| Author |
Message |
    
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1532
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 2:08 pm: | 
|
FVF - exactly right. Militarily they were no match for us, we marched right into Baghdad, plucked Saddam out from under a rock and still we have lost. We lost because the war itself was the wrong thing to do. It was a bad thing Fvf. BAD.
No matter the outcome we did a bad thing. The only positive thing we can do at this time is to withdraw while doing our best to allow the Iraqis themselves to form a government that is most beneficial to their people and not our corporate or national interests. However that is not what our government has in mind.
So yes, we have lost no matter what the outcome. Our good name, our high moral ground, our image as fair and just and wise is gone.
Losers. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Hoops-
We lost? Who died and made you umpire?
Excuse me while i open my office window and jump out...
negative creep...
-SLK |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1959
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 2:56 pm: |
|
America loses when chumps who support war anonymously on message boards can't summon the courage to actually put their life on the line for the cause. This war can't be all right with you, SLK. Nothing but cheap, meaningless cheerleading. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 2:57 pm: |
|
anon,
We pretty much agree. You are right, when I speak of right and wrong about elections I am indeed talking about predictions posters made prior to those elections. I understand conservatives and liberals will never agree on what is right and wrong on an issue basis. If someone says the Democrats will re-take Congress, then they will either be right or wrong. Your statement about elections not proving anything about right or wrong is correct. If the Repubs keep control, the libs will still think they are wrong and if the Dems take control I will still believe they are wrong.
As for your "spin" statement I am also in agreement. That is one of the main reasons I believe the Dems have set themselves up for another lackluster performance. The entire year of 2005, libs on this board pounded Bush and pointed to the polls. In my opinion, they became overly zealous during a non-campaign year and most of them were gloating about how they would easily take back Congress, just look at the poll numbers they screamed. The media also fell victim to this which hurts the Dems in two ways. First, it will hurt Democratic voter turnout if they believe they are going to win, and second, high expectations will make a gain seem like a loss. I agree, that both sides will spin like crazy. This has been the case since 1776 so nothing about this is new. That is why I try not to partake. For me it's simple - the party with control is the winner. If the Dems make some gains but don't retake either chamber then I will consider that a win for my side. I can understand where the Dems believe they won in that scenario, but I guess I don't like hollow victories. What will they have won? The problem with many posters on this board is they lack the ability to accept a loss. I guess many of the libs played in sports leagues where they didn't keep score. Now that the score is kept they can't understand why they lose. If the Dems take back one or both chambers, I will accept it and move towards 2008 and getting it back. I won't whine and cry, I will act by analyzing and kicking my own sides tail for losing. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 2:59 pm: |
|
I prefer realist. Please define victory in Iraq.
In 20 years the next generation of Iraqis will hate us and your child might be part of the next war in Iraq. We have won no hearts and minds, we have won no territory, no natural resources. Iraq is a money pit enriching only those contractors and politicians connected to the war.
America lost before we started. We squandered the good will of the world and the cooperation of all nations by invading a country that did not attack us. We stand alone in this (ok with England and Poland). Its not a good look for the United States.
Oh and -
- reactionary jerk... |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 747
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Hoops-
Actually Iraq is not doing badly for a country that lived under the oppressive dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and without any democracy, for how many years? Didn't the Al Queda intercepts also show they are losing after the big Z was off'ed by US forces recently? I was never a fan of the invasion but you have to be fair and open minded Hoopster.
Here is the deal, our nice secular, extreme left liberals with a nice lifestyle and income can afford to "be about peace" because they clearly don't understand what we are dealing with in the Middle East, and thanks to what the bad Bush and his administration has done in successfully preventing domestic terrorism here. Talk to an Israeli about terrorism. You and many others could never live under that,( oh,yeah no federal wiretaps, that is BAD!).
Of course it is nice to have the luxury of stupidity, and let those with real world knowledge handle the actual mess, whilst others bloviate and pontificate about individual liberties. On the bright side, you won't have to be speaking arabic or farsi in 20 years, and your daughters won't be forced to wear a burkah. I am sure it is all Karl Rove's fault!
My comment to the well-intentioned but clueless? Shut up and sit down. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1539
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Fvf - you are all over the map. As if Iraq was ever a threat to the USA. This is not about Israel so dont conflate it. I was all for hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. Now its the new Afghanistan. The biggest threat this country faces from terrorists is the loose nukes in the old soviet union. Too bad this president caused the elimination of our CIA front company charged with hunting down these wmds.
big Z? He was always little Z, there are 1000's of insurgents and most of them have zero to do with Al Qaeda. Dont talk to me like 9/11 did not happen here. The reality is that we have to be vigilant and we have to find these people where they are and stop them but we do not have to invade sovereign countries and kill and maim thousands upon thousands of innocent people.
