To me the presidential election is like the super bowl. (By the way, how would you football fans feel out there if the superbowl was rigged?) I don't see it as the democrats vs the republicans though, I think that both parties actually use this nation's divide against itself as a tool to support their continual incumbancy. I look at is as candidates that are there for the purpose of helping the world vs candidates that are there to help themselves. And there are both kinds on either side. Well, the primaries are up so let's take a look at the competitors. I don't really know the republicans very well because to be honest almost all of them sound exactly the same to me (yes to torture, no to freedom) so my table for them is going to be incomplete, and I'll let a more conservative poster add information and then just edit it on later.

The Democrats

Dennis Kucinich - Probably the second most consistant voting record of all prospective candidates (behind Ron Paul). He made a statement not too long ago by attempting to get thermos Cheney impeached. When he was met with the sound of crickets he pulled out his lil pocket copy of the constitution stating, "I just wanted to let America know there's at least one person in congress that still stands for the constitution." As president he seems to be into funding higher education, ending the occupation of foreign territory, and some other good stuff. He also quite strongly believes in protecting our rights and privacy.

Barack Obama - Many people think he's a hardcore commie, but to the liberals out there, this is a gross misconception. He does not believe in ratifying our foreign policy to put an end to the constant onslaught on the impoverished world. He in fact believes Afghanistan was a just cause though Iraq wasn't, but he will continue to occupy foreign territory and police the world according to what he's said. He's pretty good when it comes to human rights and combating poverty though. He discovered after the 2004 election that a single hacker with a wifi connection could effectively change the voting results of entire precincts, and that to me is a negative, he doesn't really have a pair. He seems to be trying to hard to be complacent with middle america, afraid to step out and be controversial.

Mike Gravel - The only other democrat besides Kucinich that wants to ratify our foreign policy so we stop murdering millions of innocent people around the world.

Who else that matters? Oh yeah, Hilary Clinton. Screw her, she;s a big government candidate, she wants to raise taxes and isn't going to fix our foreign policy. If she's anything like her husband, human rights aren't about to get much better either. Like Obama, she seems to be trying to conform to what the mainstream media presents as the opinions of moderate Americans, and this is a pretty stupid mistake but unfortunately since it's not worth that decides elections, but money, that doesn't matter now does it?

I would mention John Edwards and the other guys... but it hardly seems worth it. These are the candidates that stood out to mee, the others are just parrots.

The Republicans

There are only two candidates here I've followed after the first republican debate because the others all seemed too fascist after that. Granted, since the republicans applauded to torture at the debate I guess their preaching to the right crowd, too bad that crowd only represents a third of the politically active nation at this point.

John McCain - He's very conservative, but a true conservative, not one that just uses the same language to further their own agenda. As a POW, he's been there, and he understand that the only thing that gives our POWs hope is that they know if our enemies are capture they will be cared for. As soon as that no longer becomes the case, they have no guarantee. In fact, above any other candidate he supports the military the most. Not the military industrial complex, but the actual soldiers and their well-being.

Ron Paul - This guy has the most consistant voting record in congress, by far. And it's not jsut consistant in what he believes, it's consistant to the original intent of the constitution, No nation building, no impeaching the rights and privacy of citizens. He is the only candidate with a pair to be honest, not even Kucinish is as courageous as he is, or as well composed. He tells the truth, that our illegal occuption of countries like Saudi Arabia provoked 9/11. This was kisconstrued by the mainstream media to make people think he said the iraq war invited those attacks. It is America's arrogance to whimfully inplace and remove leaders, start coups and give weapons to terrorists that invited the attakcs of 9/11. That's a fact, Osama bin Laden said it, he specifcally said he attacked us because we keep going over there and screwing with things. No one will admit it but him.

Here's the kicker on this guy, at first the mainstrewam media acted like he was a joke, but then he started getting too popular so what did they do? They silenced him. Maybe it's his hamster off approach to Israel's arrogance. Whatever the case, despite being the most demanded candidate in the primaries media outlet after media outlet claims he is simply a minor candidate. Every decision he has made in congress has reflected the philosophy of the founding fathers, it's only natural the fascists trying to vie control over this country would censor him.

So in conclusion, for the first election I have been old enough to vote in, I will be voting for a republican.

And please remeber everybody thinking of not voting, those who don't vote are no better off than those who can't vote.

