Popeye, T-Town (4/18/2009 7:50:20 AM)

Herb, let me ask you a simple question. It will require some role playing, or creative thinking, on your part:

If your neighborhood -- we'll say Catoosa -- was infiltrated by a group of wildly violent people from another neighborhood -- we'll say Tulsa -- all over Tulsa.

And these "people" had no command center, no "home base" but were from all over the Tulsa area. And they attacked City Hall and destroyed it, killing innocent people.

If you had a chance to take over a wild and lawless Mohawk Park, knowing that when you did many of these fanatics would come to the park to fight you, come out of the shawdows at a chance to kill more of you, would you do it?

And if there was a chance it would leave Mohawk Park in a far better condition, a sort of example of what the people in the area could have if they did "something" new... Would that be another reason to do it?

Graychin, Eucha (4/18/2009 8:32:34 AM)

I'll answer Popeye's question for Herb:

No.

With solid intelligence that the perpetrators came from Claremore, I would go after the perpetrators in Claremore, and keep at it until the job was finished.

Mohawk Park isn't a threat - but some people would take it over for its oil.

Blue Fart, Greasey (4/18/2009 8:40:37 AM)

Popeye you're a MORON!

peelumba, (4/18/2009 9:08:11 AM)

I figured this out in less than 5 minutes. It is a simple equation.
Jim Inhofe + Company that makes the Cannon systems-(coincidentially made out of Oklahoma) that were phased out in the military (part of the budget cuts mentioned in the article)...+ camapign donations (that were inevitably made by large companies that make those Cannon systems that enabled Inhofe's re-election)= Inhofe's outrage at Robert's 'slashing' of the US Military.
He is obligated to be upset at his constituant's aka campaign donors. He is no better than a Court Courtesean, aka a higly paid call girl.
The lofty discussion about whether democratic nations have the obligation to protect other struggling peoples is a worthy one, but when convoluted by Inhofe's crafted rabble rousing stances, make it a mockery of the true points in making a better life for citizens of ANY place moot and shameful, because it was never factored into the equation. Sources for info; an ex navy man and common sense. Any cuts to military hardware is generally b/c of newer and imporoved systems that are being used already or being implemented. After all we can't let out military contractors suffer, that just would not be American. Is happiness a warm gun? Or is a blanket and some food maybe more practical.

RLG3RD, Broken Arrow (4/18/2009 9:14:30 AM)

Graychin,

Fine, Go into Claremore, But what do you do when some of them go into Mohawk park? It appears you would do nothing.

BF I would think that Popeye would return the compliment.

Bedazzled, (4/18/2009 9:15:28 AM)

I agree with Herb Childs. Inhofe has an agenda of his own in mind that helps him and this is costly. I don't know how this man gets elected every time for years.

Popeye, T-Town (4/18/2009 9:16:28 AM)

OMG, your screen name is "Blue Fart" and you say you're from "Greasy" and you're calling me a "MORON"...

There can be no higher compliment !

THANK YOU!!

ROTFLMAO....

Travis, Tahlequah (4/18/2009 9:33:46 AM)

Since the Democrats in congress overwhelmingly supported both wars get over it.

If Iraq is a war for oil why are the contracts being bid out and many of them won by foreign companies?

The Future Combat System meets 80% of the requested needs by our military in both wars.

Democrat, Tulsa County (4/18/2009 9:45:00 AM)

Travis:

The Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly supported both wars.

The Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly supported the war in Afghanistan against those who attacked us on 9/11 and the government of the nation that gave those terrorists sanctuary.

The Democrats in Congress were very divided in their vote over Bush's war of choice in Iraq against people who did not attack us on 9/11.

I will concede that many of the ones who voted for the war also had presidential ambitions, including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. I also will point out that neither of them was elected President.

Barack Obama, who was not in the Senate at the time either war vote was taken, at least was on record. He supported going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and those who attacked us. He opposed Bush's war of choice and warned that it was an unnecessary distraction. Because of his sound judgement, he became our President.