Want to stop wahabism? Stop it where it lives in Saudi Arabia. If you dont want to talk about that then dont talk at all. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 6
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
I didn’t address justification because that was not the purpose of my post. The purpose was to attempt to articulate that what we are going though in Iraq with regard to miscalculations and difficulties is not a new phenomenon in the annals of military history and have usually been more costly in terms of blood and treasure. To continue to flagellate ourselves over the justification for invading Iraq is self-defeating at this point because regardless of the reasons for the invasion we must win. Imagine – The United States of America being driven from the battlefield by terrorists, thugs, and murderers. I cannot imagine a greater strategic disaster or national humiliation. However, if you want justification here you go:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
As you read these resolutions, note that they all don’t deal with WMD. They also deal with Iraq’s support for international terrorism, repression of their people, and their conventional forces, among other things. When reading this ask at what point is enough, enough? At what point does the civilized world actually take action? At what point does the UN become an utterly useless money pit? One of my favorite scenes in the movie Team America is when the character that is supposed to be Kofi Annan orders the character that is supposed to be Kim Jong Ill to cease producing nuclear weapons to which Kim replies “or else what?”. Annan responds “or else we’ll write you a letter telling you how angry we are”.
Now before you write that all the information regarding WMD was a fabrication of the Bush Administration, President Bush said nothing new. This was the same information that the entire world’s intelligence community has been relating for the past ten years. Was everyone totally wrong for all that time? The difference is that President Bush finally acted. In the wake of 9-11 he had no other choice. In light of all this information, would it have been prudent to wait? How responsible would that have been? Can you imagine if the president held back and we were attacked in any way, let alone with WMD, and it was traced back to Saddam? Can you just imagine the thunderous speeches that people like Mr. Murtha, Ms. Pelosi, or Senator Kerry would have given? Also, what message would continuing to do nothing have sent to our enemies?
The contention that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the invasion is preposterous. Zarqawi and his minions are known to have been there before the war and Saddam’s support and financing of international terrorists is well established. Al Qaeda permeates the entire world. They can be found throughout Asia, Europe, Latin America, even in the U.S. and Canada. Hell – 1993 WTC bombing conspirators were arrested right here in Maplewood. But not Iraq. Miraculously, Iraq was Al Qaeda free. Now I’m not writing that there are not problems in Iraq, obviously there are but there have also been considerable successes. Someone cited the power supply. It’s true that the are massive shortages but overall output is greater than it was before the war. The reason for the shortages are 1) the Iraqi economy is growing at such a fantastic clip that it’s outstripping the ability of the power grid to supply it; and 2) Saddam hogged almost all the power for the Sunni Triangle. Today, it’s more equitably shared across the nation. Here’s more info on our progress:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
For a definition of victory and the plan that supposedly does not exist go here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
You might not agree with it and that’s fine but don’t just dismiss it as nonsense, especially when the Democrat’s only alternative at this point seems to be surrender.
As I wrote, the notion that with the exception of Vietnam, America was united behind war efforts is mistaken. All our wars, with the possible exception of WWII, were hugely divisive, with what were at least at the time, questionable justifications. The difference is that previous generations, including the loyal opposition, understood that once engaged, there was no alternative to victory. In the 1960’s that changed. Believing that Vietnam was “….a war for imperialist reasons. A war for resources. A war to support corporations. Not a war of justification by any means.”, and thus the use of our power was illegitimate and doomed to failure, our war fighting paradigm changed from “how do we win?” to “how do we get out of this?”. (The Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed the House unanimously, 416-0, and the Senate 88-2. That’s a lot of support for a war fought for corporate interests. Maybe all those representatives and senators were tricked like today’s congressmen were tricked by President Bush. Hmmm. LBJ was from Texas, GWB is from Texas, coincidence or something more sinister?) Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, a majority of Americans wanted victory in Vietnam right into the 1970s. In fact, we had the war won and then just simply abandoned our allies. Call this revisionism if you want but it’s the conclusion more and more historians are coming to based in large part on the admissions of the former North Vietnamese leaders themselves. Tony Blankely sums up this phenomenon better than I ever could:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonyblankley/2005/11/16/175730.html
The problem with the anti-Iraq war crowd is that there opposition rests on two totally unsupportable premises. 1) Saddam was really not that bad of a guy; and 2) Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam in power rather than prison. I don’t quite get this and maybe some people on this board can clear it up for me. There was a time when it was liberals who were accused of starry-eyed idealism or “Wilsonianism”. Now those who believe this are derided as neo-cons. Do those of you on the Left realize that the neo-con foreign policy outlook was until recently the purview of the Democratic party (hence the term neo-con) and that neo-cons are viewed as interlopers in the Republican Party by the realists further to the right and the traditionalists, or paleo-cons, on the far right? How is it that the Republicans have become the party seeking to export democracy around the world and the Democrats seem to believe that 1/5 of the world’s population is incapable of responsible self-government and doomed to despotism by virtue of their religion? What happened?
