| Author |
Message |
    
Mdm
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 12:25 pm: | 
|
"So it's not the number of tragic deaths but the statistics that matter to you? Interesting take on the issue. "
You missed my point and you change the subject as an attempt of degradation.
My point was you are comparing numbers (statistics) and I just gave you your SAME numbers back. They are meaningless in your comparisons. People are dying, even more are starving and dying of AIDS (oh yes, self inflected so I guess it does not count). Regardless not relevant.
My beef is we went to war or a preemptive strike on false information trumped up by Bush. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 01:55 pm: |
|
You are confused.
"WMD's in Iraq are a slam dunk."
George Tenet - Director of Central Intelligence, appointed by President Clinton, a democrat.
Should a President trust the DCI when he makes such a clear assertion, or not?
Jimi,
Did or did not congress, against the wishes of the executive branch, cut funding and all military support to our South Vietnamese allies? Was not South Vietnam then overun by the communists? If I am mistaken, please correct me.
Some folks (Curt especially) seem to want to talk more about me than the issues. I ain't up for that, but y'all feel free to start a new thread for that kind of discussion if that is what makes you happy.
(Message edited by Blake on November 12, 2006) |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 02:03 pm: |
|
"Shoot first ask questions later" is a figure of speech. This is junior high school reading comprehension kind of stuff.
Lack of military service or combat experience does not in any way limit the warmaking powers of our Commander In Chief. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 03:11 pm: |
|
I would like to make several observations:
Iraq is not Vietnam nor Vietnam all over again.
The WAR with the Hussein Government has long been over. That was a masterful triumph for the US Military, coming on the heels of their triumph in Afghanistan.
Hooray for the military and their amazing soldiers.
Since the fall of SH, the issue of building a new government has not gone well. The US and Iraqis are jointly accountable for this but the onus really is on the Iraqis to resolve.
They apparently do that by using the car bomb method of diplomacy. I DON'T necessarily think that method will work.
The terrorists LOVE to have we Americans at each other's throats. Why indulge them?
If I am correct, the Congress has access to exactly the same information that the President had when deciding on the case for war. It is naive to assume that Bush somehow lied his way into this war. If Bush DID somehow lie or make the CIA and other agencies lie, there is a legal way to resolve this.
I have yet to see any Congressman provide facts that suggest that this happen.
I believe this is all "public record" stuff.
In a word, lets move forward and together.
Oh, and for God's sakes, enough Vietnam already. It is over, and thank God, so are the sixties. (anyone sick of the sixties, raise your hand!) |
Curtyd
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 04:24 pm: |
|
Blake, please re-read your posts before you say I am getting personal and feign such total lack of culpability:
like
""When faced with inflammatory ignorant rhetoric"
or " the enemy-emboldening garbage..."
and on and on ad nauseum,
"...hyper-partisan minds of such ideologues, the parrots of the irrational Bush-hating left. They don't ever seem to want respectful debate; their aim is to launch hateful partisan attack and inflammatory negativisms one after the other."
Sound pretty personal to me for the expression of a contrary political opinion while begging for a "respectful debate".
That's why I said a debate is not in your agenda here, counterpoints are not welcome and just degrade to personal attacks, but it's your ball in this venue isn't it?
(Message edited by CURTYD on November 12, 2006) |
Captpete
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 04:54 pm: |
|
We need to require that voters (in America) can actually READ.
I'm all for that. And the same for non-voters as well! |
Curtyd
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 04:56 pm: |
|
"curtd, I dont see how a nationwide referendum is a foreign dictation of policy. "
We just had a nationwide referendum, the congressional elections, the American people spoke pretty clearly. GERALDO said that an IRAQI referendum should make the American decision for whether we stay or go,
America, absent the Iraqi Invasion apologists, has said we should GO...
(Message edited by CURTYD on November 12, 2006) |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 08:27 pm: |
|
Curt,
Still squawking about me? Like I said, start a new topic if that is your interest.
"America, absent the Iraqi Invasion apologists, has said we should GO... "
First, I strongly disagree. In the 6th year of a two term sitting President a turn in control of congress against the President's political party is virtually a certainty if it hadn't already happened.
Second, the purview of our foreign policy and the command and control of our military belongs entirely to the President, not congress. Congress' only option to affect national policy is to cut funding. They did that to Vietnam, a national disgrace. I hope they will not make that same mistake again. If they do, I will truly be ashamed to call myself American. If they do, I may cease calling myself "American" and begin urging my home state of Texas to secede from the Union, a right that Texas as a former independent Republic has maintained since joining the union in 1845. Turns out that is nothing but mythology passed down to me by some ignorant Texans.
