Four more years?

[REDDOGTWO]

Sometimes those simple ones will jump out and bite ya.

 

[OkeeDon]

I don't have time to get into an 87 page paper right now, but it's something I'll keep up front -- I have some doubts about the wisdom of the total, uncriticizing support we give to Israel. I support Israel, but I'm not certain they always show the best judgment. I was especially concerned suring the Netanyahu days.

There are a couple of Dems and even one or two GOP folks I could support for the next administration, but it's too soon to name them they still have a couple of years to screw up before I go out on a limb for them. I'm very supportive of a third party effort, but I think you paint too narrow a picture. We have a strict Constitution party now, but they have gone astray by including too much religion in their platform. And, of course, I'm too much of a "progressive" to limit the government too much -- there are many, many areas in which government involvement is the only fair way to resolve an issue.

But, I do think there is room for a centrist party, taking a moderate approach to government. Any government should follow the Constitution, of course. But, the problems in the past several decages have been a result of fanatics in both parties getting too much power. I was a GOP supporter back in the days of Rockefeller Republicans, but the extreme right wing gained too much power starting with Reagan. I was NOT a Democratic supporter in the extreme days of LBJ (I think he may have been the worst President in this century, at least pre-Dubya).

The interesting thing is that the current administration is taking actions that actually increase government involvement in our lives, while making sweet sounds about smaller government. Just the way they are increasing spending, at the same time they make sweet talk about lowering costs and a smaller government. The real irony is that Bill Clinton was actually more centrist, and a stronger advocate of smaller government, than the guys who are in there now. Clinton was part of a movement called the New Democrats, which is a much more moderate wing of the Democratic Party than the older group of lefties starting with Gene McCarthy. The success of the Clinton administration was that they stole so many of the good ideas of the GOP and actually put them into effect, while the GOP only talks a good game.

Most of the left-baiters on this forum are hopelessly out of date, defending a Republican Party that no longer exists, and cutting down Democrats that no longer exist. One of the best examples is trying to paint Hillary as an old-fashioned Liberal. Anyone who has examined her life and followed her causes will understand that she is very much a centrist.

I have a pretty good track record. I opposed LBJ; he chose not to run for a full second term. I was adamantly against Nixon; he resigned in disgrace. I strongly opposed Reagan; he quadrupled the national debt and set this nation on a course to economic ruin until Clinton took over.

I actually voted for Bush Sr. the first time, but accurately predicted that Clinton would beat him. I predicted that Clinton would get a second term. I predicted that if Bush was elected, this country would be in more trouble than anyone thought likely, although I didn't predict this stupid war. I did predict that tax cuts would throw us into record deficits and massive national debt, and that Bush would ruin the Clinton economy for at least 4 years.

Now, I'm predicting at least one Congressional branch will go Democratic this year, if not both of them; that a Democratic congress will start to reverse some of the idioocy we've had from the GOP, and that people will be so pleased as a result that there will be a landslide Democratic victory in 2008, no matter who runs.

Of course, there will be a small minority of people on this forum, who just don't get it and are living in the past, who will pooh-pooh me. For the most part, they're the same ones who are still more worried about Clinton's sex life than they are the state of the nation.

 

[bczoom]

Of course, there will be a small minority of people on this forum, who just don't get it and are living in the past, who will pooh-pooh me.

Hey, I resemble that statement.

I strongly opposed Reagan; he quadrupled the national debt and set this nation on a course to economic ruin until Clinton took over.

I can't agree with Reagan causing economic ruin though. Not to change the subject but has anyone done the math comparing whatever national debt he may have generated and compared that to the cost of what we would still be paying if the cold war was still going on?

One of the best examples is trying to paint Hillary as an old-fashioned Liberal. Anyone who has examined her life and followed her causes will understand that she is very much a centrist.

I never called her "old-fashioned"... Hillary is a centrist? You're a funny man Don.

 

[jdwilson44]

The things that bother me most about the support the US gives Israel is that I believe in many cases our goverment is manipulated - or should I say lobbied - to do things for the benefit of Israel that do not benefit this country and in fact harm it. Earlier in this thread I believe somebody mentioned Paul Wolfowicz - he is one person I think should be run out of our govt - since he thinks the Iraq war is such a grand idea maybe they ought to give him the privilege of going thru Marine boot camp and then drop his ass into Fallujah with a Marine rifle company and see what a great idea he thinks it is then. Wolfowicz actually "consulted" and wrote policy papers for the Israeli goverment - I don't know about everybody else but that sounds like a conflict of interest to me. After all the reading I have done on this subject I frankly do not believe that many high level goverment officials are really looking out for the US - they have dual loyalties at best and are actually aiding a foreign country to the detriment of this country at the worst. To anybody who might respond that people can have dual loyalties like this and serve both equally I say bulls&%t.
Since I live in MA. I read the Boston Globe every day. There was a story this morning about a man who has dual citizenship, US and Israeli - who lives in local town (Newton) and is running over in Israel as a candidate for their Knesset. How does somebody who lives an ocean away expect to run as a representative in a country that he doesn't even currently live in and really serve those people - this to me is an indicator of the type of attitude these people have - one country is as good as another. What happens when you screw up in one country - move to the other one. What the hell. It's sort of like polygamy - you might have 7 wives and be with a different one every night - but are you going to really be dedicated to any one of them the way you would be if you had just one?