Who is the real liberal today? Those who propose a dynamic, progressive, foreign policy that assumes the best about others and America or those who advocate retreat? Take Social Security. One party advocates an exciting new plan which harnesses the energies of our 21st Century global marketplace and free market to improve a good program. The other holds a rally around the statue (the imagery could not be better) of a president who has been dead for 60 years and demands that nothing change. FDR would be rolling over in his grave if he new how ossified the thinking of his party has become. Many on the left claim to be liberals and are accused of being liberal, as if it were a dirty word, but in reality, their thinking is the antithesis of liberalism.
There is a great book about the war titled “The Conservative Debate on Iraq”. It’s a collection of essays by people on the Right debating the war. In the preface, the editor points out that this is the debate that used to take place between Democrats and Republicans. Today, it’s only taking place among Republicans while the Democrats just rail on about the “military-industrial complex”, neo-cons, and Carl Rove. The Dems are just not bringing anything of real substance to the table anymore and it’s unfortunate because we need two strong parties to have a real debate and develop the best course of action. Believe me, I have a lot of problems with the Bush Administration and their handling of the war. Someone brought up Saudi Arabia and I have to admit, every time I see pictures of the president with those thugs who are the biggest terrorist financiers in the world I’m outraged, but with few exceptions, the Dems are not calling the President on any of it. They seem more intent on just destroying him.
There was a time when the Republican Party was beholden to the John Birch society. Those far Right kooks believed, among other strange things, that President Eisenhower was an agent of the Kremlin. The Republican Party managed to finally un-hitch them and haven’t looked back since. When will the Democrats un-hitch today’s left-wing version of the John Birch society? Don’t the Dems realize that when a racist thug like Al Sharpton, who no decent person should have anything to do with, takes the podium during prime-time at the Democratic National Convention, 90% of the country turns the TV off? Michael Moore, Ramsey Clark, International ANSWER, Code Pink – all cucu for Coco Puffs. As long as this remains the case, the Democrats will in all likelihood not regain power. If things keep going the way they are, not only will the Republicans retain power this Fall, in 2008, I see a repeat of 1972.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Spinal - I have to parse your essay. I apologize in advance but the length of your posting is too long not to work it this way.
I didn’t address justification because that was not the purpose of my post. The purpose was to attempt to articulate that what we are going though in Iraq with regard to miscalculations and difficulties is not a new phenomenon in the annals of military history and have usually been more costly in terms of blood and treasure. To continue to flagellate ourselves over the justification for invading Iraq is self-defeating at this point because regardless of the reasons for the invasion we must win. Imagine – The United States of America being driven from the battlefield by terrorists, thugs, and murderers. I cannot imagine a greater strategic disaster or national humiliation. However, if you want justification here you go:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
Whatever your purpose in the original post we are not justified in attacking Iraq unilaterally with Iraq fully contained and inspectors on the ground. The Iraqi people were not in dire straights and at this point it is obvious that we will not be driven from any battlefield by thugs, terrorists and murderers but rather by the people of Iraq who dont want us there. It was told to us by their government that they would like us to leave.
As you read these resolutions, note that they all don’t deal with WMD. They also deal with Iraq’s support for international terrorism, repression of their people, and their conventional forces, among other things. When reading this ask at what point is enough, enough? At what point does the civilized world actually take action? At what point does the UN become an utterly useless money pit? One of my favorite scenes in the movie Team America is when the character that is supposed to be Kofi Annan orders the character that is supposed to be Kim Jong Ill to cease producing nuclear weapons to which Kim replies “or else what?”. Annan responds “or else we’ll write you a letter telling you how angry we are”.
