Just wondering what your thoughts are on who you feel should be the next candidates for our next Presidential election? Who do you want to see run and vote for....My vote would go to Rudy Gulliani I think....I'd like to see him run and I think if he did as good of a job that he did where I grew up for 29 years, he just might make a good President....what do you think?

John McCain....should have been President already....
He's..uh, not always in full step with the Republicans, but, then, neither am I. And I hope I'm not the minority. I think we need some more "moderates" around to get things united again.

I thought it was already decreed that it was going to be Condoleeza Rice vs Hillary Clinton??

Al Gore said he's got past ' that ' and is into saving the planet through movies and Kerry sunk his own ship last time out so there's no other 'credible' candidate for either side, unless you hold to the ' conspiracy theory' that Jeb Bush is going to toss his stetson into the ring now that Dubya has had his turn at the wheel...

I would take a moderate from either party for the reason patolco stated. It is just impossible with the currenty party bases. I think that most moderates are now independents (ony opinion here).

I do not like either of these women, though.

Who knows..

Franky, I think that BOTH political parties need to be cleaned out with a trumatic enema. Then what's ever left standing....maybe I'll consider.

Grrr... nevermind me, it's just the wine talking.

ugh....Traumatic..

Sorry, what can I say....it's cheap wine.

Hopefull we will see someone that is not on the front line at present the only one I see at present is Gulliani, John S McCain is not consistant (just my opinion).I am a (D) but at present I don't think I have a party I think the party representing me is more like a Socialist party.

McCain is a piece of work he tried to take away a bunch of money from my state, and he is a radical extremist, luckily my states representitves have more pull and got the money anyways the fact that he even tried is crap. If Gore ran I think I would vote for him or Kerry. patoloco you call yourself a moderate? Most hardliner military members are very republican.

rppearso- you are one piece of work Gore or Kerry might interduce you to a new language I would not let either lead my horse to water but your opinion is always different.Just my opinion.

I would probably vote Gore over Kerry but I would have to look more into the details of where they stand on issues, but looking back the clinton administration was not that bad, the only thing they could hype up on clinton was the whole monica thing and I could really care less. But billions of dollars and thousands of troops I do care about. I think either side (D) or (R) can do good for the country but im just not seeing it from the (R) side or some "(D)" who are really (R) under a false party.

always figured you'd be for Kerry.

As for Clinton's escapades while in office? No comments about how he had Bin Laden in the gunsight and let him slip away? Hmmm, musta been too busy getting the blow job....

Wasent it a navy seal sniper that could have shot him, he should have just shot him and then told everyone after he got out of the military. both D or R are messed up, its picking the lesser of 2 evils, Bush has spent more money and messed with the economy more than any other president while I have been politicly aware (around high school), everyone has liberal views on certian issues and conservitive views on other issues, its finding the party that best represents most of what you agree with. The republicans blatant disregard for what the people wants are going to get them voted out the next time the merry go around stops, just because congress voted to keep this war going does not mean its bible gospel, it means they will be thrown to the curb in the next elections. The job of the military is to DEFEND this country, not try to set up democratic nations.

Just who do you think elected Bush in the first place? And for the second term? The MAJORITY of the US did. They sent a strong message to the nation and to the world. Have you already dismissed everything about 9/11? You can't make the same connection that the majority of us have?

We will see what happens in the 09 elections, but more importantly what happens at the state level for congressional representation. 9/11 was bad and we needed a leader that would retaliate but to have soldiers in the streets trying to set up a democratic society is much different than bombing them into submission and then placing world embargos on them to starve them out, until most of them are dead we are going to have this problem, heck even if they tryed to import we could sink there ships and put to use some of thoes fancy 1 billion$ sea wolf subs, instead of getting a naive private shot. You can say what you want about me, but I am definatly not alone in my opinion and the american people are fed up with bushs managment of this war. But bush wanted to go through this convuluted process that is costing billions of dollars and thousands of US lives not to mention massive deployments that take service members away from there familys for obscene amounts of time.

rppearso, the President did exactly what he said and set out to do. You appear to believe that the military's only reason for existence is to bring about total annihilation of countries and populations. Not sure where you were going with the statement about Sea Wolfs....?