Popeye, T-Town (4/18/2009 9:53:29 AM)

Back to the Inhofe "letter":

Inhofe has mounted multiple successful campaigns, and a few that were not so successful. He's known in political circles to be a ruthless campaigner. He doesn't like to lose. While many of his critics are right -- and some of his actions seemingly obtuse -- it's noteworthy that the Dem's have an impossible time opposing him successfully.

Countless comments in these threads attack the GOP, more accurately any conservative minded persons, as being a disorganized, dying, ineffective group that suffers from "sour grapes".

C'est la vie...

Democrat, Tulsa County (4/18/2009 10:14:15 AM)

Inhofe's successful campaigns have mostly been here in Oklahoma, winning reelection on many occasions. Washington, D.C. is another matter. Inhofe is known there as an odd duck and has been one of the least effective members of the U.S. Senate during his time in that body.

Travis, Tahlequah (4/18/2009 10:16:50 AM)

Democrat,

My mistake, you are correct about the Iraq vote. The Democrat vote was:
Senate 29 for, 21 against; House 81 for, 126 against.

Democrat, Tulsa County (4/18/2009 10:23:33 AM)

Thank you Travis.

Popeye, T-Town (4/18/2009 10:24:36 AM)

Democrat:

--- "The Democrats in Congress were very divided in their vote over Bush's war of choice in Iraq against people who did not attack us on 9/11." ---

Again, the people that attacked us on 9/11 are a widely diverse group. While the attackers were Saudi's, their sponsors -- indeed the sick ideology behind the attacks, and much of the world's problems -- are from multiple middle eastern states bent on Islamic fundamentalist dominance.

We are just now getting a hint of the complexities defending ourselves against this threat present us with. Afghanistan is another planet. Pakistan is infested with maniacs and losing the fight. Iran (remember, a very close neighbor to Iraq) is a dumpster -- festooned with vermin and disease -- that is directly, or indirectly, responsible for many of the conflicts (Lebanon, Palistine, N. Korea, Syria, Somalia and more) around the globe.

Iraq was an invitation. A challenge to our enemies (from all over the middle east, and beyond) to come to a place within an easy distance and confront their "enemy".

It seems to me it worked like a charm...

Democrat, Tulsa County (4/18/2009 10:41:53 AM)

Popeye:

I'm sure that in your mind, what you just posted makes sense. I'm also sure that other rational people join me in scratching their heads over the mush that you just presented.

You began your comment by quoting me in stating a simple fact that the Democrats were divided in their vote and then you made an illogical leap from my factual statement to your "analysis" of the situation in the Middle East. ROFLMAO!

Are you telling me that we are just now beginning to see the picture that the Middle East and Islamic world is a dangerous place? Friend, that has been evident for quite some time.

Are you telling me that Al Qaeda walked into George W. Bush's "trap" by rallying to join the fight against the American occupation of Iraq? I've heard that argument before from the neoconservatives after their original prediction failed to pan out that the people of Iraq would welcome our troops as liberating heroes.

The Sunnis and Shias are resting and rearming in Iraq. Sooner or later, the American troops will leave and the on-going struggle for control will resume in Iraq. Our overthrow of Saddam has increased the influence of Iran as a support of the Iraqi Shia majority and has also served as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and other terror groups in the Islamic world.

TonyQ, Tulsa (4/18/2009 10:48:52 AM)

Popeye,

Creating a terrorist magnet was not the justification given to Congress and the country for invading Iraq. If it had, nobody would have supported it. It's a weasly after-the-fact bunch of nonsense and you know it. Invading Iraq has, however, generated unprecedented levels of support for Al Qaeda.

You do not fight terrorism by invading countries, especially countries that had no connection whatsoever with the terrorists you're pursuing. Everyone is aware of this. Almost everyone on the planet thinks invading Iraq was a disastrous and immoral mistake. Everyone but you. You're not going to convince anyone but your buddies who exist in the right-wing echo chamber.

Just because Bush walked with a swagger doesn't mean he was good at defending the country. Just because he has an (R) next to his name does not mean he and his cohorts had the country's best interests in mind.