(Message edited by Blake on November 13, 2006) |
Curtyd
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 08:40 pm: |
|
If a turn in control of Congress was such a virtual certainty after a two term presidency, it sure doesn't say much for the Republican takeover in 1994. That was heralded as the "Republican Revolution" at the time, more spin again I'd say. Are you that plugged in with these guys as to be promoting the NEW "company line" so soon? Or is it just from watching the talking heads? |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 08:40 pm: |
|
Att Blake If Texas drops out of the union.can I count on you to help me get a VISA to Texas. I cant do with out those good twisty roads. |
Jackbequick
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 08:52 pm: |
|
Blake,
"I implied that you are unpatriotic? Help me out here would you please? Which of my statements gave you that impression? I intended to offer no such view of you, on account of I don't hold such a view of you. : )"
My wrong, you didn't say that. I read that into one of your comments, "Naysaying is unhelpful" but it is not there on another rereading. My apologies.
I'll take the question/comments one at a time:
"Do you really honestly expect any government to provide unbiased objective reporting to the general populace concerning a war in progress?"
Not every detail of the war nor any they don't want to report. I defer to them to decide when and what to report. I understand all the 'secs (OPSEC, COMSEC, etc.) and the need for security has my full support. But when the government steps up to the podium I expect the details they choose to present to be as accurate and factual as possible. I expect them to not be tainted or have a "spin" that distorts accuracy or truth in the interests of a person or political party.
You want to be my president? Go there knowing that we can agree to disagree and that I'll give you full credit for everything that goes right. And you'll also get full blame for everything that does not. You can tell me who else was involved and why it happened but I'm of the "your watch, your fault" school. And that would be especially true if you talked me into letting you do something that I thought was the wrong thing to do and it turns out bad. And if I find out you tainted or ignored credible facts in the process of getting approval, you'll lose my respect and earn my disapproval.
"Will you please define for me exactly what objective assessment you expect our President to announce publicly concerning the war that would pass muster with you?"
I think the post war situation was initially presented in a more positive light than the realities of today support. That is my short form answer.
That is a complex and tough question. As the war phase moved to the post war phase there was initially an impression given that implied things were on track. I thought the result of that would be that numbers of U.S. forces would slowly diminish as Iraqi forces and the emerging national structure picked up the load. But I can't go back cite specific statements or promises and tell you exactly what seemed to be promised and didn't happen.
Can you give me a list of all the goals and objectives verbalized in Presidential speeches and promises and their status? A daunting task for sure.
"I am very interested to hear your view on that. I've heard our President make many very sober assessments concerning the war, and am very skeptical that you will be able to produce anything reasonable from the standpoint of warfare and national security that he has not already expressed.
Where did you ever hear our President in recent history proclaim that "everything is going fine" in Iraq? Do you expect him to be pessimistic? On numerous occasions, I've heard President Bush communicate publicly that we are facing a very difficult and challenging situation in Iraq, and that he understands well the frustration and discouragement of many Americans."
That Bush said "everything was going fine" was a summary impression gathered over time. I hope it is right but I can live with being found wrong. But the desire to always be right and have done right and put a positive spin on things is not borne out by reality.
I usually read what President Bush has said after the fact more than I listen to it first hand. And I do it as idle reading, and with no intent to be able to answer questions about it in later discussions.
It is evasive or disingenious, for the sake of the discussion here, for you to consider me wrong because I can't "prove" things. We are talking about personal opinions and impressions gained over a long period of time. I'm not going to challenge you to prove that your opinions are "right" because opinions are like noses, everyone has one, they differ widely, and some smell better than others.
Here are some freshly gathered examples of the sort of things that have formed my opinions:
Bush's Backpedaling - this is dated, but interesting if you read it with a view for the the kernels of fact or truth that the cynicism is hung on.
A Catalog of Failure: Rumsfeld's biggest blunders and how they've harmed America.
Yrotciv in Iraq: Bush's backpedaling on the war.
Iraq’s Phantom Weapons and Unproven Links to Al Qaeda.
Bush administration propaganda and disinformation - Examples of things that have taken place in the Bush administrations that I disagree with and dislike.
I don't read links like those as hard facts or as untainted, but I find some facts and truth in all of them.
I do have a weakness for cynical or sarcastic humor and enjoy reading it. But, rest assured, I understand the subtle difference between the links above and places like The Onion and Frumious Bandersnatch.
