If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Iraq elections "a resounding success." You submitted this with a red-and-blue state headline   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 1432
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

15272 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2005 at 3:45 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1432 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-31 10:14:19 AM
Mike_71: They act like, and want the world to believe, that Iraq was George Bush's conquest, when its a solution to a societal cancer called "Militant Islamofascism".

In that previous threat the other day, you comfortably forgot to answer the question, what exactly did invading a secular dictatorship surrounded by several theocracies with proved connections and backing for terrorism have to do with the war against "militant islamofascists"? I mean, right next door there are two countries whose citizens were actually in the 9/11 planes? Not much international or national biatching about Afganistan, was there? Have you already figured out the difference between the two wars?

/I'm having a poke-a-troll -day
 
2005-01-31 10:16:05 AM
Mr_Fabulous:

You're simply filled with blind hatred that's fuelled by jealousy, and your own sense of insidious self-worthlessness.

Project much?


;-)
 
2005-01-31 10:17:55 AM
blah blah blah....terrorism, blah blah blah be afraid.

I call bullshiat!

You take 20% of the military resources we've deployed to Iraq and put them in charge of guarding our borders. You put one armed Marine on every single flight that covers U.S. soil, and we're safe.

You don't protect yourself from terror by pissing the world off at you.

BTW, Mike_71, did Jesus teach you to hate?

/assuming you're a bible thumper cause you've included so many nice religious slanders in your posts
//only people I know who are capable of that much hatred are Christian fanatics and Nazis
///wonders which one you are
////who would Jesus bomb?
/////putting Mike on ignore
 
2005-01-31 10:23:16 AM
To sum up the arguments thus far:

Republicans: "Yay! There were elections in Iraq! Yay! Yay! There were elections in Iraq! Yay! Yay! There were elections in Iraq! Yay! Yay! There were elections in Iraq! Yay! Yay! There were elections in Iraq! Yay! Yay! There were elections in Iraq! Yay! Anne-Coulteresque Rhetoric! Yay! Do you know any slow or special people? Yay!

Democrats: Wonderful. We had free elections. But we didn't come there under the pretense of ending dictatorship and spreading democracy. In fact, America has been a friend to dictatorship everywhere. We came to Iraq under the pretense of finding and destroying WMDs. Our leaders told our people that we were going in to find WMDs. Our leaders told the UN that we were going to find WMDs. 2 years later, 10s of thousands dead and wounded, we found no WMDs. So it is a great and happy day for Iraq, but the same old shiat for the good old US of A. Big farkin' deal. Oh, by the way, Bin Laden is STILL on the lam, and, conservative neo-con asshats suck.



Sound about right?

/jaded and tired, on my first cup of coffee and getting ready for class
//Proud of the Iraqi people.
 
2005-01-31 10:24:53 AM
It's funny. I haven't added anybody to my ignore list for a long time, but since yesterday, there I've added three people
based on their comments in this thread.

I don't generally spend much time in threads like this. I forgot how stupid comments can be.
 
2005-01-31 10:26:44 AM
I think a lot of people, the world over, are engaging in politics as a sort of live-action, fantasy, role-playing game. Unfortunately, while your various vampyre and werewolf clans are battling it out on talk radio, 24hour news cahnnels, and messageboards, real people, most of whom think your game is a bit on the queer side, are paying for your fun with their blood, sweat, and tears.
 
2005-01-31 10:27:20 AM
ciretose: "We liberals are a bit concerned about the deficit"


That is so ironic, I know, we are concerned about the deficit and all, but fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget was a cornerstone of 'the contract with america' that put the republicans in power in congress. I wonder why fiscal conservatives support a party that turned its back on them and violated a contract. I hope its not because they are that gullible
 
2005-01-31 10:28:28 AM
Lex

Hey - good points in downplaying a free people risking their lives to vote.

Nice.

Chase your coffee with a cup of STFU.
 
2005-01-31 10:34:47 AM
Dude lexslamman you make a lot of sense.

Ask any good right winger. Bush was reelected because God hates fags and loves womb boogers. We know this because God talks to Bush daily. And the dinosaurs are just part of a left wing conspiracy. And Darwin was a heretic.

/even typing that crap in sarcasim makes my stomach turn
 
2005-01-31 10:35:59 AM
Its official....