Again these resolutions were certainly working. Iraq as a state was not in any position to harm the USA. They had no connection to the terror group that attacked us on 9/11. Your question about the civilized world is a good one. Is America the civilized world? Seems to me that the iron curtain came down without one shot being fired. Seems to me that was the way to go, diplomacy and world unity, not unilateral unprovoked war.
Now before you write that all the information regarding WMD was a fabrication of the Bush Administration, President Bush said nothing new. This was the same information that the entire world’s intelligence community has been relating for the past ten years. Was everyone totally wrong for all that time? The difference is that President Bush finally acted. In the wake of 9-11 he had no other choice. In light of all this information, would it have been prudent to wait? How responsible would that have been? Can you imagine if the president held back and we were attacked in any way, let alone with WMD, and it was traced back to Saddam? Can you just imagine the thunderous speeches that people like Mr. Murtha, Ms. Pelosi, or Senator Kerry would have given? Also, what message would continuing to do nothing have sent to our enemies?
Again 9/11 and Iraq have no connection and Bush admitted such. The WMD programs in Iraq were nil. The UN inspectors did a terrific job of finding and destroying his meager stockpile of old weapons. Imagination is what got us into Iraq and not hard evidence? In my imagination I picture a jail cell for the decider in chief.
The contention that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the invasion is preposterous. Zarqawi and his minions are known to have been there before the war and Saddam’s support and financing of international terrorists is well established. Al Qaeda permeates the entire world. They can be found throughout Asia, Europe, Latin America, even in the U.S. and Canada. Hell – 1993 WTC bombing conspirators were arrested right here in Maplewood. But not Iraq. Miraculously, Iraq was Al Qaeda free. Now I’m not writing that there are not problems in Iraq, obviously there are but there have also been considerable successes. Someone cited the power supply. It’s true that the are massive shortages but overall output is greater than it was before the war. The reason for the shortages are 1) the Iraqi economy is growing at such a fantastic clip that it’s outstripping the ability of the power grid to supply it; and 2) Saddam hogged almost all the power for the Sunni Triangle. Today, it’s more equitably shared across the nation. Here’s more info on our progress:
Please stop conflating Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Iraq. Zarqawi was minor player, a criminal from Jordan who became affiliated with Al Qaeda only after our war began. As you say Al Qaeda members may have been everywhere, so what. Bin Laden is in Afghanistan or Pakistan now. You suggest we go blow up Iraq for some bit players? I dont think so. The Iraq middle class is fleeing from the country in droves. The school system is a shambles and hundreds of Iraqis are murdered every week. The fact that any reconstruction is occuring at all is a miracle. Please explain why most of what we are doing requires foreign workers and not the Iraqi people themselves.
For a definition of victory and the plan that supposedly does not exist go here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
Thanks for posting this. I have not seen it previously and it appears to be a sound policy. However as we have seen time and again our sound strategic policies have a way of never happening because we do not allocate the proper resources to them. In another thread withdrawal of forces is discussed and I will not go into that much here but if the Iraqis are already requesting us to withdraw why are we staying put? Plus please tell me if the Iraqis have their own constitution and government then they must have their own laws. Why are contractors not liable under Iraqi law for wrongs they commit against Iraqis? Why are we building such a monstrosity of an embassy? Why do we have permanent military bases? We are treating Iraq as a colony while paying lip service to Iraqi sovereignty.
You might not agree with it and that’s fine but don’t just dismiss it as nonsense, especially when the Democrat’s only alternative at this point seems to be surrender.
I dont dismiss it as nonsense at all. I say that there was no problem here before we invaded and now that we have invaded we have to find a way to solve a problem of our own creation. The war is a failure because it was unnecessary. It is a failure because no matter what we do or give to Iraq now we have caused more damage then can ever be corrected or rectified. These people will always hate America and Americans.
As I wrote, the notion that with the exception of Vietnam, America was united behind war efforts is mistaken. All our wars, with the possible exception of WWII, were hugely divisive, with what were at least at the time, questionable justifications. The difference is that previous generations, including the loyal opposition, understood that once engaged, there was no alternative to victory. In the 1960’s that changed. Believing that Vietnam was “….a war for imperialist reasons. A war for resources. A war to support corporations. Not a war of justification by any means.”, and thus the use of our power was illegitimate and doomed to failure, our war fighting paradigm changed from “how do we win?” to “how do we get out of this?”. (The Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed the House unanimously, 416-0, and the Senate 88-2. That’s a lot of support for a war fought for corporate interests. Maybe all those representatives and senators were tricked like today’s congressmen were tricked by President Bush. Hmmm. LBJ was from Texas, GWB is from Texas, coincidence or something more sinister?) Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, a majority of Americans wanted victory in Vietnam right into the 1970s. In fact, we had the war won and then just simply abandoned our allies. Call this revisionism if you want but it’s the conclusion more and more historians are coming to based in large part on the admissions of the former North Vietnamese leaders themselves. Tony Blankely sums up this phenomenon better than I ever could:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonyblankley/2005/11/16/175730.html
Tony Blankely is not the Vietnam expert that I would be talking to. He is a huge proponent of these neocons and as such his views are about as far to the right as one can go. It is full and true revisionism. This is how most Americans felt about the war in Vietnam.