3. "I suspect that what appeared to be good news and progress towards democracy, like when they had the elections, has not been able to sustain itself to any extent or depth."
"Really? Upon what do you possibly base such a perception? The government remains fully intact and functioning. The police and military continue to grow, expand, and gain proficiency. More and more territory is handed over to Iraqi security forces. Oh, you are talking about the bombs that the terrorist detonate. That is a serious problem. It does not a civil war make. The truth is that Los Angeles sees more civil war among rival gangs than happens in most of Iraq."
Well you certainly see a very different Iraq and more rosy picture there than I do. You could be a press secretary for Bush. I'm trying to remember the last time 20 to 40 people at a time were executed in Los Angeles for nothing more than their ethnic roots. Or the last time a car bomb was detonated in a public market because of the ethnic distribution there. Or the last time an entire class of law enforcement students was kidnapped, cuffed, and executed with shots to the head. Or the last time a group of people was beheaded. Are you following the news at all?
4. "It looks like..."
"How do you know anything about what "it looks like" for most people in Iraq?"
I guess that should read "It looks to me like..."? I did read the results of the poll of 3,500 Iraqis, and with interest. I don't get much day to day feedback on those folks.
5. "I don't think we are ever going to see Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis working constructively with each other in a combined form of government."
"Naysaying is unhelpful. And the truth is that they are working together in a combined government. They are working together about as well as democrats and republicans do here in America."
But its still my right to speak, yes? Read The Emporers New Clothes there is an relevent allegory there. Our democratic government started out pretty good. Maybe if the Iraqi government survives they'll be smarter than we were, stay honest, and toe the line on the spirit and intent of their constitution.
6. "The Bush administration has us embarked on course that will be haunting us financially and emotionally for years to come."
""Haunting" may be the wrong characterization. Did our financial and emotional investments in WW-I and WW-II haunt us for years to come? Or did we recognize the honor and contribution of our blood and treasure towards justice and liberty in the world?"
A firm "no" to the first question. Although the expression "won the war and lost the peace" comes to mind when I consider the economic effect that German and Japanese reconstruction had on the British and U.S. industrial might that put them badly in need of being reconstructed. But our pols didn't think we needed to survive. Capitalism, profit taking, and union greed were the diseases and NAFTA is the tombstone of American industry. I wonder if the pols have noticed that the things that were going to be the future of the American workplace are all being outsourced to India now?
The second question is sort of a trick question. I'd say emphatically that we honor the personal sacrifices that were made in WW I and WW II and that we have no remorse about the financial costs.
"Is it not possible that the Bush administration has us embarked on a course that will resound through history as one of the great efforts to defeat jihadi-fascists and their ideology of hate while liberating oppressed peoples the world over?"
Yes it is possible and I certainly hope that the defeat and liberation aspects happen. Hell, even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Or leprechauns maybe?
And is it not also possible that the U.S. could have made more progress on the war on jihadi-fascists had we not become committed to and heavily pre-occupied with a war in Iraq?
Is it not possible that we are directly responsible for the increase in the numbers of terrorists? That we got them all fired up and were unable to contain the growth? And are playing hell trying to get caught up?
"We left the country (Nam) intact and able to defend itself very well, and it did so very well, until that is the democrat-controlled congress pulled the rug right out from under them."
You need to read history again on that. You are about as far from correct on that as it is possible to be. But I'm too smart to blame anything on one party or the other, there is plenty of blame for it to be shared with both parties and everyone involved.
But I'm glad you said that about the "democrat-controlled congress". I think I'm beginning to understand the futility of this discussion. You are a arguing to defend the actions of one party and excluding any and all contradictory facts or points of logic.
Me, I'm a non-partisan, equal opportunity, guy. I'm still looking for a winner from any party, in my book no one is ever right or wrong simply because they ride mules or elephants.
This discussing things is a lot of work. I'm done here.
Jack
(Message edited by jackbequick on November 12, 2006) |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 09:25 pm: |
|
People are dying, even more are starving and dying of AIDS (oh yes, self inflected so I guess it does not count). Regardless not relevant.