A similar dynamic is why I think there really needs to be a viable third party in this country. Having just two parties does not adequately represent the true range of opinions people have in this country.
The Democrats and the Republicans have become just two sides of the same coin. Adding a viable third party into the mix and increasing the headcount in the House of Representatives would go a long ways towards making this country and an actual representative democracy again. Occasionally you hear people say the goverment should work more efficiently - well the founders of this country actually designed the balance of powers so that the goverment would NOT work "efficiently". "Efficient" goverments are very well suited for things like dictatorships - not democracies.

 

[OkeeDon]

...Hillary is a centrist? You're a funny man Don.

That may be. But not in this case. Before Bill became President, her interests were completely in the area of children. She chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, Legal Services, and the Children's Defense Fund. Of those, the most important indicator of her philosophy was the Educational Standards Committee. She pushed for standards among the teachers and teacher's competency tests, and got them. The teacher's unions were absolutely against her, but she didn't care -- she did what was right. Arkansas education improved dramatically as a result.

In case you don't realize it, advocating teacher's competency tests is generally considered to be a right-wing position. She took a lot of flak for it in Arkansas, but she stood her guns.

When she reached the White House with Bill, he asked her to head up the task force for health care reform. If you care to check out what she and her task force were proposing, it looked very much like today's Medicare Advantage plans, which were created by the current administration. Back then, however, it looked like the Clinton's might actually take on yet another of the issues the GOP talks about but can't get accomplished, and actually do something with it. Since the typical GOP response is to bash and beat down anything coming from the other side, even if it hurts the national interest to bash it, what happened was that Bob Dole and Trent Lott spread a lot of lies about the program. Along with the insurance industry, which stood to lose if the plan was put into effect, they lied and used scare tactics about the program and managed to kill it.

After that, Hillary pretty much kept her head down politically. She really didn't start to emerge until the end of Bill's administration. So, up until she became a Senator, there was either a conservative bias to her philosophy, or she had no stated position. It's pretty tough to pin the "Liberal" lable on her at any time before 2000.

As a Senator, she has consistently taken centrist, or even right-wing, positions on issues. What Fox News and the other right-wing media mouthpieces do then, is to brand her a "Liberal" (even though there is plenty of evidence otherwise), and accuse her of "moving to the right as a opportunist". The actual fact is that she's not moving anywhere; she's taking consistent positions all along.

Go to her official Senate website and review her positions on major issues, If you can find something that justifies your belief that she's a bleeding heart liberal, bring it back here. I'm open to new information, even if others are not.

 

[jdwilson44]

I don't have time to get into an 87 page paper right now, but it's something I'll keep up front -- I have some doubts about the wisdom of the total, uncriticizing support we give to Israel. I support Israel, but I'm not certain they always show the best judgment. I was especially concerned suring the Netanyahu days.

Actually the first 8 or so pages sum up the case pretty well. The facts they present go along with much of what I have read previously but it is presented as a scholarly paper so they must back up their assumptions - plus it is the Kennedy School of Goverment - which I believe is typically pretty liberal, so it potentially carries a lot more weight than when some "conservative extremist" makes the same claim.

 

[Junkman]

Don......... for the life of me, I can't understand why you keep changing the fonts in your posts. It is hard enough for me to read the forums with my poor eyesight, but when you keep changing font size for no earthly reason, it makes me angry. I know that I can change it back, but I try my best not to mess with others posts. Is it that you are trying to be contrary just because you can, or is it for some other reason that I am missing?????? Your post #95 is an example of what I am referring to....... Junk......

 

[OkeeDon]

First of all, it reads fine in my Browser, it's all the same font.

It wasn't the same font when I cut and pasted it. When I'm researching and constructing a major post on an issue, I often assemble my thoughts in another editor and then cut and paste into FF. I'll write a sentence or two, or a paragraph or two as a lead-in, then paste from the other editor. I can never remember what font is set here, and it's often different in the other editor. When I see it paste differently, I change the font in the FF editor so it's all Verdana, and it shows that way on my computer. I have no idea why yours still shows the old font before I edited it.

In the future, I'll write the entire message in the other editor, then paste it as one. That should cure the problem.

 

[California]

Don, I see the same thing in your post, large text then small.

This has happened to me before, except that time I was apparently the only one seeing it that way!

There is a 'strip all formatting' icon in the upper left of the posting screen. (Double A with red X over it). I often use it over my entire post to clean up quotes.

 

[Ricochet]

Wow, this thread is truly amazing especially OkeeDon’s musings! I bet you already have a Hillary in 2008 bumper sticker on your car. :rollingla

Any ways, here is an excellent writing (long but well worth it) by a very intellingent man i.e. Victor Davis Hanson a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]March 24, 2006[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hard Pounding

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
Who will keep his nerve?
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

[/FONT]

If I could sum up the new orthodoxy about Iraq, it might run something like the following: “I supported the overthrow of the odious Saddam Hussein. But then the poor postwar planning, the unanticipated sectarian strife and insurrection, the mounting American losses, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction — all that and more lost my support. Iraq may or may not work out, but I can see now it clearly wasn’t worth the American effort.”

