AstroProdigy

The problem is there are idiots who actually buy into the bull!@#$%^&* that diverting our time and resources to things like carbon sequestering which is unproven and will take a lot of time and money out of alternative energy research. There's also the idiots who think switching to something even more polluting to give us a false sense of security will in any way encourage us to develop alternative energy sources in the long term. All your plan does is accelerate global warming and at the same time slow alternative energy research. It's about the most irresponsible thing we could ever do beyond nuking the planet. The problem is certain groups in the US will run to anything other than what they see as "hippy" clean fuels and will even look to reverse the progress made on avoiding coal because it's even worse than oil just to avoid disagreeing with their leadership in the White House. ThunderJam: On social issues McCain will nominate the same types of ultra conservative Supreme Court justices as Bush. On foreign policy he'll push again the same war mongering as Bush. On the economy he's pretty much forced himself to be a hands off do nothing neo liberal. What is there for him to be different on? He probably won't be as corrupt as Bush, but other than that it's 4 more years of Bush as the Democrats would say.

I disagree that Hillary got where she was because she's a woman. It's the name recognition that did it. Also with Obama if he got it simply for being black then the Democrats would have already taken Al Sharpton a while ago as their nominee. Your opinion that both suck is just that; an opinion. Your own conservative background and lifetime Republican status have made it so that no Democrat could ever not suck unless they took on the principles of Republicans and became Republicans.

Considering Petraeus actually DOES NOT ultimately decide foreign policy since that's the commander in chief Dubya's job I think you fail to see the point. Also, Lieberman's opinions on foreign policy are closer to the Bush administration's which is ultimately the decision maker on Iraq. You provide me with an alternative explanation to the way Iraq is run. I bet you'll just say it was a bumbled war caused by incompetence. Funny how an administration who could turn the public and even get reelected so easily because of brilliant handling is suddenly incompetent when there's a failure.

Why dare cause a depression when you can cause a bigger one for our grandkids? Personally I don't like Florida anyway, so I'm not going to miss it. Coal liquifaction is to oil as smoking 3 inch thick cigarettes is to cigarettes. It'll help you get off cigarettes, but mess you up even worse in the process. Seeing the way McCain panders so desperately to the right I can see him doing a lot of crazy irresponsible stuff.

Congrats on being repe!@#$%^&*ive.

Yeah Sever why pay a lot for gas and maybe not buy a giant gas guzzler next time so the market for efficiency and alternative fuel sources is actually stimulated when you can accelerate global warming and completely screw us all with a new Hummer.

Proof that Sadr wouldn't also be making underhanded maneuvers? Underhanded maneuvers are a fact of life; they have always happened and always will happen while official diplomacy and negotiations go on. The point is you asked me to provide proof of the US' willingness to negotiate with Sadr, and I provided this proof. Accept it and move on. Claims about Petraeus' character are irrelevant. He is the commanding general in Iraq, and he was briefing Congress when he made his remarks. We have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary. Provide proof. You won't be able to provide it, for the simple reason that Iraq isn't stable enough for accurate stats to exist about who is killing the most civilians. Actually you only provided proof of Petraeus and Hammond are willing to negotiate with Sadr. Petraeus actually caught the neo con war hawks like Lieberman off guard on the matter. Petraeus seems to be one of the few people in the administration actually trying to win in Iraq and though i disagree with his strategy at least he's not promoting violence because it mobilizes the expensive American war machine for longer. Too bad with Bush as commander in chief even Petraeus' flawed strategy doesn't really have a chance. Considering Bush praised the attacks on Sadr's militia in Basra I doubt he wants the same goal as Petraeus. Also, the #1 killer of civilians hasn't been the US armed forces. It's the Shiite militias that we've enabled and helped arm (Mahdi Army not included since we don't fund it to my knowledge).

The US is willing to negotiate with Sadr? Please provide proof for this claim and it'd better not be under the condition Sadr gives up his militia first and leaves himself defenseless.

Again ignoring the "does Christianity promote democracy" debate because it's irrelevant here it's more complicated than drawing borders along ethnic lines. The lines themselves are tricky with millions on the "wrong" side of them. Drawing these kinds of borders would either require a huge massacre and population transfer in the case of India and Pakistan or a slow bleeding out of the groups that are on the "wrong" side. Also access to the coast is absolutely essential and any side that happens to not have it would be pretty screwed. On top of that there are still very strong tribal divisions which would make a united Somalia, for example, extremely unstable.