I'm Hillary all the way (since California didn't win the proposition to let Arnold run) and I'm saying it loud and proud at my new job 7-11, so I see a lot of ppl in a day. And if politics come up, as a veteran I ain't shy in stating my opinion.

We had to push our dying '86 Honda Civic off the highway in jammed rush hour traffic last late October right acrost from the 7-11 at the corner intersection of our condo complex. On my birthday early November I started working there. {So no more reator keys Pisces} ... it's a 24 hr 7-11 so no keys at all.

---
And hate to say it, but I'll vote for JEB Bush before I'd ever vote for Obama. I don't want to be petty in pointing out that his middle name is hussein but c'mon = a Black President AND a Muslim?

Read: http://www.usvetdsp.com/dec06/obama_muslim.htm

I think you all might want to review Roman History. The Emperor feared his senators so much usurping his power that he made politicians of all his Hun, Visigoth, Vandal, etc. mercenary generals. And then who did take over and topple Rome? Ever wonder how those tribes toppled Rome so easily so fast? The Emperor had handed them the keys ... let's not do that to the Moslems and topple the American Empire. Please, what would John Lennon think?

A person's race and religion play a part in your election choice? I mean, that's your right, but I think it's on par with not voting for someone because you disagree with his hair-do. His religion and race really don't have much bearing on his political ability or alignment. (religion does to some extent, but religion is interpreted in so many ways, it's too difficult to tell...)

Anyway, I completely agree with your choice in Ron Paul, DoomedOne. It's pretty sad, but I actually hadn't heard of him before he showed up on the Colbert Report for an interview. I liked the things he said there, but being a comedy show, it was a little lacking, so I studied up - it looks like he'll be getting my first ever vote as well.

Yeah Ibis, let's break out the torches and pitchforks!

First they attack America and the free world and then they want to be its president! Unbelievable!




On a more serious note, I'd like to mention my believe that way too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few in America. The president and the vice president have so much power it's just scary. I mean our system is far from perfect and our government still does a lot of things that are horribly horribly wrong, but at least it's not just single (moronic) person that can do that, it requires a consense of some sort by a group of morons. Putting this much power into the hands of just one person is just asking for trouble, imho.

Disagreeing with his haircut? That'd be that'd be John Edwards right? Subtle how you slid that in, Dannie.

Yeh, well that's what they'll be issuing our boys next = pitchforks. Just don't want a president whose sympathetic or an enabler to IED attacks. Got enough legless/armless/quad at the VA already thanks. Now if he's got a good peace plan, I'm eager to hear it.

What is your take on the candidates views on illegal immigration status?

You'll have to explain that to me.

If I could only take you walking around any Veteran's Administration Clinic you'd not have to ask that question.

There are armor plated vehicles capable of being made that would shield our guys from most of the bone shatter and loss of limbs ... but so far the funding for it isn't considered neccessary.

And there was zilch planning for the wounded really. I mean did the admin actually really think we were just going to "shock and awe" and the enemy were going to fall down on their knees and worship Americans? Until that new center in Texas for parapalegic rehabilitation (can't remember the name) there was very faulty treatment for our Iraq vets. Everyone heard about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed. That is our showcase hospital, how do you think conditions are at lesser hospitals?

Mottos used to be "No man left behind" ... "Always a Marine" ... "The Air Force always completes it's mission". This "Army of One" thing is a whole new war and I sense around the V.A. a definite new attitude that people are expendible. As long as the oil flows, the royal saudi families dine with the Texas oil barons - the foot soldiers don't matter so much.

An old veteran in an electic wheelchair kinda just summed it up for everyone at the VA clinic ... he was broken down by life, as much medicine and machine as man, gliding slowly along the polished floors wearing that ARMY OF ONE t-shirt in huge letters on his back. A rolling testament to the war.

I just don't want anymore politians who are going to give our country away to their rich buddies and foriegn interests ... and leave us vulnerable to something even worse than the Katrina disaster. American officers riding camel and horseback with our Bedouin allies whilst the Afgani's were stuffing their captive enemies into sealed rail cars and sealed metal drum containers and letting them die in the hot sun. Doesn't anyone read? I watched the Dem candidates tonight and I'm still with Hillary Clinton. Barak Obama just doesn't seem to be telling it all, if you know what I mean.

I agree with many opinions expressed there; but you failed to mention Obama's role in it all.