i feel like im fixing to die
The problem with the anti-Iraq war crowd is that there opposition rests on two totally unsupportable premises. 1) Saddam was really not that bad of a guy; and 2) Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam in power rather than prison. I don’t quite get this and maybe some people on this board can clear it up for me. There was a time when it was liberals who were accused of starry-eyed idealism or “Wilsonianism”. Now those who believe this are derided as neo-cons. Do those of you on the Left realize that the neo-con foreign policy outlook was until recently the purview of the Democratic party (hence the term neo-con) and that neo-cons are viewed as interlopers in the Republican Party by the realists further to the right and the traditionalists, or paleo-cons, on the far right? How is it that the Republicans have become the party seeking to export democracy around the world and the Democrats seem to believe that 1/5 of the world’s population is incapable of responsible self-government and doomed to despotism by virtue of their religion? What happened?
1) Saddam was a horrible despot. There are plenty of them around the world, many of them are far worse. I dont see us clammoring to invade those other countries.
2) Again Saddam was contained and no thread to the United States.
I cant answer your other conjectures then to say that these neo cons that have infiltrated the republican party did so in the 1980's when Reagan got there. Its the same cast of characters there today that brought you Iran-Contra. I dont see any points here that I can answer for you but I disagree with your premise about democrats.
Who is the real liberal today? Those who propose a dynamic, progressive, foreign policy that assumes the best about others and America or those who advocate retreat? Take Social Security. One party advocates an exciting new plan which harnesses the energies of our 21st Century global marketplace and free market to improve a good program. The other holds a rally around the statue (the imagery could not be better) of a president who has been dead for 60 years and demands that nothing change. FDR would be rolling over in his grave if he new how ossified the thinking of his party has become. Many on the left claim to be liberals and are accused of being liberal, as if it were a dirty word, but in reality, their thinking is the antithesis of liberalism.
Now you want to talk about social security? Please check into the SSI thread. These statements of yours are all debunked there.
There is a great book about the war titled “The Conservative Debate on Iraq”. It’s a collection of essays by people on the Right debating the war. In the preface, the editor points out that this is the debate that used to take place between Democrats and Republicans. Today, it’s only taking place among Republicans while the Democrats just rail on about the “military-industrial complex”, neo-cons, and Carl Rove. The Dems are just not bringing anything of real substance to the table anymore and it’s unfortunate because we need two strong parties to have a real debate and develop the best course of action. Believe me, I have a lot of problems with the Bush Administration and their handling of the war. Someone brought up Saudi Arabia and I have to admit, every time I see pictures of the president with those thugs who are the biggest terrorist financiers in the world I’m outraged, but with few exceptions, the Dems are not calling the President on any of it. They seem more intent on just destroying him.
Great, you have some reservations. Nice. The debate and discussions by democrats are there but the republicans have stifled talk with procedure. I dont know the book you are talking about but your conclusions about democrats are childish, amusing and incorrect.
There was a time when the Republican Party was beholden to the John Birch society. Those far Right kooks believed, among other strange things, that President Eisenhower was an agent of the Kremlin. The Republican Party managed to finally un-hitch them and haven’t looked back since. When will the Democrats un-hitch today’s left-wing version of the John Birch society? Don’t the Dems realize that when a racist thug like Al Sharpton, who no decent person should have anything to do with, takes the podium during prime-time at the Democratic National Convention, 90% of the country turns the TV off? Michael Moore, Ramsey Clark, International ANSWER, Code Pink – all cucu for Coco Puffs. As long as this remains the case, the Democrats will in all likelihood not regain power. If things keep going the way they are, not only will the Republicans retain power this Fall, in 2008, I see a repeat of 1972.