Not if one side it could destroy the other with fancy American guns. Treaties are customary to traditional warfare which involves sides with similar levels of technology. In an insurgency one side would get utterly annihilated by the other because it has overwhelming technological superiority. It doesn't mean the leadership of the insurgency side isn't rational. The Ho Chi Minh was a rational leader in Vietnam, but that means nothing in forms of signing a treaty or even the US recognizing it as a war. In this case Maliki has the support of the US military which is why Sadr is fighting the way he is; not because he must be an irrational player. I suggest you take Modern Warfare 101 if it's offered where you are. Don't fall for the trap that asymmetrical warfare is simply extremists. It's a response to an overwhelming technological advantage by one side which is actually the most rational decision you can make. That's a trap that the powers that be use to deceive Americans into thinking any struggle that doesn't involve battles isn't a legitimate one and since America can easily destroy almost any side in a battle because of its overwhelming technological superiority there won't be battles and thus there can be no legitimate struggles against the US!

Well you're trying to draw clear distinctions that supposedly justify considering the intent of Shiites as being completely different as Christians when they use religious terms. Why can't Iraq unravel? Who benefits from the situation in Iraq today. Two rational players can easily be adversaries especially since they have opposing views of what their country should be. If Sadr is never going to be allowed into the fold in Iraq what else do you expect to happen?

Ignoring the "Did Christianity help create democracy" and "Are Muslims the only ones who can't get along with other religious groups" debates because they're irrelevant to this discussion I have to disagree that the invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia had any more than the faintest sign of a crusade. Ethiopia has gone to war with Eritrea, a half Muslim half Christian country run by Christians, frequently for the same reason of a lack of coastline as well as historical animosities. Somaliland, a breakaway region of Somalia that wants independence is on good terms with Ethiopia because it provides Ethiopia with a port for its goods. The fact is Ethiopia is the juggernaut of the Horn of Africa with a population that is by very far the biggest, a long legacy, and a long history of domination. They see everything between Sudan and Kenya, and parts of those countries too, as their historical sphere of influence. The only reason they don't is based entirely on the permanent colonial borders that were drawn. Somalia is the combination of the former British and Italian colonies there, Djibouti is there because it was a French colony, Eritrea because it was an Italian colony, and the Kenyan and Sudanese countries only extend that far because they were controlled by the British. Why do you think Eritrea takes such a long coastline that ensures Ethiopia doesn't have an inch of access to the sea, which is basically required for any hope of prosperity. There aren't even any ethnic or religious divisions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The entire border only cuts through ethnic groups. Have you ever looked at a map of the Aksumite Empire? Ethiopia has a long and powerful historical legacy which like other legacies from the Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Indians, Arabs makes them feel en!@#$%^&*led to a large amount of land and influence. Unlike certain groups like the Greeks, who got the one two punch of Islam and then Turkish invasions to ensure there was no way they'd ever return to their former glory, and the Chinese, Indians, or Arabs, who get massive parts of the world to call their own as well as good prospects for the future, Ethiopians, like Iranians, don't have what they once had, but have the demographics needed to get it back. That combined with substantial economic interests are what causes things like the invasion of Somalia to happen.

Hillary already lost the popular vote and the delegate count (other than the super delegates). She needs to keep up the smear tactics in order to make Obama's candidacy unwinable in the general election so she can then go to the super delegates and tell them Obama's candidacy is unwinable so they should choose her. It's a huge long shot and even if she beat Obama all the smear tactics would make her even less credible and give McCain an easy victory, but what else can you do if you're Hillary; not be president? I bet if she could capture some nukes and hold the country hostage to elect her president with them she'd do that too.