He is actually one of the last people that would sell our country to foreign interests, if you asekd me. He actually divested over $180,000 worth of his own personal stock with ties to Sudan to protest the genocide going on in the Darfur region, and he urged others to do the same. If he's willing to do that with his own finances, I don't see why he wouldn't do the same with the country's.

Also, I don't know why I didn't mention this before, but Barack is not actually a Muslim. His father was raised Muslim, but was actually an atheist, and Barack himself actually became Christian.

Yes but when he was up to 9 years old he was taught in the same branch of Islam school that the jihadist militants base themselves in. he belongs to an unapologetically African church congregation - which nothing wrong with that. I don't know ... for Blacks to feel sympathetic to Africa is understandable and Hispanics to the illegal immigrant issue. But what we need is someone who can bridge and unite everyone - not secularize. And I just don't know about electing a formerly Islamic president whose middle name is Hussein when we are fighting against some Moslem countries just like it would to have been weird to have a Japanese President after the bombing of Pearl Harbor or electing Arnold Schwarzenegger during Hitler's regime.

I did watch the Democratic debate last night and was somewhat impressed with Obama, mostly his calm and reserve. I would rank the Dem contenders this way Hillary first, Obama second and possibly John Edwards as a close third. Did that candidate from Alaska actually insult everyone else standing on the stage in his last 30 seconds of speech?

Well, by that same logic, George Washington was a bad President to have during the Revolution because he would be sympathetic to the British.

Also, What jihadist school did Obama attend? Never heard anything about that before. But, from what I do know, he lived in Indonesia for four years as a child, where such schools exist. He was out of them by the fifth grade. I'm sure he's matured a little past such things.

EDIT: And as an NC resident; dont let John Edwards fool you!

I'm voting independent, thats right, I'm throwing away my vote.

Actually, I'm far to young to vote. My opinions currently mean absolutely nothing to politicians.

However, I'm not interested in any of the politicians I've heard are running in the next election.



He was educated in a Muslim school? Doesn't frighten me. I was educated in a public school. Now thats dangerous. Most of our leaders today were educated in "white" (pardon my use of popular racial slang) only schools, during a time when "blacks" rode in the back of the bus and drank from separate water fountains. Those schools were the same schools that senior members of the KKK went too. Would you rather he was educated in one of those schools? One of those American schools?

The fact that you just referred to people of African descent collectively as "blacks" and another broadly genetically diverse group of people as "Hispanic" goes to show that its hard to support unity among a nation that has been divided since conception on the basis of a hardly seamless social structure that people are still struggling to justify.

Danny, thanks for the warning! I suspect that is what John Edwards is best at ...

Ha, that was a joke. I think he's an alright guy, I just don't agree with some of the things he stands for/has voted for in the senate down here. He supported the war(I do give him the benefit of the doubt on that one; everyone was for the war back then, when we all thought there were wmds.), he supported the Patriot Act, which I'm strongly against, and he supports the death penalty.

gamer10, America is a melting pot and those who who won't meld ruin the stew...

America is to every individual something different, that is whats great about this country. The problem is, there are those in this country that believe that there is only one American way: American food, American dress, etc. Being that this is America, its perfectly fine that they think that way.

But it isn't right to use that to disadvantage others. Whether thats the name of the game or not, its just plain sickening. Being American doesn't mean we have to accept a certain cultures standard. That's not melting. That's assimilation.

Barack Obama has never been a Muslim, and the school he attended in Indonesia was not a madrassa, but a regular ol' public school. The middle name of 'Hussein' comes from his Kenyan grandfather. Of course, it's in his opponents' interests to put out nasty insinuations and outright falsehoods in hope that folks will pick up on it and assume it's all true. Geez, what distortions won't his opponents will try to put out there to discredit the man?

Obama went to high school in Hawaii, where everyone called him 'Barry' and he played basketball. He did community work in Chicago. He did some nice things in the Illinois state senate (I'm originally from Illinois), and kept his cool when he ran against crazy Alan Keyes for U.S. Senate. He was against the Iraq war before it happened. He's a pretty smooth politician, but also a genuine person.

So, would I vote for Obama? Sure. I think I prefer him among the Democrats. And I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans.