Aside from the old rehash over disbanding the Iraqi army or tardiness in forming a government, three observations can be made about this “readjustment” in belief. First, the nature of the lapses after March 2003 is still the subject of legitimate debate; second, our mistakes are no more severe than in most prior wars; and third, they are not fatal to our cause.
Consider the most frequently alleged errors: the need for more troops; the need to have restored immediate order; and the need to have had up-armored vehicles and some tactical counterplan to improvised explosive devices.

In none of these cases, was the manner of the solution all that clear-cut — especially since on the first day of the war the United States was trying to avoid targeting civilians, avoiding infrastructure as much as possible, and waging a supposed war of liberation rather than one of punitive annihilation.

Had we brought in another 200,000 troops to secure Iraq, the vast increases in the size and cost of American support might not have been commensurate within an increased ability to put down the insurrection, which from the beginning was decentralized and deliberately designed to play off larger concentrations of conventional patrolling Americans — the more targets the better.

The insurrection broke out not so much because we had 200,000 rather than 400,000 troops in country; but rather because a three-week strike that decapitated the Baathist elite, despite its showy “shock and awe” pyrotechnics, was never intended, World War II-like, to crush the enemy and force terms on a shell-shocked, defeated, and humiliated populace. Many of our challenges, then, are not the war in Iraq per se, but the entire paradox of postmodern war in general in a globally televised world.

And if the point of Iraq was to stress “Iraqification” and avoid too large an American footprint in the Middle East, then ubiquitous Americans may have posed as many problems as they solved — with two or three Green zones rather than one. Instead of drawing down to 100,000 we might now be talking of hoping to keep below 300,000 troops.

Past history suggests that military efficacy is not so much always a question of the number of troops — but rather of how they are used. Especially large American deployments can foster dependency rather than autonomy on the part of the Iraqi security forces. Each month, fewer Americans are dying in Iraq, while more Iraqis are fighting the terrorists — as it becomes clear to them that some enormous occupation force is not on its own going to save the Iraqis’ democracy for them.

The looting should have been stopped. But by the same token, after the statue fell, had the U.S. military begun immediately to shoot looters on sight — and that was what restoring order would have required — or carpet bombed the Syrian and Iranian borders to stop infiltration, the outcry would have arisen that we were too punitive and gunning down poor and hungry people even in peace. I fear that 400,000 peacekeepers, given the rules of postbellum engagement, would have been no more likely to shoot thieves than would 200,000.

We forget that one of the reasons for the speed of the American advance and then the sudden rush to stop military operations — as was true in the first Gulf War — was the enormous criticism leveled at the Americans for going to war in the first place, and the constant litany cited almost immediately of American abuses involving excessive force. Shooting looters may have restored order, but it also would have now been enshrined as an Abu-Ghraib-like crime — a photo of a poor “hungry” thief broadcast globally as an unarmed victim of American barbarism. We can imagine more “Highway of Death” outrage had we bombed concentrations of Shiites pouring in from Iran or jihadists from Syria going to “weddings” and “festivals” in Iraq.

Throughout this postmodern war, the military has been on the horns of a dilemma: Don’t shoot and you are indicted for being lax and allowing lawlessness to spread; shoot and you are gratuitously slandered as a sort of rogue LAPD in camouflage. We hear only of the deliberately inexact rubric “Iraqi civilian losses” — without any explanation that almost all the Iraqi dead are either (1) victims of the terrorists, (2) Iraqi security forces trying to defend the innocent against the terrorists, or (3) the terrorists themselves.

Legitimate questions arise as to whether America’ army is too small, or whether requisite political support for military operations is too predicated on the 24-hour news cycle. But all those are issues transcending the war in Iraq. In retrospect, up-armoring humvees would have been wise from the very outset — so would having something remotely comparable to a Panzerfaust in 1943, more live than dud torpedoes in 1942, or deploying a jet at the beginning of the Korean War that could compete with a Russian Mig 15.

So again, the proper question is not whether there were tragic errors of judgment in Iraq — but to what degree were they qualitatively different from past errors that are the stuff of war, to what degree were they addressed and corrected, and to what degree did their commission impair the final verdict of the mission?

Instead of this necessary ongoing discussion, we are left with former hawks that clamor ad nauseam for the secretary of Defense’s resignation as a sort of symbolic atonement for their own apparently collective lament that the postwar did not turn out like the aftermaths of Panama, Kosovo, Afghanistan, or Gulf War I. All that angst is about as helpful as perpetually damning Turkey for not letting the 4th ID come down from the north into the Sunni Triangle at the beginning of the war.

It is often said we had no plan to deal with postwar Iraq. Perhaps. But the problem with such a simplistic exegesis is that books and articles now pour forth weekly from disgruntled former constitutional architects and frustrated legal experts who once rushed in to draft Iraqi laws, or angry educationists and bankers whose ideas about school charters or currency regulations were not fully implemented. Somebody apparently had some sort of plan — or the legions that went into the Green Zone in Spring 2003 wouldn’t have been sent there immediately in the first place.