Thats a pathetic argument. But FWIW, Bush has given Africa more money to fight aids than any president. He doesnt get credit for it because as we all know Bush and republicans hate blacks, wants their churches to burn and supplies ghettos with crack and other drugs to keep them controlled by the man. Just axe kanye west and the democrats. |
Frankfast
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 07:39 am: |
|
Texas seceding from the Union. I thought about that but then we would have to build a longer fence around them also. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 09:27 am: |
|
Blake -- comparing the present military situation in Iraq to Viet Nam is erroneous, I believe -- there are so many large differences as to make any such comparison less than entirely useful at a meta level
your statement that the South Viet government and miltary wer capable of defending themselves until congress cut funding is interesting. it's a bit akin to saying that my attack on the unlimited world speed record for wheel driven motorcyles was doomed by my daughter's college education diverting funds from it. If they were capable, they should have been able to do it on their own, I beleive.
secondly, as one who watched, the South Viets were in no way capable of defending their borders, with, or without US funding. their military was, in the main, made of of those who couldn't find another way of supporting themselves (are you aware of the fact that they didn't have a draft, and the percentage of fit men and women serving in their armed forces was a fraction of the US numbers?). I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of US forces would rather go into action themselves than have "assistance" from the South Viet military. no amount of funding would have saved that fish. we backed the wrong horse in that race, from a social, religious, geopolitical and political basis (you are aware, are you not, that Ho Chi Minh approached us first when he formed the party to free his country from the french? and that he went ot the communisits only after being ignored or turned down by every other major world power?)
go back and re-read your history.
lastly, if you would be ashamed if congress cut funding to the Iraq conflict (following the percieved wishes of the majority of the electorate), and suggest that Texas succeed from the union therefor (a patently illegal act, one suggested, perhaps, tongue in cheek), I submit that you re-read the constitution when you're done wiht your history studies. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 09:40 am: |
|
America, absent the Iraqi Invasion apologists, has said we should GO
Most senior political observers have a myriad of reason why the GOP lost their numbers this election. Iraq is ONE of them. However, no serious analyst has made the leap that even the folks unhappy with Iraq (include me in there) have said GO!
I DO think what is being said is that we need a new strategy and that strategy be made clear to us pretty quickly. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 09:46 am: |
|
democrat-controlled congress
It is amusing to see this phrase in the press. If one has followed Congress during the larger GOP majorities in Congress, one is struck by how little control the GOP actually exerted.
Given the numbers today, with Senator Lieberman being an independent and pissed at his party, and given a GOP President, how much CONTROL will the Dems have?
Precious little. There are about 70 "conservative" dems in the house right now. How well will Speaker Pelosi (agh) control these birds? |
Bomber
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 09:53 am: |
|
Bruce -- you're right, according to most political analysts on both sides of the aisle -- conservatism did not loose this elections -- republicanism, however, did
you said very eloquantly what I tries to write, in haste, last week -- while the power seems to have shifted from one party to another, I do not think that there will be large immediate changes in any policy (other than Iraq, perhaps, and that won't be large, nor immediate, either, come to think on it).
this built in shock-absorbing characteristic that our government seems to have is a good thing -- I hate to imagine how loopy our foreign policy might look without intertia slowing down changes . . . . . .
in my neck of the woods, the democrats that won were pound their drums for fiscal conservatism, a rational approach to business, small(er) government -- sounds a lil familar ;-} |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 09:57 am: |
|
this built in shock-absorbing characteristic that our government seems to have is a good thing -- I hate to imagine how loopy our foreign policy might look without intertia slowing down changes . . . . . .
in my neck of the woods, the democrats that won were pound their drums for fiscal conservatism, a rational approach to business, small(er) government -- sounds a lil familar ;-}
It would be a good thing, I think, if the Dems would move center and right a bit. Certainly, this anti-business attitude could use some right adjusting. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
likewise if the republicans move a bit toward the center -- I view this election as the realization by some elected officials that the poloarization of the parties has gone too far, and no longer accurately represents the wishes of the majority. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 01:46 pm: |
|
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228942,00.html
I don't usually agree with Susan Estrich (I have met her several times and could just slap her) but I think her observations about control mirror my own. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 06:14 pm: |
|
Bomber,
I disagree that we should have been helping the communists fight the French. Min was a communist. I disagree that South Vietnam would have fell to the North no matter what. South Korea hasn't fallen. |
Jackbequick
| | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 09:21 pm: |
|
Ho Chi Minh was a socialist who wanted our help to have a free nation. It was logical for him to ask us first, we espouse freedom. And he did not want us to fight the French, he wanted us to convince them to do the right thing and leave. We turned him down because of our ties to France and he became a communist because that is the only place he could find help.
A nation's having gotten or not gotten the support of the U.S. does not make for a clear and certain mark of distinction between tyrannical and benevolent governments.