As for the candidate from Alaska... that's Mike Gravel. He's definitely a strange one. I've seen one of his commercials analyzed (sort of) on slate.com. He basically stares at the camera for a full minute (no speaking), then drops a rock in the water nearby. Then it ends, with Gravel walking away from the camera, still saying nothing. It's safe to say that he's a long-shot.

Whoa ... wierd and rather Hitchcockian. hmm, could the rock dropped in water have any reference to his name being Gravel & could he be any relation to Barney Rubble &/or Fred Flintstone? In either senario, I don't think I'll be voting for him.

You know who tickled me @ the Dem Debates? The little guy from Ohio, he reminded me in some strange way of Ross Pereaux (sp?)

I don't know what the candidates are about (except Hilary Clinton, and there's no way in hell I'm voting for that woman), so right now I'm undecided. I will vote in the election though.

I'd rather wait to make a decision anyways. I don't like flip-floppers.

Ibis you do seem to be coming off slightly judgmentally.

He is to Islam what I am to Christianity, my family has roots in it but I have never been a Christian, I wasn't born one, never practiced the beliefs therein (though I do like the bible for all the symbolic truths hidden within its pages). He's the same way, but your already sitting him next to jihadists. Should I be paired up with members of the KKK, then?

See, I love how one of the biggest misconceptions of the American people is that Islam is a culture of violence. They used to be one Muslim Nation in the middle-east before the West came over there and divided it all up and said they had to have individual nations and all that nonsense. They were givern corrupt Kings and dictators that spread violence throughout in pursuit of money. Well guess what, alll that corruption rubbed off on our leadership, and now this country is no better off.

Republicans and Democrats know most people that care about politics are so biased they'll vote for a big-government in the corporate pocket candidate any day because he's the the most popular candidate on their side. Kerry was one, Bush was one, Hillary is one, Edwards is one, even the great Obama has probably dealt with some corrupt lobbyists from time to time. Oh yeah, and Giuliani, Gingrich and the rest of the Republicans all suck the lobbyist teet of empty promises and personal wealth as well.

It's depressing, but there are heroes, like Ron Paul on the republican side and Dennis Kucinich on the democrat's side. They need our support if we want to free this country of corruption.

I am extremely judgemental ... ask Pisces. It is my right to be so however.

This country will never be free from corruption ... it was built on corruption. Corrupt prisoners, the scurrilous poor, corrupt-according-to-the-ruling-religion sects were loaded into leaky corrupt wooden ships run by yeh .. corrupt treasure hungry pirates and if they were lucky, made it to this new world. The most corrupt of the indiginous people here fought with and traded with the corrupt invading and warring French and English until the conquerors vanquished them or sent them to reservations. The north of the country continued to have the lower bowels of Euro-society evacuated into its corrupt factory run cities - while the hugely corrupt South just sent corrupt pirates and slavetraders over to Africa and took what they wanted and corruptly ran their plantations on abuse. Then a corrupt brotherly war between North & South occurred which brings grumbles of resentment today. Many other corruptions occurred .. prohibition, giving addled women the vote, jim crow, etc. and now we have a nation so corrupt that it is leading the road to extinction of whatshallevernotsurvive global warming. Soooo, a corrupt pair of Republican brothers from Texas rigged an election w/ a now corrupt congresswomen so evil her own staff won't stay with her long ... and the whole corrupt economy has been given like a head on a silver platter to the rich cronies and oil buddies of these corrupt brothers and the factory labor has been given to corrupter-even China and tech labor has been outsourced to decrepit India, a society so corrupt that widows are made like the untouchables - abandoned by their families, made to beg in the streets, shave their heads, wear white to identify themselves, not wear jewelry in a land where women wear their entire dowries on their personage .... our coal mining towns are deserted and corrupt, our farmlands are corruptly told not to produce .. the corproate farms will do it instead, our young people are having trouble even finding simple service jobs, the college loan system has gone totally corrupt, yaddie yadda yaddaa....

Now, what were you saying again about freeing this country from corruption, Doomie? Don't you think it'd fall apart at the seams like tissue paper if you even tried ???

I know that the question wasn't directed towards me, but anyway....

While the corruption is obviously never going to be completely gone, I think it's terrible to accept it and be content with it. Why not at least try to be rid of it rather than just decide things are the way they are and shouldn't be changed? And you know what, if it does fall apart, maybe it didn't deserve to exist in the first place.

hmmm, good points Danny ... you give me hope again. Ok, I'll try.