Yes, we had zillions of plans alright — but whether they were sufficient to survive the constant and radically changing cycles of war is another matter, especially in a long-failed state plagued with fundamentalism, tribalism, chaos, insurrection, and Sunni, Shiite, and Baathist militias whose leadership had been routed rather than its military crushed. The best postwar plans do not work as they should when losing enemies feel that they won’t be flattened and a successful attacker feels it can’t really flatten them.

In March 2004 perhaps our initial manner of enacting the “plan” — train the Iraqi security forces, craft a consensual government, and put down the terrorists — was thwarted by our inexperience and naiveté. But by March 2006, the identical plan seems to be working far better — precisely because, as in all wars, we have adapted, modified, and nuanced our way of fighting and nation-building, as American fatalities decrease and Iraqis step up to fight for their freedom.

Nothing in this war is much different from those of the past. We have fought suicide bombers in the Pacific. Intelligence failures doomed tens of thousands — not 2,300 — at the Bulge and Okinawa. We pacified the Philippines through counterinsurgency fighting. Failure to calibrate the extent of Al Zarqawi’s insurrection pales before the Chinese crossing of the Yalu.

Even our current clinical depression is typically American. In July 1864, Lincoln was hated and McClellan and the Copperheads who wished a cessation of war and bisection of country canonized. Truman left office with the nation’s anger that he had failed in Korea. As George Bush Sr. departed, the conventional wisdom was that the budding chaos and redrawing of the map of Eastern Europe would prompt decades of instability as former Communists could not simply be spoon fed democracy and capitalism. During Afghanistan by week five we were in a quagmire; the dust storm supposedly threatened our success in Iraq — in the manner that the explosion of the dome at Samarra marked the beginning of a hopeless civil war that “lost” Iraq.

The fact is that we are close to seeing a democratically elected government emerge, backed by an increasingly competent army, pitted against a minority of a minority in Zaraqawi’s Wahhabi jihadists.

While we worry about our own losses, both human and financial, al Qaeda knows that thousands of its terrorists are dead, with its leadership dismantled or in hiding — and most of the globe turning against it. For all our depression at home, we can still win two wars — the removal of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of jihadists that followed him — and leave a legitimate government that is the antithesis of both autocracy and theocracy.

Syria is out of Lebanon — but only as long as democracy is in Iraq. Libya and Pakistan have come clean about nuclear trafficking — but only as long as the U.S. is serious about reform in the Middle East.

And the Palestinians are squabbling among themselves, as democracy is proving not so easy to distort after all — a sort of Western Trojan Horse that they are not so sure they should have brought inside their walls. When has Hamas ever acted as if it has a "sort of" charter to "sort of" destroy Israel? We worry that Iran is undermining Iraq. The mullahs are terrified that the democracy across the border may undermine them — as if voting and freedom could trump their beheadings and stonings.

Ever since 9/11 we have been in a long, multifaceted, and much-misunderstood war against jihadists and their autocratic enablers from Manhattan to Kabul, from Baghdad to the Hindu Kush, from London and Madrid to Bali and the Philippines. For now, Iraq has become the nexus of that struggle, in the heart of the ancient caliphate, rather than the front once again in Washington and New York. Whose vision of the future wins depends on who keeps his nerve — or to paraphrase the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo, “Hard pounding, gentlemen; but we will see who can pound the longest.”

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson032406.html
[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[Dargo]

I wonder if I can post links to my local newspaper's forum? The reason why is that our paper is blatently very left leaning blatently makes biased articles supporting the Democrat candidates. They do not even attempt to hide that fact or refute it. Anyway, there have been numerous posts by our local Democrat leadership asserting that it is a "vast right wing conspiracy" to have Hillary on the Democrat presidency ticket. Actually they may have something here, not that the Republicans are behind it, but that Hillary on the ticket will be about the only thing to keep the Democrats out of the oval office in the next presidential election.

They don't know how to take me there. Just when they think they have me painted as an "enemy" Republican, I strongly agree with one of their issues. So, Don, what do you think about local Democrat parties absolutely fretting the possibility of Hillary being on the presidential ticket? Even the local leadership at a few other Democrat headquarters fear the same thing. They feel that they have a sure thing as long as they can dump Hillary. They look at her as total poison. They don't think the American people in general will be as stupid as the people of NY. Afterall, NY was carefully selected by Hillary after millions of dollars and years of research went into which state she could possibly win. Even the Democrat party looks at NY as the shoe in / stupid, do what you're told, state.

 

[Ricochet]

I wonder if I can post links to my local newspaper's forum? The reason why is that our paper is blatently very left leaning blatently makes biased articles supporting the Democrat candidates. They do not even attempt to hide that fact or refute it. Anyway, there have been numerous posts by our local Democrat leadership asserting that it is a "vast right wing conspiracy" to have Hillary on the Democrat presidency ticket. Actually they may have something here, not that the Republicans are behind it, but that Hillary on the ticket will be about the only thing to keep the Democrats out of the oval office in the next presidential election.