Wizzard_of_Odds is NOT a marine...

blah blah blah....terrorism, blah blah blah be afraid.

I call bullshiat!

You take 20% of the military resources we've deployed to Iraq and put them in charge of guarding our borders. You put one armed Marine on every single flight that covers U.S. soil, and we're safe.


Anyone who has volunteered to serve does so because they BELIEVE the terrorist threat is real, and they believe its their duty to protect their family and country.

And anyone in the military knows that 20% of the deployed troops in Iraq is NOWHERE NEAR enough to secure our borders, AAAAAAAAAAAAnd, domestic flights are conducted by PRIVATE CIVILIAN OWNED COMPANIES!

It's not the government's responsibility to provide security for the private sector!

If you want a guard on every domestic flight, its up to the airline to hire that in, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

I was right, you are NOT a marine.

You don't even understand the basic function of defense, and won't even admit to or acknowledge the very REAL threat of terrorism that has compelled so many retired military personnel to come OUT of retirement, and re-enlist!

You should be ashamed of yourself....
 
2005-01-31 10:37:14 AM
For 150 billion, couldn't we have just bought Iraq?

The GDP is only 50B a year, and they're already 120B in the hole...
 
2005-01-31 10:39:41 AM
radiosteele

If by free you mean tanks in their streets and risk of dying by daily explosions then you're correct.

At least under Saddam they knew how to completely avoid being killed or tortured. Not much different, but there's a difference.

/thinks you should eat your own STFU!
 
2005-01-31 10:41:15 AM
So when do we find out who is the next Iraqi Idol?

/this thread is ov-ah!
 
2005-01-31 10:43:00 AM
radiosteele:Lex

Hey - good points in downplaying a free people risking their lives to vote.


Hey,
just mimicking you republicans taking all of the credit for their bravery; those people risk their lives walking out of their houses as long as the US occupation lasts. Honestly, this should have been a gradual transition rather than invasion/occupation. Do you think that Iraq will digest capitalist democracy on the first swallow? It usually doesn't work that way, though in the American experience, it did, most countries experience a serious (and violent) backlash when democracy does not solve their problems. Did I forget to mention that Iraq has been on the verge of civil war since it was constituted out of Ottoman territories 90 years ago. How will a democratic government representative of only one segment of the people be able to hold it together? I have no more answers than do the republican leadership of this country, at this point. Democracy in Iraq is a wonderful, lovely idea, but Iraq has political/cultural wounds that necessitate more intricate and delicate treatment than the 'bomb-and-vote' invasions Americans tend to like.
 
2005-01-31 10:46:58 AM
Mike_71

Never said %20 of deployed troops you idiot!

I said %20 of military resources!

Huge difference!

And besides, I'm not a damn strategist, the point was still clear, the money and effort should be here to protect our people.

What do you know anyway?

Go join the Girl Scouts or something you wannabe REMF piece of sh*t!

/apologies to any Girl Scouts offended by this post, I know he couldn't get in!
 
2005-01-31 10:48:47 AM
Mike_71: Its official....

You're a moron.

It's not the government's responsibility to provide security for the private sector!

If you want a guard on every domestic flight, its up to the airline to hire that in, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.


Actually, Mikey, it IS the government's job to protect the American people. As such it would be the government's responsibility to provide and pay for guards on flights, if it was required.

Do you actually think about what you write, Mikey or do you just throw shiat on the wall to see what sticks?

And anyone in the military knows that 20% of the deployed troops in Iraq is NOWHERE NEAR enough to secure our borders,

Regardless of whether that's a correct percentage, the point still stands. But hey, don't bother to address the point when nitpicking is so much easier.
 
2005-01-31 10:51:21 AM
Wizzard_Of_Odds: What do you know anyway?

The sad part, Wiz, is that you were very gracious in your comments to Mikey about his inability to serve, despite
him wanting to.

And what did you get? A big steam pile on your head (which is, of course, par for Mikey).
 
2005-01-31 10:51:56 AM
Mike
It's not the government's responsibility to provide security for the private sector!

Who the hell are the people in white shirts screening my bags when I fly then?

You're an asshat!

/done with the punk
 
2005-01-31 10:52:29 AM
Not sure if this issue was already discussed, but how do we define a "successful" vote in Iraq? I've heard 9 car bombs went off leaving 40 dead that day? And because it wasn't 50 dead we are supposed to celebrate? Also, we don't have a count yet of how many registered voters actually made it to the polls, right?