More on Ron Paul, it seems you can really tell who in the media is blatantly, unapologetically biased and who actually strives to remain objective just by the time given to this candidate.

How? You ask? At least radical conservatives striving for objectivity will acknowledge his existence. He's the most demanded candidate, and always come out near the top of any polls that include his name, and yet somehow Fox News is still acting like he fell off the planet because he disagrees with Rupert Murdoch's agenda to get rich at the expense of the American people as well as people all over the world.

The best tool the media has is to set the stage, they don't baltantly say he's an idiot because too many people will see through that, they just disregard him in hopes he will be forgotten. Luckily, via the internet his fame continues to grow.

I love how people consider CNN and MSNBC to be all liberally biased when they practically completely ignore him as well. Where has he shown up? Wolfowitz, (though Wolfowitz repeated the lies and misconceptions all pundits have been mimicking about his platform) Bill Maher (Started out pretty cynical to the guy but has since become one of his best supporters) and Stephen COlbert (Which sucks because those interviews are all Stephen trying to make people laugh, and I love the guy but he's just not as good at interviews as Jon)

Meanwhile he's one of the most popular candidates on Youtube. The internet isn't that free, though. For a long period of time Myspace actually censored him but that backfired so they stopped. (Myspace is also owned by Rupert Murdoch, the antichrist, for those that didn't know)

Ron Paul is a moderately good Republican candidate, in my opinion. However, I do disagree with a few of his policies, such as the fact that he supports gun rights, but he introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution to stop giving automatic citizenship to infants born in the United States to non-citizen parents, despite the fact that this would require alteration of the 14th amendment. To me he seems to be running a thin line.

I don't mind gun rights, as I am myself a proponent of constitutional rights, but it does seem rather odd that he supports some aspects of the constitution but not others, while claiming avid support for it.

I also am not much for his stance against the idea of a North American Union, I just plain like the idea.

As for his "yes" vote for the Southern border fence, he seems to have forgetten that it costs taxpayers to build that fence. I'm all for a secure border, but a fence is not going to stop a determined human being. I would rather have more personnel down there.

The 14th Amendment one makes sense, after some research. Since the original Constitution did not include the children of non-citizens born on US soil. It was ratified in the mid-1800s to include that bit. So, in a way, it makes sense that he would oppose the ratification to begin with.

And I'm all for gun rights, by the way. I mean, think about it. Most murderers and other gun-wielding criminals aren't going to take the time to acquire the gun legally. Most of them would steal it or get it by other (illegal) means. The people that do have guns legally are often the ones that stop the bad ones. Five (don't quote me on the number, but I think it's correct) people involved in the VT shootings had concealed handgun permits, but weren't carrying due to its illegality on campus. Think of how many lives could have been saved if that murderer hadn't been the only one with a gun.

I am with DAnny on pro-gun control but permits for US citizens w/ clean criminal records .. if guns are illegal, only outlaws will have guns.

I am with gamer10 that we need more personnel at the border rather than building a fence that they are just going to climb over, dig under, prevents wildlife from their natrual migration patterns there ... and also more machines/robots working @ the border. Our video surveillence is one of the main deterrents to illegals because it catches them exactly on tape and is used in their trials to send them back hence they came.

For good measure, I'll tell you that I am for ending this outa-control war in Iraq/Pakistan (forget? we are there still too?) and to using the money being wasted for bringing our troops home safely. It is an absolute outrage and slap in the face to every US soldier that there was no planning whatsoever for the medical needs/veteran's status of our troops. Did they really think just "shock & awe" was going to subdue the moslems so against us and that there would be no US bloodshed?

I am also for immediate Federal Katrina restoration ... the main money for reconstruction there is all tied up between teh Fed and the state of Louisiana & the major recovery effort is still being done by Church groups/volunteer organizations like one my NJ sister went on to tear down two houses so they could be rebuilt for ppl who've been living in their FEMA trailers in their front yards all this time. What a flaming symbol to the inadequacy of the present administration Katrina was and continues to be! I remember as a little girl how the Army Corp of Engineers came in IMMED and cleaned up and restored housing for US citizens for free after devestating Hurricane Camille.