They don't know how to take me there. Just when they think they have me painted as an "enemy" Republican, I strongly agree with one of their issues. So, Don, what do you think about local Democrat parties absolutely fretting the possibility of Hillary being on the presidential ticket? Even the local leadership at a few other Democrat headquarters fear the same thing. They feel that they have a sure thing as long as they can dump Hillary. They look at her as total poison. They don't think the American people in general will be as stupid as the people of NY. Afterall, NY was carefully selected by Hillary after millions of dollars and years of research went into which state she could possibly win. Even the Democrat party looks at NY as the shoe in / stupid, do what you're told, state.

That actually does make some sense with the whole Hillary in 2008 being something the VRWC planted. So, what other option do the Dems have in '08? Al Gore again? Hillary or Gore...Yikes!

 

[jdwilson44]

It's nice that some people don't just give in to adversity and change their beliefs but I would argue - as I have argued since I first heard rumblings that the US was going to invade Iraq - that we should not be there in the first place.

A good familiarity with history will show you that most military adventures of the type that the US is waging in Iraq right now turn out badly in some form or fashion in the end. For all the successes we have had in Afghanistan we still can't stop them from wanting to put a man to death because he converted from Islam to Christianity.

An insurgency in Iraq! Oh my god how unexpected! Look at pretty much every single war fought thru recorded history where one nation invaded another thru no provocation - there has ALWAYS been an insurgency of some form or another. You do not win the hearts and minds of people by invading their country and then staying for an extended period of time. I have read many accounts of Iraqis who were very grateful to have the US come in and get rid of Saddam Hussein - but those same people also think we should have been gone quite some time ago. Ungrateful for the help ? Maybe - but so are the French and we lost a lot more men liberating them from the Nazis than we have lost in Iraq - again a historical lesson gone unheeded.

For me in the end it boils down to this - is Iraq making us safer or not - and are we standing up for the principles that the founding fathers laid down for this country. The first point is arguable I will admit - I myself will argue that given the money, time and good will Iraq has lost for the US there had to be a better way to achieve our goals than invasion. The fact that no other road was taken is a testament to lack of political leadership and lack of imagination of our leaders. I am trying to be nice here - if I was a diehard leftist I would attribute this to more sinister motives. And for the record I do believe there are other motives at play here - there was not just one reason we went into Iraq.

As far as adhering to the principles that the founding fathers laid out for this country I don't think there is any debate - the invasion of Iraq is most definitely not the type of thing they would have condoned. If I have to I can dig out all of quotes about staying out of foreign wars, staying out of foreign entanglements, etc.

The sad truth of the matter is that we are stuck in Iraq now until it either gets better or until it becomes such a shithouse mess that we have National Guard troops gunning down college student protesters like we did in the 60's. If we go down that spiral I don't think the outcome will be pretty for anybody and it certainly won't increase our national security.

I am hoping for a good outcome - the realist in me won't be surprised when we don't get it.

 

[beds]

For all the successes we have had in Afghanistan we still can't stop them from wanting to put a man to death because he converted from Islam to Christianity.

What successes in Afghanistan? The ousting of the Taliban regime and anihilation of Bin Laden, or the re-taking of a small city and the propping up of a puppet government while the rest of the country remains a war zone?

 

[Dargo]

An insurgency in Iraq! Oh my god how unexpected! Look at pretty much every single war fought thru recorded history where one nation invaded another thru no provocation - there has ALWAYS been an insurgency of some form or another.

I agree, but there is a difference. For example, if a foreign country overtook our forces and invaded our country, I'm certain that there would be an 'insurgency' for quite a long while. That is one nice things about there being millions of firearms in the hands of our civilians. However, I would never expect an 'insurgency' here, or in any civilized country, that would have no compunction about killing vast amounts of innocent civilians from their own country. In many cases in Iraq, they actually target their own civilians. There is no such thing as collateral damage to them. Any human is a target. They target women and children. They target schools. They are no insurgency; they are nothing more than terrorists doing what terrorists do! They are worms, criminals, maggots, scum of the earth. They have no values other than self satisfaction through the murder and terror of others. They are not men. They are dogs. No, they are far worse than dogs! I hate to say it, but they are scabs on the face of mankind. Their kind needs to be removed from the human race. There is no doubt that they are totally unable to grasp even the most basic concepts of any logic, care, compassion, or tolerance. They are the result of thousands of years of inbreeding with no rule or order. Aaugh! I could go on and on! My point is, they are no 'insurgency'. That is far too kind of a word to describe the murderous terrorists in Iraq who only live to kill other human beings.


I know it's off the topic, but does anyone else see these maggots the same way I do?

 

[Ricochet]

What successes in Afghanistan? The ousting of the Taliban regime and anihilation of Bin Laden, or the re-taking of a small city and the propping up of a puppet government while the rest of the country remains a war zone?

So, Afghanistan is a war zone! Where have you been getting your news? Al Jazeera I bet, since you great Canadians prefer it over FoxNews.

 

[OkeeDon]

Wow, this thread is truly amazing especially OkeeDon’s musings! I bet you already have a Hillary in 2008 bumper sticker on your car.

So, Don, what do you think about local Democrat parties absolutely fretting the possibility of Hillary being on the presidential ticket?