Please, republicans pander to the anti gay-marriage, christian coalition, anti abortion, moral majority crowd. Al Sharpton is a politician and I wont defend him but he is marginal in the Party. The fact he addressed the country at the convention was obviously a political trade off since he ran for President and turned around and supported the democratic nominee. There are plenty of kooks in every party. You see 1972? I see 1992.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1172
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Yeah, if you hadn't kissed Sharpton's backside he might have gone Republican on you! Great post Spinal. Like us Repubs in the old days, these current liberal Dems need another decade or two before they wisen up to the political scene. When they spend the same amount of energy putting forth a position to red America as they do to calling red America names then maybe they have a chance. However, as low as Bush's numbers have gone, these Dems make Bush look good. I see another Republican victory on the horizon. And if you think I've been obnoxious so far on this board, if the Repubs gain even one seat in either chamber you libs better lose your password because I will be cutting and pasting every thread from 2005 throughout 2007. At least most of you in 2006 realize you have problems. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 763
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 10:33 pm: |
|
After reading this thread I actually feel pretty validated for having voted for Bush the last time.
When it comes to international affairs the extreme lib dems are living in an alternative universe. I can't see Reid, Pelosi, or Dean being the braintrust for handling islamic fanatics or Iran.
And next time I am writing in Lieberman. Regadless of whoever is running for either party. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5158
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Actually, you wouldn't have been able to vote for either of those four for president. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 765
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 10:54 pm: |
|
I was not talking about voting for Reid, Pelosi, or Dean for President.
I believe I can write-in a vote for Lieberman.
I might consider voting for Gore again, IF he successfully completes shock treatment. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:36 pm: |
|
I am hoping upon hope the Dems nominate Gore. I can only hope the election would be close enough to once again see him flap in the wind for a month before the Supremes step in. His concession was the most amusing political time in my lifetime. You could tell the great socialist lib wanted it so bad, had been groomed from birth for it, and then had to give a speech and give it up to a half man / half monkey. I don't know which was better. Watching his speech or seeing the Yankees become the first team in professional sports to lose a series up 3-0. Both will go down as the greatest choke jobs in their respective fields and they were both lovely events.
Seeing him soundly beaten in 2008 won't be nearly as much fun, but it will be entertaining all the same. |
The3ofUs
Citizen
Username: The3ofus
Post Number: 28
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:49 pm: |
|
It is a sick person that takes delight in other's misfortunes. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:38 pm: |
|
No. It is a sick person who wants to see an extreme liberal socialist person like Gore ruin this country. Besides, Gore made his own bed with all his team's underhanded tricks and rigging of polling stations. The slime ball vote stealing the Democrats did during the 2000 election was disgusting. Yes, I take delight in his thievery not working. |
The3ofUs
Citizen
Username: The3ofus
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:44 pm: |
|
I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading that. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5167
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Cry. If Gore is an "extreme liberal socialist person," how would you define Kucinich or Bernie Sanders?
What qualifies as "extreme" in your book, anyway? Are you like an eskimo who comes down to San Francisco and thinks that 65 degrees is "extremely hot?" Or an Egyptian who comes here and finds 50 degrees to be "extremely cold?"
And there's that "socialist" word again, one that as far as I'm concerned has absolutely no meaning. Combined with "liberal," which I'm trying to figure out if that's an adjective to "socialist," contrasting him with a hypothetical "conservative socialist," or something else altogether. Would a "conservative fascist" be a fascist who is even farther to the right than your garden-variety fascist; or would it be someone who wants to kill the gays a little more cautiously?
I don't even want to address the way Gore allegedly stole the 2000 election. That must be a brand-new talking point from mind-control central on Pennsylvania Ave. I can hardly wait to hear how it plays out. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 448
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Getting back to the original topic of this thread…
If I were part of the Democratic leadership of Congress (and I’m using the term leadership loosely), I would make Donald Rumsfeld the issue. I would actively and strenuously call for his resignation on the grounds that he is not leading an effective effort to pacify Iraq and get our troops out.
This approach would have several political benefits. First, it would free the Democrats from having to put forth their own comprehensive plan for Iraq. Instead, they would put a face on the failed plan currently in progress. Second, and most important, it would let the Democrats have it both ways with regard to the withdrawal issue. A solid majority of Americans think it was a bad idea to go into Iraq, but many are equally uneasy about leaving without fixing what we broke. Hence, make it Rumsfeld’s fault that we haven’t gotten out yet. Don’t set out a Democratic timetable for withdrawal -- ask Rumsfeld for his timetable. Finally, everyone knows Bush would never fire Rumsfeld under duress, so Rummy would be a built-in target for the foreseeable future. And if by some chance he did resign or get bagged, the Democrats could claim a major victory.