On thing that worries me about Ron Paul is that he says he supports Free Trade completely. I do too, but Free Trade has been overturned by the very companies that used it to get to the top. A successful business should be built on making the best product most efficiently, not on ignoring laws, ethics and human respect. With the WTO and other agencies and laws passed by bribed politicians, there is no free trade. There are only billionairies using the US military and courts to force people all over the world to submit to them so they can make more money.

Health insurance companies also need to go, I'm al for free trade but come on, just watch SiCKO and you'll understand just how badly they need to go.

I'd support any American president which would leave our own land and territory damn well alone.

I also had a long post but it was rather flammable. I decided to go with shorter, asbestos version.

Sweet Milanius, ... always the good decision

Sicko may not be the best source. I mean, sure, there's some truth in it, but it isn't a documentary designed to give an unbiased opinion. It's a documentary to make you believe what Michael Moore does.

Sure, there's corruption in health insurance companies, but laws just need to be more strictly enforced and new legislation should be passed. With health insurance companies, you choose your own health care plan based on its service and price. If the government regulated it, like in Canada, you get what the government gives you. Since I believe in a limited government, and I like my personal freedoms and low taxes, I'll stick with health insurance.

I love the hype about how much Michael Moore's films are propaganda. he uses facts to preesent and argument and delivers both sides of the dilema, that's not propaganda. Look at where he gets his facts if your paranoid, I do when I want to present sometihng he said as an argument because I know he alone is not a credible source because of all the bad buzz against him.

The fact is Hilary Clinton would make a terrible present because she's completely buyable. She does anything companies want her to if they giver her enough money.

They other fact is health insurance companies are evil and need to be burned to the ground, those are two facts I learned from SiCKO and confirmed with my own research.

So I digress, RON PAUL FOR THE WIN!

The trouble with health insurance is that it is hardest to get for people who need it most. The young and healthy can get insurance but don't really need it (I haven't had a real need for medical care since middle school; so, in about 10 years) whereas people who have more need and fewer means have to pay more and have a harder time getting covered. Business, too, is getting hammered by the cost of providing insurance to employees. The free market simply does not work for medical care. The U.S. spends a lot more on medical care than most places and doesn't get anything even resembling full coverage. It's pathetic.

Well the problem with healthcare in this country is our pride and nationalism, to be honest. We have this idea that the free market is this universal principle because it helped us get to the top as a nation, but it didn't do it alone. Government subsidies got us out of the depression, for instance. Subsidies to higher education in the 60s and 70s gave us a massive boom in the middle class which was probably one of the best things for this economy our government has ever done.

The free market is great when money can be the bottom line, but in certain areas of our daily lives money just can't be the only goal of those in charge. Healthcare should be the bottomline of healthcare, and that means giving every citizen what they need. it doesn't mean we're going to put a big buraecracy down to make people wait years for surgery. The fact is if we switched right now wait times would decrease because no one would have to check insurance and the HMOs wouldn't add a bunch of obstacles to make sure they're still making money.

Now dantrag, I do agree Michael Moore is openly biased in his movies so they aren't really documentaries, and he is most definitely a left-wing pundit (One of few) who uses the same sort of language manipulation people like Bill O'Reilly use, but I can watch Michael Moore and read between the lines, it's not that hard to tell where he's putting something a certain way in order to generate an image or association.

However his documentary contains only facts. CNN tried to attack his documentary by explaining exactly where his facts got a little iffy, and Michael Moore started posting exactly how CNN was lying and how his facts were not iffy at all. CNN attempted to debate him but eventually the man who made the fact checking report lost a large portion of his fanbase and was forced to admit his mistakes.

So far of all the "Michael Moore is making propaganda" reports about his facts I've read and checked up on, only one fact was manipulated, and that was during Bowling for Columbine when harleton Heston was shown giving a speech and Moore took two speeches and made them seem like they were the same speech, even though Heston was wearing two different suits. However, he never actually claimed that it was one, authentic speech either.

So I agree, Michael Moore, like all extremists, lies to himself in order to hold onto his extreme "us and them" opinions. He justifies his own manipulations because, if you watch the news, they screw their facts up ten times as much as he does. In fact, the news is worse than him when it comes to bias even though they don't admit it. Their goals are to make sure people are frightened and insecure but think their government is doing everything it can to protect them. The business side of war is left out, and everything is censored as though, if someone were to specifically examine this country's media they would think we're living in a fascist country.

Anyway I must also digress, vote for Ron Paul. He never answered my email where I questioned his views on an absolute free market.