There you giuys go again, putting words in my mouth. There is a vast difference between correcting your obvious biases and actual support on my own part.

In case you don't get that, let me spell it out for you. It's OK to criticize Hillary or anyone else, as long as you stick pretty close to facts. I may criticize her, myself, when I see her doing something I don't like.

But, when you start changing the facts in order to fit some picture of her that you've conjured up in your minds, or when you start believing the lies that are told about her by the vast right wing conspiracy, then I have to correct you. Hillary was raised by Republican parents. She is a devout, life-long Methodist. She has always had moderate views. I gave specific evidence about her political activities before she was a Senator, and you guys simply ignored it because it doesn't fit your distorted views.

It's not me that's delusional. I know how to research, I know how to read, and I know a lie when I see it. The right wing is trying to paint her as a liberal, because if people actually knew her true beliefs, they might find her more palatable that some of the icons. The hardest thing for them is when she supports the same things they claim she supports -- the only way they can discredit her is to paint her past as liberal, and claim that she's only trying to move to the center temporarily.

I'm truly sorry you guys believe that claptrap, and I feel sympathy for you that you can't think for yourself.

Now, as to whether that all means that I support her for President? I don't know, yet. It remains to be seen whether she'll run, and who will run against her. There are some other Democrats, and possibly even a Republican or two, that I would consider supporting before her. Even if I thought she's make an excellent President, I think she's too polarizing. There are too many unthinking sheep who believe the lies about her and would not support her.

A lot depends on the results of the 2006 elections. If the Republicans continue to control both wings of Congress I will definitely be voting for a Democrat -- any Democrat -- for President. If the Democrats win one wing of Congress, then I'll vote for whoever I believe to be the best candidate for President. If theDemocrats win both wings of Congress, I just might vote for a Republican for President, if the Republicans are smart enough to nominate a moderate. The reasons should be obvious.

 

[OkeeDon]

So, Afghanistan is a war zone! Where have you been getting your news? Al Jazeera I bet, since you great Canadians prefer it over FoxNews.

That is one of the most uncalled-for remarks I have ever seen on any forum. I have reported it to the moderators, and I hope they ask you to edit it.

 

[Ricochet]

I agree, but there is a difference. For example, if a foreign country overtook our forces and invaded our country, I'm certain that there would be an 'insurgency' for quite a long while. That is one nice things about there being millions of firearms in the hands of our civilians. However, I would never expect an 'insurgency' here, or in any civilized country, that would have no compunction about killing vast amounts of innocent civilians from their own country. In many cases in Iraq, they actually target their own civilians. There is no such thing as collateral damage to them. Any human is a target. They target women and children. They target schools. They are no insurgency; they are nothing more than terrorists doing what terrorists do! They are worms, criminals, maggots, scum of the earth. They have no values other than self satisfaction through the murder and terror of others. They are not men. They are dogs. No, they are far worse than dogs! I hate to say it, but they are scabs on the face of mankind. Their kind needs to be removed from the human race. There is no doubt that they are totally unable to grasp even the most basic concepts of any logic, care, compassion, or tolerance. They are the result of thousands of years of inbreeding with no rule or order. Aaugh! I could go on and on! My point is, they are no 'insurgency'. That is far too kind of a word to describe the murderous terrorists in Iraq who only live to kill other human beings.


I know it's off the topic, but does anyone else see these maggots the same way I do?

I agree, these "insurgents" are killing fellow Muslims i.e. the Iraqi people. These terrorist bastards don't care and need to be exterminated accordingly!

BTW jdwilson44, what would be the point in leaving Iraq when they are not ready to secure their own country militarily? We are better off making sure they can handle their own messes before pulling out, because leaving prematurely could require us going back in to mop up an even worse mess. Also, no other road was taken to address Saddam/Iraq prior to 2003? I guess you forgot about the 17 UN resolutions over approx. 8 years, which Saddam totally ignored. You can’t say scumbag Saddam was not warned or dealt with diplomatically many times over…even the “great” Democrats warned him and acknowledged he was a threat. However, selective amnesia is common with the Democratic Party when is pertains to Iraq (past & present).

 

[Ricochet]

There you giuys go again, putting words in my mouth. There is a vast difference between correcting your obvious biases and actual support on my own part.

In case you don't get that, let me spell it out for you. It's OK to criticize Hillary or anyone else, as long as you stick pretty close to facts. I may criticize her, myself, when I see her doing something I don't like.

But, when you start changing the facts in order to fit some picture of her that you've conjured up in your minds, or when you start believing the lies that are told about her by the vast right wing conspiracy, then I have to correct you. Hillary was raised by Republican parents. She is a devout, life-long Methodist. She has always had moderate views. I gave specific evidence about her political activities before she was a Senator, and you guys simply ignored it because it doesn't fit your distorted views.

It's not me that's delusional. I know how to research, I know how to read, and I know a lie when I see it. The right wing is trying to paint her as a liberal, because if people actually knew her true beliefs, they might find her more palatable that some of the icons. The hardest thing for them is when she supports the same things they claim she supports -- the only way they can discredit her is to paint her past as liberal, and claim that she's only trying to move to the center temporarily.