I think the Dems are giving Rumsfeld a big pass, and I don’t understand why.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1972
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 11:16 pm: |
|
"We have made extraordinary progress in the Terrorist War. We have disrupted and destroyed terrorist networks, eliminated two theocracies, have brought a third to heel, liberated millions, are witnessing the birth of freedom in a region which until recently has known only despotism, and for the first time have our enemies on the defense. Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of their populations on our side, continue their inexorable move towards liberalism, egalitarianism, and freedom, much to the anxiety of their neighbors."
All we can hope is that the people who believe this kind of nonsense be the first to throw themselves into the meat grinder for a change, instead of trying to lure in children that are too young to know any better. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5169
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:16 am: |
|
Besides Afghanistan, can someone fill me in on what the other two theocracies were? |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 11
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:44 am: |
|
Typo - I wrote Thug-ocracy. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia). Spell check changed it to theo. Sorry for the confusion.
I find it amusing how people ensconced in Maplewood always assume their neighbors were never in the armed forces or have never put their lives on the line.
|
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 9:27 am: |
|
Spinal Tap-
I am not the least bit surprised. Considering the liberal distaste for anything military, the day these people find anything worth dying for (except maybe a woman's right to choose)is the day I begin taking them and their outlook seriously.
-SLK |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
bottom,
It's simple. The Dems have the attention span of a two year old. That is why they are systematically incapable of formulating a plan. They tried the Rumsfeld resignation ploy a few months back and in typical Democratic fashion they were all about words and no action. I've been asking the same question you just asked for years. I don't understand how the Dems with all the fodder this Admin has given them can't do something or anything with it. I want a good political fight but the Dems are incapable. I have finally concluded the Dems are so splintered by special interests that they are bureaucratically incapable of a sustained message. They remind me of me with a remote control. They go from issue to issue so quickly and with so little substance that at this point no one in the electorate pays much attention. It is a shame because even the few good ideas the Dems have get drowned out.
tom,
Everyone knows Gore and his team stole a huge number of districts in 2000. Florida would not have even been a factor if the Dems weren't such thieves. And Gore is a socialist. Just ask me. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1813
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Tom-
If the FLA SC did not get unconstutionally involved like they did then the 2000 election debacle would of never happened.
-SLK |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5173
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
The Florida Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Florida State law. There were contradictory statutes on the books, and somebody had to resolve it. The FL legislature and the acrobatically compliant Kathryn Harris could have then take steps to dispute the results, send alternate slates of electors for the House to choose from, or any of the other steps that the Constitution spells out for disputes in presidential elections.
On the other hand, the US Supreme Court has no Contitutional role in presidential elections at all.
Back to Southerner -- Gore stole districts? Which ones -- where and how? This is big news to many of us I'm sure. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Of course it is big news to you because in your mind the Democrats never do anything wrong. They stole precincts all over the country but it wasn't covered because the Repubs won. Only the whiny losers were able to get on TV. Thankfully, the Repubs learned from this and in 2004 had poll monitors at every poll in the nation, and we had a much cleaner election. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5535
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Not for nothing, but I would not recommend taking political advice from anyone who describes Al Gore as "extreme liberal socialist person". |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 788
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Al lost it when the election was "stolen" from him. Dems are going back to the dry well next time by not producing a candidate that can win in the electoral college.
Better to lose and be right, than to win without a doctrinaire leftist putz at the head of the ticket? |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 9:22 pm: |
|
tom,
you nitwit. The only reason the USSC got involved is because the FLA SC stuck its nose in where it didn't belong.
How can you say the former has no constitutional role but the latter does? Neither do...
-SLK |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1974
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:19 pm: |
|
There were 25 more people killed in Iraq today. The puppet government has almost no control over the country and the U.S. forces lose credibility with each new incident of torture and murder. Only the truly stupid would call this a success. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5536
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
SLicK -
I know that you are repeating what you heard/read from the Administration, but your historical recountings are in error.
The involvement of the SCOTUS was not because "the FLA SC stuck its nose in where it didn't belong". The Florida court was ruling on Florida matters.
The SCOTUS decision has to be justified on its own merits, not on some inaccurate and ill-informed attack on the lower court, ruling on a matter within its jurisdiction. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 794
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:43 pm: |
|
Where is Rodney King when you need him? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5539
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:47 pm: |
|
"Can't we all get along?"
 |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5174
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:54 pm: |
|
If the Florida Supreme Court isn't to decide cases concerning Florida law, then what exactly is it's purpose? Seriously, no wise-••• answers here. Who is the proper arbiter?