This is essentially irrelevant especially since Shia Islam has much more than the Mahdi to do with. Also, so many armies have killed in the name of Jesus. They may not have the name Jesus, but they've had Christian names before and then used that to support their killings. Even those without Christian names have still done it for the sake of Christianity. Your name specific argument is something you're using because you don't have a real argument for your claim of the substance of the Mahdi Army when compared to other organizations. I think you need to learn your Islam better when it comes to the return of the Mahdi as compared to the return of Jesus. The second coming of the Mahdi actually has a lot of similarity to the second coming of Jesus especially considering Islam believes Jesus will come with the Mahdi and uses other Christian theological ideas like the anti-Christ. The Mahdi will fight against the anti-Christ according to Islam. Also, different Christians have different views of what the end times will bring and although you may think one way other Christians think another. I think that's the best way to explain some of the ways you think Christians are different in their beliefs since I know of other versions that are quite similar such as your belief that countries will remain when Jesus comes. You want to see all the differences between Christianity and Islam and ignore the similarities because you are a Christian. White people want to see the differences between them and black people because they are white. A dog could see the ways people of different races are almost exactly the same and likewise I can see how similar Christianity and Islam are. Islam is based on Christianity and not the other way around so you shouldn't feel threatened by similarities. I understand the significance of the word they used to describe their militia, but people use words to define themselves for propaganda purposes all the time. The Sadr and Iran cooperate out of convenience. The same goes for Iran and Russia. They aren't natural allies because Sadr doesn't want to see Iran influencing Iraq while Iran obviously does. That's why I have to keep bringing up the fact that Iran and the US are both betting on Maliki in Iraq, but the difference between us is Iran is also pragmatic and puts its money on all the horses in Iraq (other than Al Qaeda) whereas the US seems to only be capable of dealing in absolutes. Sadr isn't a nut either. He's a pragmatic person and has gotten where he is today by playing things smart, not by being a nut. There's a reason he's seen as a hero in Iraq. While Maliki and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council fled from Saddam (rightfully so) and spent a decades completely disconnected from the people of Iraq and their needs, Sadr and his family stayed. As a result his father, 2 of his brothers and his father in law were all killed by Saddam. That type of martyrdom strikes a huge chord among Shiites. That's why if Sadr were to be killed the result would be an insurgency that makes this one look like easy. Sadr staying is also why he has an easier time of appealing to Shiites because he was never disconnected from them. I'm not saying Sadr is a hero; far from it actually. None of the leaders in Iraq are heroes. They're all essentially militia leaders vying for power.

Iran is connected to Al Qaeda? Oh dear lord I hope you're being sarcastic or you really are an idiot Aceflyer. If you are being sarcastic then my apologies. Otherwise I guess this is related to the level of foreign relations expertise that Hillary supporters have (absolutely zero). As for connections between Al Qaeda and the Islamic Courts that were recently violently overthrown by Ethiopia, the links are only a small part of the story and those connections are neither widespread nor significant. The real reason Ethiopia invaded has nothing to do with a crusade and only partially to do with self preservation. Ethiopia became a landlocked country not too long ago and any neighbor with a coastline is a potential point of trade to the outside world. The Islamic Courts were hurting Ethiopian economic interests by trying to unite Somalia and thus giving Ethiopia a stronger neighbor that could deny them a port of exit for their goods. Also, Aileron is right also, though, because there is a Somali minority in Ethiopia that occupies a large area of land and given the history of Somalia going to war with Ethiopia to par!@#$%^&*ion that part of the country, Ethiopia would rather see a divided Somalia that can't keep trying. Sever: We supported criminals in Kosovo over Serbs and still do and those people are Muslims versus Serb Christians. We say Serbs and Albanians can't live together in piece with a united Kosovo and Serbia, but at the same time that Serbs and Albanians can live in piece in Kosovo so there's no reason to par!@#$%^&*ion it. It's all related to American economic and strategic interests. There is a crazy group of Christians in the US who want a crusade, but they don't run the country. Bush, as conservative and evangelical as he may be is not among them and one of their people would never win the presidency because they aren't just extreme; they're the very far right extreme. Supporting Israel has strategic value more than religious value to the ruling elite in the US. Also, Hoch Sudan is a country that shouldn't exist. It can't manage to keep itself from massacring its own people for very long. If there was ever a country that deserved to be occupied and bombed it's Sudan. P.S.: Just a little note to Aileron's comment about Christians being slaughtered in Darfur; they're actually also Muslims just not Arabs.

Oops I forgot to use the term "Mahdi Army" when referring to Sadr's militia. I'm sure it's all linked to a big conspiracy by me to hide the Shiite religion from you. You sure got me! Christians believe in their own version of the end times where their own leader will descend from heaven and convert the nonbelievers. They also believe this will come after great war caused by the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state. For that reason most evangelicals are unquestioning supporters of Israel even if Israel were to kill all the Palestinians. They hope for the end of the world so when they see the US causing trouble in the Middle East all they see is "Jesus is coming" and they're going to get lifted up to heaven. Not that apparently WW2 didn't cause enough hardship for this to happen, so we are talking about a BIG war. The fact that they hope for turmoil means they're not just like regular Christians who don't waste their time with that crap. May the atheists here also note that none of the prophecy has to be true for these people to be dangerous. The very fact they believe they can make the world a better place by supporting Israel and pushing countries around to create the promised WW3 is dangerous in and of itself. I know the fact that Evangelicals talk in such a way about the end times implies a lot but factually proves little. We shouldn't be paranoid. On the other hand, we shouldn't be trying to become buddy-buddy with those people. Just because they may live in our democratic system today doesn't mean they can't try to destroy it to create more problems tomorrow. P.S. Sadr has much fewer and weaker links to Khomeini than people like Maliki and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council do. In fact Sadr's plan for Iraq and Iran's plan for Iraq are very different whereas Maliki and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council would like to see an Iraq very similar to the one Iran wants. The fact that Sadr gets some support from Iran is because Iran puts its money on all the horses in Iraq other than Al Qaeda because they actually know what they're doing. I've got a feeling that no matter how many times I say this you'll never actually figure it out though.

