you know, 4 more american troops have died.... They never say a infantry division killed a group of 30 terrorists... if the media would back the fuck off and let these generals do their job the right way without having to worry what the media will say next, the war could have been won easily... shit look at like WW2... I mean Germany was a fucking powerhouse compared to Iraq, difference is back then we had a high moral homefront and fought battles the right way. War isn't pretty, its an ugly, sad thing... prolonging it by trying to fight while still playing nice just risks more american lives

I wasn't comparing the governments, I was comparing the media. Don't employ red herrings. I don't think the News should be biased either...except all the major cable news programs are. In fact, CNN is the closest thing to journalism in the cable "news" programs. Fox and CNBC can't be called news in a general sense since they don't employ journalists, only commentators.

Our country's not going to rot. Look at all of the countries in the world during the time of mass communications that have the most conservative mass media...they are all defunct. Striving to have a right-wing media correlates with disaster. During the rise to greatness between WWII and the early 60s, the US had some of the most pure journalistic information available. As this country has turned downwards, the news follows by being more conservative...some correlation...maybe a purer more journalistic news might be what this country needs to become better than it is now, forget Fox, CNBC, etc. Their influence over the 1996 and 2000 Telecommunication acts are absolutely shameful. Those created the media the way it is today. News and information were conveyed much more honestly 20 years ago. even moreso 25 years ago.

You're employing another red herring. You are trying to divert the attention of the reader from my point about the media. Just because you can make a point on an unrelated topic doesn't make your original argument any stronger. If you insist on avoiding my well-crafted points, I will oblige you:

The war in Iraq is a sham. The "job" the generals have to do will be viewed backward in history as ignoble and inane. The media covers it the exact way they want to. The same corporations that are Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" are the same corporations that own the media outlets. They benefit from the war and they aren't going to divulge anything that would injure their interests. How long those interests continue remains to be seen...they may have already hit the peak for their profits in this matter...its not easy to divine this type of information.

Comparing WWII to Iraq is absurd in the sense of its importance, the historicity of it, the nobility of purpose. Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is almost as absurd. On the other hand, comparing Vietnam and Iraq as failures of American foreign policy I think is relevant and follow with it later. The US currently fields approximately 10 divisions, plus 3 marine divisions. In Vietnam, there were approximately 45. In WWII, 15.8 Million people served, or the modern equivalent of over 600 divisions. More American men died in WWII than have served in the entirety of the Iraq war, both of them, actually. Comparing Iraq to anything from the military greatness of the past of this country is silly. If you compare the sizes of the areas involved, assuming the U.S. forces in WWII were adequate (and there is good evidence to show they weren't)...

WWII US Forces in Europe (1/2 of U.S. WWII forces, a conservative estimate)...8,000,000 men...Area of influence of the U.S./British Allied force area (Also conservative, since Great Britain supplied men)...Approximately 2,356,000 Km2...thats a ratio of 3.4 men-units per Km2. Iraq, on the other hand, There are 250,000 US troops in Iraq. Iraq is approximately 439,000 Km2. Thats a ratio of .57 men-units per Km2. So...can we say the U.S. military isn't large enough? Yep. Its a waste of time, its a waste of American lives. Iraqii lives, too. We don't have the forces to control Iraq fully, properly, the way we forced the Nazis/Facists out of Europe. Also, bear in mind, that we were kicking out an unpopular occupying force from Europe. The locals probably supported what we were doing. In Iraq, we are occupying the country itself, so popular support is likely to be a lot more sparse...meaning we should have a HIGHER ratio of soldiers in Iraq than there were in WWII. So, why doesn't the news media examine statistics like these and report on them...the war in Iraq is unwinnable, like the war in Vietnam. Oh, just for the record, although we had approximately four times the military forces in Vietnam than we do in Iraq (The highest number I can find on the fly is 550,000...but thats short...its conservative, however and I will use it), South Vietnam is only 174,000 Km2 (The terrain might be a little more challenging, true). Thats a ratio of 3.16 men units/Km2. Vietnam was a failure, insurgent troops in a five year span rose from 5,000 to 100,000 (1959-1964). Also, don't forget that the Army of the Republic of Vietnam helped the U.S. during Vietnam...so...
Ratio of men/Km2
WWII 3.4 (low estimate) Success!
Vietnam 3.16 (Low estimate) Failure
Iraq .57 (Dead on)