I'm truly sorry you guys believe that claptrap, and I feel sympathy for you that you can't think for yourself.

Now, as to whether that all means that I support her for President? I don't know, yet. It remains to be seen whether she'll run, and who will run against her. There are some other Democrats, and possibly even a Republican or two, that I would consider supporting before her. Even if I thought she's make an excellent President, I think she's too polarizing. There are too many unthinking sheep who believe the lies about her and would not support her.

A lot depends on the results of the 2006 elections. If the Republicans continue to control both wings of Congress I will definitely be voting for a Democrat -- any Democrat -- for President. If the Democrats win one wing of Congress, then I'll vote for whoever I believe to be the best candidate for President. If theDemocrats win both wings of Congress, I just might vote for a Republican for President, if the Republicans are smart enough to nominate a moderate. The reasons should be obvious.

Well, it certainly sounds like you are a fan of Hillary. I don't believe everything I read from the right side and I said that VRWC thing about Hillary made some season. Any thing is possible in politics. Your notion that the GOP should nominate a moderate holds true for the Dems as well and I don't think Hillary is that person regardless of what family history you find about her.

Lastly, I would vote for the Dems if they had Zell Miller running for President but he is about the only one.

 

[Ricochet]

That is one of the most uncalled-for remarks I have ever seen on any forum. I have reported it to the moderators, and I hope they ask you to edit it.

Huh? Check your facts Don...the CRTC approved al-Jazeera for broadcasting in Canada before FoxNews, which had it's first application rejected for a lame/unverified reason.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/18/fox_crtc041118.html

 

[OkeeDon]

Lastly, I would vote for the Dems if they had Zell Miller running for President but he is about the only one.

Southern Democrats have never been true Democrats. As long as the party of Lincoln was the moderate party, Southerners were Democrats. As the Republicans became more conservative and supported racial inequality, most of the Southern Democrats jumped ship and became Republicans. That's how Strom Thurmond and many others became Republicans. A few of them did not. Zell Miller is one of those. He's about as much of a Democrat as Jim Jeffords was a Republican.

 

[Dargo]

There you giuys go again, putting words in my mouth. There is a vast difference between correcting your obvious biases and actual support on my own part.

Hey, yo, wait just one minute here Mr. Individual Thinker. What words did I put in your mouth? I asked your opinion on the view of my local Democrat party headquarters. I put no words in your mouth. My statement about Hillary was that she carefully researched in what state she would have the best chance to win a senate seat. I stated that her choice of NY was by no way an accident. Certainly you do not want to disagree with those facts, do you?

And, the opinion that the only way the Republicans would win the presidency in '08 would be by the Democrats putting Hillary on the ticket is an opinion espoused by my local Democrat party, not me. I just happen to think that it is rather intriguing and, most likely, accurate. Honestly, I hope that not all of the Democrat districts come to the same conclusion.

 

[OkeeDon]

Huh? Check your facts Don...the CRTC approved al-Jazeera for broadcasting in Canada before FoxNews, which had it's first application rejected for a lame/unverified reason.

And, from this report, your superior acumen deduced that the "great" Canadians prefer al-Jazeera? What arrogance.

 

[Dargo]

That's how Strom Thurmond and many others became Republicans.

Hey!! That's about as unfair as drawing the Ted Kennedy or Jesse Jackson name for examples of Democrats!


P.S. I love it when Don is online and ready to duel. Where did I put that whip... There it is!

 

[jdwilson44]

I agree, but there is a difference. For example, if a foreign country overtook our forces and invaded our country, I'm certain that there would be an 'insurgency' for quite a long while. That is one nice things about there being millions of firearms in the hands of our civilians. However, I would never expect an 'insurgency' here, or in any civilized country, that would have no compunction about killing vast amounts of innocent civilians from their own country. In many cases in Iraq, they actually target their own civilians. There is no such thing as collateral damage to them. Any human is a target. They target women and children. They target schools. They are no insurgency; they are nothing more than terrorists doing what terrorists do! They are worms, criminals, maggots, scum of the earth. They have no values other than self satisfaction through the murder and terror of others. They are not men. They are dogs. No, they are far worse than dogs! I hate to say it, but they are scabs on the face of mankind. Their kind needs to be removed from the human race. There is no doubt that they are totally unable to grasp even the most basic concepts of any logic, care, compassion, or tolerance. They are the result of thousands of years of inbreeding with no rule or order. Aaugh! I could go on and on! My point is, they are no 'insurgency'. That is far too kind of a word to describe the murderous terrorists in Iraq who only live to kill other human beings.


I know it's off the topic, but does anyone else see these maggots the same way I do?

Again - a quick reading of a few popular history books could have told anybody with a brain that this type of stuff was likely to happen. Shiite and Sunni's have a long history of lopping off each other's heads - Saddam kept the lid on by killing anybody who got out of line. Dictators have a way of doing that. As I have said in this forum before - why is this our problem? We didn't go charging in when Iraq and Iran were killing each other by the millions - we didn't go charging into Rwanda when they were killing each other by the 100's of thousands - we don't go charging into Sudan - Uganda during the 70's , etc. etc. etc. etc.