The U.S. has backed some of the most oppressive and evil regimes in the memory of mankind simply because they were not socialists or communists or because they pretended to be democratic. Or maybe if they had large amounts of cheap oil (or some other commodity we wanted), or if we knew they would not act in their own best interests (i.e., not "oppress" U.S. business interests) if we gave them enough money and other stuff, etc., etc.
The U.S. backed some pretty shakey dudes in the government of South Viet Nam. I don't remember the succession of changes in detail but they were all marked by oppression various groups (Catholics, Buddhists, etc.) and accompanied by summary executions. Here is a study that details some of the instability and turmoil in the RVN government:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/inde x.htm
There is always been some that believe that the U.S. was either involved in, simply ignored that it would happen, or actually approved the asassination of Ngo Dinh Diem. That was not a stable government and the instability also involved the military leaders to a great extent.
Let me guess, you've never been to Viet Nam or South Korea have you? My last overseas tour was 13 months in Korea in 1985-86. The South Koreans are mentally and physically much different and much tougher than the South Vietnamese. I would rate South Korea's "national cohesiveness and willingness to defend" (to coin a phrase) at at least 10 on a scale of 10. In comparison I would rate the "national cohesiveness and willingness to defend" of South Viet Nam, at the best of times, around 3 to 5 on the same scale.
Jack |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 06:55 am: |
|
IMHO The parallels to 'Nam are :
Media lies & spin to influence public opinion are dominated by the anti-American ( enemy ) view. Hanoi Jane vs. CNN sniper video. The Enemy considers this to be the centerpiece of their strategy.
Lack of willingness to properly respond to state protection & supply of the enemy. Soviet Union/China vs. Iranian & China/N.Korea weapons funding w/Russian/Iranian oil price manipulation.
( I don't normally go for conspiracy theories, I even think Oswald acted alone, But when you can track bribe money from the U.N. controlled "oil for food" program directly to policy.... hey, wake up & smell the money. Every time the Prez of Iran rants about destroying Israel, the price of oil goes up )
Lastly...The end game of Congress screwing a nation of hopeful allies for domestic political gain. They deserve to be treated in a brotherly fashion.
Other than that, there is no comparison. To 'Nam. There is comparison to the 1930's isolationist movement, but that's a different discussion. |
Frankfast
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 07:02 am: |
|
There is a comparison to Nam. Both presiding presidents wore ten gallon hats. |
Jackbequick
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 08:40 am: |
|
"Both presiding presidents wore ten gallon hats."
One of the hats had something real under it though. LBJ had a level of political adeptness and cunning that the Dub will never attain.
The Dub is not a Texan anyway, he was born in Hartford, CT. His "good ole boy" act and that silly smirk that passes for a smile are wearing thin.
Jack |
Bomber
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 09:17 am: |
|
Blake -- Jack said what I would have in any event, so I'll not repeat it.
I WILL, however, offer a data point -- Ho wasn't even a socialist when he started out - -he as a Nationalist first, eased into Socialism, and then adopted a form of government that offered him the means to his desired ends. He was, above all, a pragmatist.
Comparing Viet Nam and Korea offers little illumination on the subject. Very different scenarios.
Agree, disagree, you're choice sir. Your opinions are as valid as any -- they are just not fact.
Agree or |
Bomber
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 09:18 am: |
|
Blake -- Jack said what I would have in any event, so I'll not repeat it.
I WILL, however, offer a data point -- Ho wasn't even a socialist when he started out - -he as a Nationalist first, eased into Socialism, and then adopted a form of government that offered him the means to his desired ends. He was, above all, a pragmatist.
Comparing Viet Nam and Korea offers little illumination on the subject. Very different scenarios.
Agree, disagree, you're choice sir. Your opinions are as valid as any -- they are just not fact. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 09:18 am: |
|
Blake -- Jack said what I would have in any event, so I'll not repeat it.
I WILL, however, offer a data point -- Ho wasn't even a socialist when he started out - -he as a Nationalist first, eased into Socialism, and then adopted a form of government that offered him the means to his desired ends. He was, above all, a pragmatist.
Comparing Viet Nam and Korea offers little illumination on the subject. Very different scenarios.
Agree, disagree, your choice sir. Your opinions are as valid as any -- they are just not fact. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 09:26 am: |
|
These comparisons mean nothing. What I haven't heard from anyone is a go forward strategy that makes sense. The extremes of pull out now or stay forever will not cut it, even with Libertarian and right leaning voters like me.
Time for a change in strategy. This one is not going to cut it.