So this is a rather old topic, but still viable.

Currently my vote is for Giuliani.. Why? He seems moderate on the issues I'm moderate about, and hard on the views I'm hard about (the views, nothing else )

I'm currently in a military school. In fact, I'm sitting here in ACU's (Army Combat Uniform) right now typing this. I've been living in spartan accommodations and have been told that I'm nothing but a piece of trash.

However I payed for this punishment.. Why? Because I believe that its every American's job to serve the collective group (the nation). I don't want to go to Iraq, but I will go to finish the job. I don't like waking up at 0430, but I do it cause it has to get done.

So in regards to the situation in Iraq, my vote also goes with Giuliani because he isn't calling to turn tale and run.

He might not be perfect, but I've yet to find anyone that is.. Except me of course.

I'm not sure this is entirely on-topic, but I'll ask anyway because it interests me immensly.

How exactly do you think this can still be won? If you were commander of the US forces in Iraq, what would you do to resolve the situation? How would you ensure that when you do leave, civil war will not break out between the three major players?

As I see it right now, the continued presence of US troups in Iraq is but a face-saving exercise. Leaving now would be admitting defeat, so they have to stay for the moment, until the public has either forgotten all about it (unlikely) or the situation can be presented as stable - first attempts to convince the public that the situation has improved have already been made.

Ultimately, the US will have to leave. I don't know if it will be in one year, in five or in ten, but I don't think there's any doubt they can't keep this up indefinitely. I figure the factions in Iraq know that, too. The Sunni seem to be attempting to play it nice in exchange for US support (training, arms etc). The Shia are doing all they can to control army and police forces to serve their needs, and the kurds in the North are already strong and have already begun to slowely expand their territory southwards. It appears to me that right now, all of them are actively preparing for the time when the US have finally left, to strengthen their position for the civil war that will (in my opinion inevitably) follow a US withdrawal. To make matters even worse, all three factions have to cope with whatever Al Qaeda splinter groups and sympathizers are operating in their territory.

So, what is there to be done? Am I making false assumptions, is there really a way to stop this madness from unfolding? I sure as hell don't see it.

Well Mr Stargelman,

You know how to keep the civil war from erupting? Don't leave.

Listen in 4 years if were not out of Iraq thats exactly where I will be going.. Fresh out of college (and TBS). And trust me, ground pounders do nothing but soak up bullets for the Iraqis. I will concur with you on the part of the strategy not working. It's not our job to garrison their country.. And honest to god I wouldn't care if their country fell into a civil war. Look at the United States, the Civil War was almost a good thing. It taught us for several centuries the futility of war, and the enormous cost. It ended slavery and caused great strides in liberal trends.

Maybe Iraq needs a civil war?

My idea however is our job is to destroy the insurgency and if we pull out 160 thousand soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen then the insurgents have just believe they won. It was Ho Chi Minh who said..

"You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win"

..And he was right. Terrorists and extremists will win. We have to show that 5000 deaths for 6 years of war is nothing in comparison to 58,000 deaths for 16 years.

As a secular leader paid for by the West, Saddam Hussein was the only thing keeping that country out of civil war.

But they WANT civil war, you know why? Because it means we have to borrow money from the federal reserve meaning the American people end up spending billions of dollars and it goes directly to families like the Rockafellers.

Vietnam was the same way, we ended up owing the federal reserve (which is basically a privately owned company by some of the richest men on the planet) billions and making these families filthy rich. Right now you can see billions of dollars is being funneled to just a few people, owners of reconstruction companies, war companies and bankers.

In the words of Ron Paul. "They said we couldn't leave Vietnam early because China would take over the world, but look at what happened? China has become capitalist... and they're taking over the world."

Heh. Hinsight is 20/20.

Viet Nam had a fabled 'mountain of gold' somewhere in the jungles and they thought that we were there to get their mountain of gold. Actually the elements we did get were more valuable. America was in Viet Nam for rich deposits of space-age ccmponent metals found in strategic deposits of nickel, cadmium, platinum, etc. The space race was on with Rusia at this same time and important light weight, incredibly durable metals and polymers were being created from rich caches of Vietnamese minerals. Possibly an overlooked and little known fact with all the Communist mud-slinging flying around.

France and America created South Vietnam. There was no South or North before the French declared it so. No wonder really they wanted to reunite their country.