Democrat, Tulsa County (4/18/2009 10:51:42 AM)

See-- I told you so, Popeye:

Another rational person has recognized your baloney for what it is!!

Popeye, T-Town (4/18/2009 11:20:36 AM)

Because "we" weren't privy to the same information our elected officials were, I suspect there is much more to the Iraq war than the American public realizes.

As liberal "thinkers", Democrat and TonyQ spout the usual arguments and attacks then deflect to Bush's swagger or mount attacks against his administration-- it's an old game. They continue to ignore any argument or discussion regarding a more intelligent, military, purpose for going there...

If attacked on your homeland, by a foreign force, vastly diversified and difficult to identify (i.e. ununiformed and unconventionally organized) you have two, immediate objectives:

1) Take the fight somewhere, away from your homeland, that offers your enemy easy access and draws them out;

2) Choose a battlefield carefully, within easy reach of the enemy, that could ultimately benefit from your endeavors and yield an ally in the end.

At least I'm thinking and considering, Democrat and TonyQ, that our great country is more intelligent and motivated, that our leaders and military are more knowledgable and cunning, that our goals are more honorable in the long-run; than the whining, weak and feckless arguments you -- and your ilk -- have been pushing ad nauseum.

Oh, and Democrat, good to banter with you again. I've missed your insults and irrational, lock-stepped logic. LOL

Royce, Tulsa (4/18/2009 11:48:51 AM)

Mr. Childs, like nearly all Democrats, is quite enamored with the death toll in Iran. ("leading to the early deaths of nearly 5,000 young Americans")

First the number is 4,300. Second, unlike Truman's war in Korea, or the Kennedy/Johnson war in Vietnam, those young Americans did not die in vain. They freed the Iraqi people from living under the heel of a tyrant. Indeed they won the war, whereas Truman and Johnson were quite content to let American casualties build up month after month after month in bloody stalemate. Neither president ever intended to win the conflict which he pushed us into.

I find it rather amusing that the Democrats are so enamored with the number of American casualties in Iran, but they are utterly oblivious to the 3/4 of a million young Americans who have died in Democrat wars stretching all the way back to Grover Cleveland's adminstration.

It's an undeniable fact that, except for Jimmy Carter, every Democrat president since Grover Cleveland has plunged this nation into a foreign war. How do Democrats justify this? By saying it isn't true.

Popeye, T-Town (4/18/2009 12:06:29 PM)

Herb, God forbid we should do something to make someone hate us in defense of our country.

The entire world is a powder keg! And exactly what did we do to "earn" the repeated attacks on the World Trade Centers, Herb? Was it because we were hated for killing "insurgents" somewhere? Are you arguing that "we" did something wrong in helping to establish an Israeli state after WWII?

As I recall the Germans "hated" quite a bit leading up to WWII. Oh, and the Japanese seemed a little "hateful" too. Now, Muslims all over the world are "hating", Herb. It's the same old story: Good versus Evil. You can put other labels on it, if it suits you; it is what it is, a battle!

Popeye, T-Town (4/18/2009 12:08:40 PM)

Further, if Obama thinks talking to Iranian or Venezuelan leaders is going to somehow "bring them around"; he's dumber than a busload of rocks.

Popeye, T-Town (4/18/2009 12:10:51 PM)

Oh, and Democrat...

Doesn't "I told you so" sound a little infantile to you? I mean, are you so unsure of what you're thinking and saying that you need some support mechanism in the form of an internet comment to make you feel justified? Sad...

XRmyChick, Tulsa (4/18/2009 12:31:49 PM)

Popeye. Worst. Analogy. EVER.

Democrat, Tulsa County (4/18/2009 12:41:32 PM)

Popeye:

Take my advice. Stop digging.

Herb and XRmyChick: Thank you for adding your voices of reason.

Graychin, Eucha (4/18/2009 2:04:01 PM)

Popeye: Do you remember your Joel Chandler Harris?

I think that George W. Bush threw Br'er Rabbit (al Qaida) into the brier patch (Iraq).

They're right. Stop digging.