You're !@#$%^&*uming everyone is as smart as you. Some people are naive and put their trust in the president. In fact most people are politically naive based on lack of knowledge in the subject. I'd say most Republicans still believed it just because they're Republicans, most Democrats didn't believe it just because they're Democrats, and some moderates believed it because moderates can't seem to make up their mind conclusively about anything.

I agree with Fin about McCain. He has fallen victim to what all Republican candidates nowadays fall victim to. They are forced to pander to the large conservative base for fear of a defection and it destroys their credibility. For one Iran actually supports the same horse in Iraq that we do, but since they also help all sides somewhat because it strengthens their hand (a tried and true policy) there's an excuse to paint them as a negative influence in Iraq. Only Obama has actually discussed talking to Iran and Syria especially since they're taking a big economic hit supporting all the Iraqi refugees flooding into their countries. Both Hillary and McCain lost their credibility by being unable to do anything other than threaten Iran. I think McCain of 2004 was a very appealing guy. Even I would have considered voting for him, but McCain now has been destroyed by a party that destroys honesty.

Hezbollah has gained overwhelming solidarity among Shiites in Lebanon using humanitarian methods. Does that make it a step in the right direction? It only makes their hand stronger when they fight against us and in asymmetrical warfare the side that gets the support of the people is impossible to beat militarily, short of genocide. There's no special system that's set up to give Sadr power only through humanitarianism. It's only human nature that allows this to work. In an impoverished country people support the side that feeds them not the one that rapes their wealth. Maliki wasn't testing the waters. He was attacking headfirst in hopes of consolidating his power and failed miserably. If he had been doing something intelligent he would have told the US he was doing it before the last minute. He'll never win the hearts and minds of the people by fighting against those very same people. The reason so many people deserted was because they were being ordered to attack their own people. This isn't a chess match. A chess match would imply a conventional battle where all the pieces are out in the open and taking the king (leader) is what matters. In this case the pieces aren't out in the open and what matters most of all is the propaganda. Sadr scored a major propaganda victory and so did Iran by being the mediator and showing how much influence it really has in Iraq. Maliki got trounced and everyone saw it. The response by Maliki is to do the only thing he can do to keep Sadr from taking power in a legitimate democratic election; ban Sadr's party from running in the election and say it's because he has a militia even though every power player in Iraq, including Maliki, has a militia. Shiites are growing increasingly disillusioned with things in their country and all the walls that are being built in the name of piece are also creating and maintaining slums. We had enough trouble with 5 million Sunni Arabs who will fight against us again when they get sick of our corruption. Now add to that 15 million Shiites who were before stuck in the middle on the American occupation and will increasingly want the end of the US occupation as much as the Sunni Arabs do. As for Iran, of course they want a ceasefire. They're on exactly the same side in Iraq as the US is. They helped Maliki when no one else would. In fact I'd say Iran has been in effect the greatest ally we've had in both Iraq and Afghanistan and if Bush wasn't such an imperialist with his eyes on a third front we could have always used Iran to make things much easier for us. Shiites were never our natural enemies. The only reason we demonize Iran is because of things that happened a while ago. The US Emb!@#$%^&*y was attacked because we previously used that very same emb!@#$%^&*y as a staging ground to bring back Iran's democratically elected government. Iran helped us topple the Taliban and still helps bring stability to western Afghanistan. Iran was also happy to see Saddam be toppled and would have gladly helped us bring stability to Iraq. I'd say becoming allies with Iran would be the easiest way to keep Iraq from unraveling and minimizing casualties. It's too bad though since that will never happen with Bush and any future president would be committing political suicide by trying to do it. The "liberal" media has been parroting Bush's propaganda about Iran for years and the gullible public has taken it to be truth now.