As for the billions spent already, I firmly believe that this is money very wisely spent. Better to spend it now and do what we set out to do, rather than later and have Iraq resort to the way it was before we took positive actions in bringing down Saddass.

Are you one of those that is calling for announcing a firm troop withdrawal date?


In regards to the thousands of troop deaths.... You really do need to look at things a little differently, and here's one way: we have since 2003, lost 2500 plus Soldiers, Marines, Sailors to this war.

Looks to me that this count when compared with all past wars and conflicts are a VERY low number. This is based on historical statistics, so what do you have to back your comments on? Statistically speaking, the projected count should be in or around 10,000 KIA. The military is doing the best it can to protect itself and they are doing a damn fine job of it. Couldn't you at least acknowledge reality?

You are right 2500 is not terrible. It is more the massive amount of money spent and the excessivly long deployments. What I was refering to with the sea wolves was to enforce an embargo by sinking cargo ships entering the middle east, maybe have a few air craft carriers to have planes shoot down cargo planes and starve that whole region. Instead we have privates siting in fox holes getting shot at by an AK-47 or a stick of dynamite. We have billions of dollars of technology and if we put it to use we could desimate the whole country in time to be back for dinner with our familys.

OK, but sinking ships isn't the way to create a stable, independent, self sustaining government in Iraq. That will only come about by those PFC's and Privates manning those checkpoints. We have to root out those insurgents planting all those IED's, throughout the country. IED's aren't killing only Americans, but innocent Iraqi's by the thousands. They kill far more Iraqi people than they have us. We have to be incountry and on the ground in sufficient numbers to pursue and capture them. You cannot do that remotely or by starving an entire nation as you suggested.

The Sea Wolf class submarines were designed for one purpose, and that was to ensure our continued supremecy in the sea lanes. We must maintain that supremecy.....over who you ask? Forgot all about China? China has taken a back seat in recent years, but that doesn't mean they are not a serious threat to our way of life. They are just content that we aren't focusing on them like we used to. Doesn't mean they haven't been busy does it? wanna bet that China isn't just frothing at the mouth over this?

Yes, we have spent a massive amount of money prosecuting this war. And we will need to spend even more, in the years to come. Do you honestly believe that we can do anything else? Just pack up and go home and wait for the next attack on us? Leave them alone and perhaps they'll attack someone else for a change?

By the by, at one point you had asked how many service members have deserted since this war started, right now it stands at 8,000 desertions. That's a direction they decided to take when we needed them, so when they each surface at some point in the future, I for one, won't be welcoming them back without due consideration and justice being served.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thegunny,

There usually is justice, they get an OTH when they resurface. If they were sent to the firing squad (I know that is in the back of your mind) you would see a serious dwindling of recruits and massive public outcry it would reduce us to a second world country in my opinion. Each of thoes 8,000 have there story, they may have had a lagit reason to get out and were strong armed by command who knows.

And yes you can starve a country, we are proving it with cuba, (granted its easier because its an island nation) but you would not see more attacks if we desimated the country and cut it off, of course the enforced embargos would apply to the entire middle east. thats just my opinion though.

Did the Earth just tilt?

Am I reading this right?
rrpearso, the left-leaning Lib-Dem anti-Bushite wants to starve out and blow up innocent civilians - old folks, women and kids - in the hopes that among the dead and emaciated there might be found a smattering of Al Quaeda/Taliban/insurgents...?

to hell with how that will make America look to the rest of the world, just think of all the money the US will save and how it easy it would be for the poor tired fighting lads and lassies to come home and back to just ' marching 'on weekends at the local NG armoury.

hell , why not just nuke Iraq? it is desert afterall, turn it into glass and be done with it...

with apologies to C-mom but holy moly shades of LNV!! Nuke Em All!!Boost the Economy....

Nukes are to politically charged, even more so than collateral damage from conventional weapons. So Nukes would be best but politically it would be exponentially worse than large collateral damage from conventional weapons. Im liberal on some things and conservitive on others it is foolish to be a straight party voter. Also if we nuked we couldent drill for the oil for like 50-100 years.