Southerner, I didn't ask you to repeat yourself, I read it quite well the first time. I asked for specific examples. You're just waving your hand and saying "all over the country," but that doesn't mean anything. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 12
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:13 pm: |
|
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/success_stories_0206.pdf |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:18 am: |
|
tom,
I know. I felt like playing the lib role for a few posts. It really is fun and easy to throw crap against the wall. Now I know why so many of the liberal posters have thousands of posts. Like I stated in an another thread, the Dems are such a lazy party that they don't even care if they lose anymore. As long as they can make stuff up and point to meaningless polls, why put in the work. This is going to be a great fall/football season for us Repubs.
As for Gore's cheating, the Dems let him down. They tried and tried and still couldn't steal the election. I'm still waiting for Dean to hold seminars on punching ballots properly. You libs can't even punch a hole in a piece of paper properly. Talk about lazy. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:50 am: |
|
Southerner, I wanted to post this from an American writer living outside the country, in response to your provincial confusion. It speaks well to your boy in the bubble bullsh*t.
"Lots of writers have to get away from their home country in order to see it clearly, to write about it. But the literary aspects are not as meaningful as the political ones; the question I have is, what will it take for Americans to accurately see their role in the world? How can we see ourselves in perspective? In short, people see the behavior of the government as psychotic, and are completely at a loss at the way the public allows its political leaders to get away with it. And "it" seems a lot more urgent from outside.
Inside our borders, the feeling seems to be, "Well what can we do about it?" Outside our borders, people are really wondering what's gone wrong."
-EF
Southerner, dude, we don't all have to agree, but let's attempt to stay within the lines of reality.
3-2-1 Southerner attacks me or the guy I posted……..
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3507
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 9:54 am: |
|
That's strange... when I see my fellow libs taking a position here, they consistently put up links to solid sources to back up their assertions. Maybe you're not paying attention, Southerner. Or maybe this is just another strawman. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5177
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
You know, southerner, this is getting tiresome. This isn't the first time you've retreated behind an "I was only pretending" excuse. Using rhetorical devices is fine, when used to make or advance a point. But your only point is the same old "we won you lose" that you trot out for any issue.
Like your recent posts on the thread abot the Miami terrorist-wannabees. You seem to excuse inflating this non-threat into a nascent 9/11 by saying that's what it takes to win. Really? Cynically manipulating the fears of the populace so you can keep power? Well, I'm not surprised at all, but is it by any stretch of the imagination moral or ethical or forgiveable, and I suppose I have to ask, do you really care if it is as long as you get your tax cuts? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1192
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 3:58 pm: |
|
I really get to some of you don't I?
AE,
I like your posts and am not going to attack you. Your the one calling me bubble boy so I guess I should get upset. Here's what you libs don't get. I like what this admin is doing so of course I can have fun on this board. You guys are the deeply troubled side. You guys now know what I went through during the 90's.
tom,
You finally got it. My point is always that elections matter and who won or lost is a lot more important than any discussions we could have on this board. Great ideas don't mean crap if you lose every election and can't put them into practice.
If you libs can make up stuff then so can I. I am loving this. I mention one time about Gore cheating and you guys go bananas. If he didn't cheat then why are you asking me for sources? I don't have any. Or do you want me to litter this board like Foj does with extremist right wing crap? And I don't need to hide behind "I was only pretending" because I don't care if you think I was pretending or not. I realize now that the 2000 election is still such an open sore for the losers that any discussion of the event makes you libs lose all sensibilities.
Notey,
Are you serious? How did you like Foj's solid link to Rove's indictment? Or all the other links that led us to Rumsfeld's resignation and the Abramoff affair causing large number of resignations in Congress. Please. You just don't like my style which is fine. Remember, I have stated many times, I use this board for entertainment, not for saving the world. You guys can't even get your own state wide affairs in order let alone the entire nation, so maybe you should just relax. Otherwise, get your party to get off their collective backsides and actually DO something during the election season. You guys had a heck of a year in 2005, but now that the real prize is only 5 months away you guys are rarely seen or heard. Your party leaders remind me of ARod. Great during the 1st through 7th inning, but when the game is on the line he doesn't show up.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5184
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
I'm asking you for sources because this is the first I've heard of it. If you don't have any, then why do you mention it? Where did you hear it from? We can start from there. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1193
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:25 pm: |
|
tom,
Are you serious? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page