Perhaps the Baker group will shake up the thinking a bit. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 01:57 pm: |
|
I think that the answer is to remove the heads of state of the Axis of Evil.
We, the American people have no argument with the oppressed masses of Iran, N. Korea, etc. It is the dictators that need removal. We removed Saddam in what, in retrospect, was a masterful campaign. Led by 'Rummie' by the way. The aftermath shows that much of the violence & murder is supported by outside forces.
The downside of decapitating the Iranian Mullah's rule would be a temporary increase in the price of gas.
China would object. They too are a dictatorial power, so screw them. I'll have to buy more expensive toys for Christmas made in Taiwan? I'm good with that.
Russia would object. They are selling weapons to Iran. Screw them too. I'm not buying a Lada anytime anyway.
The U.N. would object. So? What good did that EVER do? Ignore them. Everyone else does.
What the mainstream media won't tell you is that we are winning. The plan was to depose a dictator, get a country on it's feet, with their own constitution, ruled by their own people. Done, still in progress, done, done.
Arguing over whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is silly, and the answer is, of course, no. We should have turned the bulk of the middle east into a garden years ago. Then there would not be, NOW, the need to fight evil F^%$s that stone retarded women to death in the public square, after they were raped by a 40+ year old man. She seduced him into it you see, so it's her fault. ( May I add that I am a feminist, and anyone who uses that logic in my presence will know I'm not happy with it. I'll take the jail time. )
As to reasons for this conflict. Here are some quotes from people at a far higher pay grade than I.
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
"Bush Lied, People Died" My Ass.
(Message edited by aesquire on November 14, 2006) |
Lions
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 02:43 pm: |
|
I can't believe how good he can roll a joint! 
Rumsy's Reefer |
Jayvee
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:44 pm: |
|
"What I haven't heard from anyone is a go forward strategy that makes sense."
Here's some ideas, some of them make sense to me:
http://www.harpers.org/TheWayOutOfWar.html |
Rasmonis
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 11:26 am: |
|
Rubbish,
Here' just one idea that seemed ridiculous to me:
"The vast amount of equipment that the American military now has in Iraq, particularly transport and communications and light arms, should be turned over to this new multinational force rather than shipped home or destroyed."
ha ha ha ha ha - eh, no.
"We suggest that phased withdrawal should begin on or before December 31, 2006, with the promise to make every effort to complete it by June 30, 2007."
NFW... |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 07:08 pm: |
|
Then there would not be, NOW, the need to fight evil F^%$s that stone retarded women to death in the public square, after they were raped by a 40+ year old man. She seduced him into it you see, so it's her fault. ( May I add that I am a feminist, and anyone who uses that logic in my presence will know I'm not happy with it. I'll take the jail time. )
The way they treated those people over there kind of makes you wish we had human or civil rights organizations or something that would put these dictators in check. Instead I guess we have to rely on the greedy oil grabbing republicans who just want to steal the oil and convert everyone to christianity...and bring back the slave trade which they started in the first place. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 08:06 pm: |
|
Instead I guess we have to rely on the greedy oil grabbing republicans who just want to steal the oil and convert everyone to christianity...and bring back the slave trade which they started in the first place.
Now there is a way to raise the quality of discourse.
Gee, Thanks! |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 08:15 pm: |
|
Att. Johnny after going through your post and wadeing through the bashing and name calling all I can come away with is you want to send over the ACLU damn I feel safer already. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 09:20 pm: |
|
Cowboy, I would love to see the ACLU go to Iraq. They would need some help though so Id send alec baldwin, rosie o'donnel, the dixie chicks, david mathews, and countless others. I would assign barbera striesand and sean penn to a homeland safety group. Their jobs would be to clear dangerous land mines and dispose of dangerous munitions.
Id appoint cindy sheehan president of a liberal arts college with the name of her choosing. Al gore would head up the ecosystem awareness and manbearpig center.
I would also send jesse jackson and al sharpton since theyve done so much for the black community in the last 30 years they could oversee ACLU directives. If the Iraqi people had their oversight in this latest war our we wouldnt have had all this civil discourse.
ETA: cowboy I dont think I called anyone here names.
(Message edited by johnnymceldoo on November 15, 2006) |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 09:34 pm: |
|
I guess I missunderstood your post the lasst one makes a lot more sinces. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 06:52 pm: |
|
I'm all up for letting the ACLU take over security in the mideast. I support your plan.
(Message edited by aesquire on November 16, 2006) |
|