So...what job do you think the U.S. is there to do? We don't have enough men. Simple. So what is the job that you think (or are repeating Fox News is saying) we are supposed to shut up and leave the soldiers to do? Die faster? Maybe the real job is to drop bombs, shoot bullets and use supplies...which the companies that supply the military with would then receive orders for replacements...more money for them...these are...the same companies that own the media. Look up Westinghouse Electric, CBS, Viacom, Northrup-Grumman (all "own each other" holding stock in one another, although Viacom seems to be the big enchilada) in your spare time, Northrup-Grumman is the 3rd largest defense contractor and they are in close business ties with Viacom. Same companies, own each other's stocks. Fox-Rupert Murdoch is connected to Boeing-Hughes Electronics. Boeing is the second largest defense contractor in the world and the largest manufacturer of planes...and Murdoch owns a piece of them...huh. Why aren't the news agencies reporting on how the war is, from a practical military point of view and from a historical view, a waste of time and money? Why aren't the news agencies reporting the possible conflict of interest in their competitors? If the military Industrial Complex owns the media (or vice-versa) why wouldn't honest News Journalists report the possibility? Unless they're all dirty...or all highly suspect...or a combination of both.

You would be hard-pressed to point out a country that was forced by military intervention to change governments (as Iraq is) that retained that government after the military force left. Whether it was a short occupation or a long one, few examples exist, one being Mongolia under Communist rule and Panama (somebody pointed out this example recently...I have yet to check into it). The list of disasters that followed a military withdrawal or removal or foreign control include: Rwanda, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Angola, Algeria, Mozambique, China, The Ottoman Empire/The Middle East, The entire complex of satellite countries of the former Soviet Union (less Mongolia). Those are just modern examples. Move your military in, take over a country, help administer it, support a new government and history shows its a disaster. A few examples offer a little color, but its a lockstep pattern. The idea for the Iraq war is a disaster. When the U.S. military leaves, it will revert to civil war and bloodshed. Doesn't matter whether its tomorrow or 100 years from now.

Oh yeah, a really good example, Iran. The U.S. and Britain plotted to overthrow Mossadegh in operation Ajax, 1953. Mind you, Mossadegh was a democratically elected Prime Minister of that country. He was no dictator. He nationalized the Iranian oil industry which pissed off the Brits and the U.S. who had him deposed. He was replaced by the same guy, Pahlavi, that he was elected to replace. Coincedence? Probably not. Pahlavi had powerful U.S. interests (and British too, probably, I haven't read anything to that measure). He was eventually overthrown by the Ayotollah Khomeni...which resulted, in a vicious takeover of the American Embassy. Only the U.S. embassy's personnel were seized, mind you. Now, we have post Khomeni-Iran. Iran, the one who is trying to build a nuclear bomb, Iran, the new "biggest threat to American Security". If the U.S. had just minded its own damn business and stayed out of Iran...would we have to contend with the problems, now? Maybe...but what has transpired to this point is a disaster. I would take a 50% (o r even a 10%...whatever number you can muster) chance that things would be better than they are now. No, the U.S. has to poke their nose in other people's business...make more, larger messes to clean up, because the last guy calling the shots for our team (figuratively) had an agenda for his own interests, not for those of the American people. Ronald Reagan's administration plotted to trade spare parts with the Iranians for the release of the hostages AFTER Reagan was elected. The deal was made and the hostages had to sit for several months waiting for inauguration ceremonies to be released. Several guys were convicted (two of the the convictions were overturned and never retried).

Also, for the record your statistic of a 4 Amercians dying after killing 30 terrorists is amusing. #1, there were no terrorists in Iraq before the U.S. deposed Hussein...it is normal for insurgency levels to go up the longer a foreign occupying power lingers...but, #2, Ho Chi Minh, leader of North Vietnam against the U.S. in the Vietnam War said "You can kill 10 of our men for every one of yours we kill and we will still win." Looks like Ho Chi Minh was right. Your ratio is only 7.5, Ho Chi Minh said 10, so by your own numbers, we are doing more poorly than the troops did in Vietnam...and we lost that one...next?