So what if they are worms, criminals, maggots, etc. The US will go broke trying to be the world's policeman. People who are intent on destroying each other will find a way to do it whether we are there or not. If they really want to kill each other then US soldiers are just another target in the way of the ultimate goal - whatever that is.

You say remove them from the human race - I would agree with that if I thought that it was possible - problem is the more I read about Islam the less I believe that US intervention will ever have any effect. I keep reading arguments about how the terrorists do not represent Islam - Islam is a religion of peace - blah blah blah. Problem is - the more I read and the more I research the more I believe it really is the terrorists who are acting in the true spirit of Islam - the people who claim that Islam is peaceful don't understand their own religion.

 

[jdwilson44]

I agree, these "insurgents" are killing fellow Muslims i.e. the Iraqi people. These terrorist bastards don't care and need to be exterminated accordingly!

BTW jdwilson44, what would be the point in leaving Iraq when they are not ready to secure their own country militarily? We are better off making sure they can handle their own messes before pulling out, because leaving prematurely could require us going back in to mop up an even worse mess. Also, no other road was taken to address Saddam/Iraq prior to 2003? I guess you forgot about the 17 UN resolutions over approx. 8 years, which Saddam totally ignored. You can’t say scumbag Saddam was not warned or dealt with diplomatically many times over…even the “great” Democrats warned him and acknowledged he was a threat. However, selective amnesia is common with the Democratic Party when is pertains to Iraq (past & present).

I don't think I ever made the comment that we should just up and leave Iraq. My personal opinion is that we stuck there under the " You break it you bought it" principle. We made the mess now we have to at least make an effort at cleaning it up. The problem with that is - what happens if they never can clean up their own mess? Was South Vietname ever able to reach the point where they could defend themselves against the North independent of massive US aid? Would Israel be able to defend themselves without the massive US aid we send them ( on the order of $500 per Israeli citizen per year - as I have stated here before and the recent Kennedy School of Govt report also states). Or how about Europe - US military provided the real backbone of NATO for years. That is why we are still stuck there. How about Japan - again another country not able to defend itself militarily without the involvement of the US.

How many countries around the world are we going to turn into whining welfare mothers sucking off the teat of the US taxpayer?

I haven't forgotten any of the US resolutions - the point once again is that the US seemed to be the only who really cared about the resolutions. The UN did not care. The French did not care. The Russians did not care. The rest of the Arab states did not care.

I say this partly with tongue in cheek - but we should have just kept supporting Saddam and told everybody else to go screw themselves - he would have kept Iran in check - if Bin Laden and Wahabbi Islam got out of line we could have given him the go ahead to invade Saudi Arabia. If anybody in the area got out of line we could have just sicked Saddam on them.

Again I will bring up the founding fathers - they warned the country explicity about getting involved with the affairs of foreign countries. We keep doing it and now we are stuck doing it. Have you ever been involved in a bad situation at work or with your family? - one of those he said - she said type of things? Ever made the mistake of trying to stick up for one of the parties involved even when you knew the situation was really screwed up? Ever gotten badly burned in the end? After the whole thing was over did you think to yourself - the next time I will just keep my mouth shut and stay out of it - there was nothing there that really involved me?

We are in one of those situations in a worldwide scale. Unfortunately we are sucked into the middle of this big pile of shit and there is not easy way out now. My only hope is that by some miracle we get a new generation of political leaders who somehow reverse this mess and get the US back on the right track - the danger is that this thing keeps getting worse and worse to the point where the US begins to really suffer. Don't forget - we have lost most of our industrial manufacturing capacity, we have a huge deficit, massive illegal immigration, etc. etc. Things aren't all coming up roses for the US at the moment - last thing we need is for the Iraq thing to get even worse - and it could.

 

[OkeeDon]

My only hope is that by some miracle we get a new generation of political leaders who somehow reverse this mess and get the US back on the right track

Realistically, what do you see as the best source for this miracle to happen? Do we have any such politicians in position to win over the electorate?

 

[beds]

So, Afghanistan is a war zone! Where have you been getting your news? Al Jazeera I bet, since you great Canadians prefer it over FoxNews.

wtf? Do you know who is leading the NATO forces in Afghanistan? Do you know how many Canadian troops are in Afghanistan right now, or how many have died there this year? Typical American. Unlike most here, but doing your best to earn your global reputation.

 

[Ricochet]

And, from this report, your superior acumen deduced that the "great" Canadians prefer al-Jazeera? What arrogance.

Arrogance huh? So, your superior acumen attitude knows what Canadians prefer? Sounds like you need to look in the mirror when it comes being arrogant. I have been to the liberal land up north several times in the past couple of years, talked with Canadians and debated many of them online about this very subject and the CBC link I provided shows they make a point of labeling FoxNews as conservative (which is debatable in itself). Let's see what Mr. Canada says and I'm willing to bet if you took a poll in Canada on which news source they prefer/trust al-Jazeera or FoxNews...al-Jazeera would have a much higher percentage of votes than you think, if not the majority of votes and it currently isn't even being broadcast there.



BTW, I'm still waiting for all the Hollywood half-wits/pundits & liberals to move north like they said they would after Bush won again. What's 10,000 liberals moving north to Canada? A good start!