Such is the story with Vietnam. Such is the story with Iraq. Find me something that's actually committed to paper and reasonably accurate to justify this war in Iraq. Good luck... Edited August 30, 2007 by Sonthert

[nestormakhno]

HEY what ever happened to Pancho Gonzales? I really liked him. Anyway. I find it amusing that anyone would now say that republicans in congress took it easy on Clinton. Does anyone remember what's his name, Ken Star? He came up empty handed after squandering millions of tax dollars on a series of "investigations" that were little more than a witch hunt. If what Gonzales did was no big deal, why did he perjure himself rather than tell the truth. Clearly he was aware what he did was very, very wrong. He should be thrown in jail for contempt of congress until he answers openly and honestly to the legislative branch.

Another distinction - it's one thing to appoint Federal prosecutors at the beginning of your term. Quite another to hold an axe over there heads and chop away if they don't tow the party line. Clinton never did anything comparable to that.

To make this really comical, consider the first name floated out there as a replacement - Michael Chertoff. 'Nuff said.

QFT.

If any party knows how to blow shit out of proportion, it's definitely the Republicans. Why look further than the last Clinton scandal, when Tom DeLay managed to host impeachment hearings over a blowjob?

[james]

Clinton fired all of them, as oppose to just the ones who were "against him". Totally the same thing.

It wouldn't have been so bad if he would have said "Yeah, we fired them." Instead, he said "I don't recall". B f'ing S. The truth, even though brutal and stupid, is better that an ignorant lie.

[nestormakhno]

Clinton fired all of them, as oppose to just the ones who were "against him". Totally the same thing.

It wouldn't have been so bad if he would have said "Yeah, we fired them." Instead, he said "I don't recall". B f'ing S. The truth, even though brutal and stupid, is better that an ignorant lie.

But here we could bring up Reagan's Iran/Contra Affair defense. At least when Clinton lied, we weren't funding terrorists.

[The King]

fuck, i gotta go to work, no time to read sonthert's superpost there, just caught the last bit

those 4 to 30 numbers were just 2 random ass numbers i said, didn't mean thats any sort of real ratio...

[Sonthert]

Actually, Kenneth Starr was appointed head of the Tower Commission (Wasn't that the name of it?) to investigate the Clinton's involvement in Whitewater and when that came up empty, he started looking all Bill's blowjobs.

[azcoyote]

Actually, Kenneth Starr was appointed head of the Tower Commission (Wasn't that the name of it?) to investigate the Clinton's involvement in Whitewater and when that came up empty, he started looking all Bill's blowjobs.

You, sir, have an amazing memory.

[Scoop]

"owned" comes to mind after reading erics post about war.

[Blue Midnight]

if the media would back the fuck off and let these generals do their job the right way without having to worry what the media will say next, the war could have been won easily...

Most hilariously retarded opinion I have heard in quite some time.

[Blue Midnight]

Such is the story with Vietnam. Such is the story with Iraq. Find me something that's actually committed to paper and reasonably accurate to justify this war in Iraq. Good luck...

Yeah, and I assume that The King will be joining the military upon commencement of his 18th birthday.

If he does, then he has my respect and admiration for practicing what he preeches and fighting for what he believes in. If he doesn't have plans of joining, then he is either a complete coward or a total hypocrite. It really is that simple.

It's time to end this insanity.

Yet, sane people still have to listen to nonsense about the liberal media losing this war (or some other BS) from those who have been wrong about nearly everything for the past six years.

The liberals lost this war, huh? Uh, yeah. Sure there, fella...anything you say.

[SafeSearchOff]

if we're going to start talking about how the liberals are perfect and that they would have straightened this whole mess up, i'd like to point one thing out.
who, exactly, was it that in an interview recently said something along the lines of not stopping in iraq, but moving into Pakistan and Iran too? I remind you... it wasn't a republican. Obama for president '08!

as for me, i don't blame the liberal media for losing the war, i blame the liberal media for obscuring the truth and generally f*cking everything up. thisi sa war we're fighting, things won't be pretty.


I actually do plan on joining an armed service. Not ASAP, but afteri get a college degree i think i'll do a tour of duty. serve my country.


edit: also, this doesn't pertain to war, but i'll make the comment anyway.
Liberals really suck. Not the people, the politicians. John Corzine gets elected Governor of New Jersey. Within 8 FREAKING DAYS he manages to run everything so poorly that we actually have to SHUT DOWN the state gov't. Anything nonessential was shut down for almost a month to restructure our government. Okay, so you can argue it wasn't Corzine, it was coming anyway. Well I know for a fact the last at least 2 governors were Democrats too. So great f*ing job, retards. Also, Corzine gets in a car crash. Nearly kills himself. Why? HE DOESNT BUCKLE HIS SEAT BELT. com f*ing on people! do you know how bad that looks? the man who freaking writes laws doesn't follow them. great example for our kids not to be retarded though... And he also raises our f*ing sales tax to help rebuild our state department from its shutdown (caused by him) to 7%. wtf.

finally. Governor McGreevy. Also democrat. Steps down from office because he was gay. Wait, not just because he was gay, sorry. It was also because he named his freaking lover the head of homeland security in NJ or some bullshit like that. Some big-important foreign security job. And his lover was a foreign national.

so great job guys, really, we're all so proud. Edited September 2, 2007 by SafeSearchOff

[Sonthert]

Good liberals, bad liberals, good republicans, bad republicans. If you want to study one of the finest presidents of the 20th century, look up Dwight D. Eisenhower. A great man, a man of a vision, a man who got things done because they were the right thing to do, not because it was party politics. The only fiscal conservative of the republicans since WWII. Only republican since WWII to have turned in a budget surplus. Only democrats have matched that feat since then. Every democrat since WWII except Carter turned in a surplus at least once in their terms of office. Every other republican has turned in bloated, engorged budgets that send this country spiraling further into debt. The national debt tripled under Reagan!

Which liberal media is that SafeSearch? You use that phrase like its a fact. The conservative media of this country, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC (and the rest are here on Gilligan's Island...), etc. Very easily could have revealed the same information I did, in a dumbed down version to the people of the United States. The war would have never happened without our elected politicians (republicans, by matter of chance) lying to the American people or being completely incompetent. The war has no practical way of being won. Don't take my information at face value...look it up, its all part of the established information in the lexicon of our culture (AKA...history). Instead, they beat the drum and rallied the American people behind this war, a war that has no path to victory, no hope of cessation and no benefit for the American people. Funny how the the conservatives are the ones claiming government is too big and inefficient considering they are the ones who lied, cheated and stole from the American people (I am referring to the falsified evidence for the war with Iraq). The UN weapons inspectors said that Iraq had no WMDs and the overwhelming majority of 192 countries of the UN (180+) called the US' evidence "unconvincing". I do agree, then with that conservative principle. The government is too large. We need to start sending all the dishonest, crooked, self-serving politicians off to Tongo, democrats or republicans, or some such place and out of our government.

Edit: Why aren't politicians held to the same standards as police officers? If you accept anything in the way of a gratuity, your ass is out.

Also, I should just add, WWII lasted from December 1941 until June 1945...we took back entire continents from countries with a lot more on the ball than Iraq ever has had.

The US military belongs on U.S. soil...protecting us, not overseas protesting somebody's business interests. I remember when men who chose to idealistically defend this country came back to people throwing things at them and heckling them. It lasted for another 15 years past that. I don't think it was much before 1990 that being in the military wasn't scorned. We are on that road again and that upsets me as much as anything. The democrats aren't going to do thing one about leaving Iraq. Elected to the presidency or not (watch for John Edwards to win the democratic nomination...its been planned that way from the beginning). The war will drag on for another five years or so until the American people start spitting on returning soldiers again. Disgusting. To be betrayed by our leaders like that, the soldiers betrayed, by us. Ugly. Joining the military isn't about serving this country, its about serving business interests that at best do nothing for this country.

Thanks for your attention.

As a side point, I recently read somewhere that the U.S. in 2000 apologized for deposing Mossadegh of Iran and in as much admitted that Operation Ajax was wrong. Now of course, we haven't learned anything, obviously. Edited September 4, 2007 by Sonthert