/Didn't RTFA, but watched lots of CNN
//Happy for the Iraqis but want our troops home
 
2005-01-31 10:54:52 AM
Farkdog

Wow, just wow. You sir, well there aren't words.

The world is so...big...I may never do work again...

Bless you sir bless you.


Oh and back on topic, aren't the national guard by definition supposed to guard the nation. I wonder how much more difficult things will be during natural disasters, riots or even frighteningly ironically a terrorist attach if we have call out the National Guard and find them otherwise occupied...
 
2005-01-31 10:56:43 AM
farkdog

Sadly, I usually never regret trying to be a gentleman. Usually that is.

Didn't mean to mimic your point there, I stepped away in the middle of posting.

/bets Mike has a flag on his car or his home
//had a flagpole in my yard LONG before 9/11
 
2005-01-31 10:56:44 AM
You're welcome, ciretose.

That 10 point thing you posted and your other comments prompted that. Enjoy.
 
2005-01-31 10:57:43 AM
FrankGecko

In that previous threat the other day, you comfortably forgot to answer the question,

No, I didn't ..."forget"...as you ASSert.

Part of my day job is some "busy work" that includes downloading audio. Some days there's alot, some days just a little.

I pass the time waiting on the computer to finish its tasks by debating with you asshats on this site.

I wasn't avoiding anything, I just simply finished what I was doing, and never saw your question.

what exactly did invading a secular dictatorship surrounded by several theocracies with proved connections and backing for terrorism have to do with the war against "militant islamofascists"?

Strategy.

For one thing, you and I both know that because of the environmentalist wackos, the United States isn't allowed to harvest its own oil.

So we depend on the Saudis for that, which makes for a sticky political situation.

But at the same time, the Saudi government isn't responsible for a few of their citizens deciding to join a fundamentally screwed up and violent religious movement.

We went after Saddam because Congress and the Senate both agreed, on both sides of the isle, that he was up to something, he was pursuing illegal weapons, he had already murdered tens of thousands of his own people with WMD, and he was helping out the people who attacked the WTC twice, blew up the Cole, and the Marine barracks.

There are several pieces of evidence in the form of aerial recon that show passenger jets out in the middle of nowhere in Iraq, which could be there for no other reason than to train someone on how to hijack one.

You have the oil for food scandal where Saddam was bribing the U.N. to shut up about his pursuit of weapons he was hiding from the inspectors.

STRATEGICALLY, Iraq is a good place to start, if you're gonna attempt squash the middle-eastern threat, BEFORE it has a chance to materialize into another cuban missile crisis, but far worse.

I mean, right next door there are two countries whose citizens were actually in the 9/11 planes? Not much international or national biatching about Afganistan, was there? Have you already figured out the difference between the two wars?

The key word in your post that indicates your general misunderstanding about all this, is your use of the word ..."war".

Wrong word.

Which means you don't get the big picture.

We are at war with terrorism.

Afghanistan and Iraq are simply two of the BATTLES!

If you don't want to see that, then you choose to live dangerously.
 
2005-01-31 10:58:57 AM
AAAAAAAAAAAAnd, domestic flights are conducted by PRIVATE CIVILIAN OWNED COMPANIES!

It's not the government's responsibility to provide security for the private sector!


Not that I expect any reasonable or well thought out response from you Mike_71, but do you think Air Marshals are commissioned and controlled by said PRIVATE CIVILIAN OWNED COMPANIES! or by the FAA?

Just wondering, you great galumphing know-it-all.
 
2005-01-31 10:59:39 AM
Asshat - I am a registered Democrat!
Almost every TF'er probably knows that from my support of Kerry this fall, I must have written about 10 billion words...

Not anymore.

Democracy is not just an idea in Iraq, but a reality.
Patronizing it is just stupid.

I thought we stood for liberty and freedom.
What happened to Democrats this weekend?
Even Chirac was happy about the outcome.

Again, have another cup of STFU.
 
2005-01-31 11:00:20 AM
Lets face the facts. Even thought the rational for invading iraq was BS, a relatively smooth election is a good thing. Pretty suprising though.
 
2005-01-31 11:01:48 AM
What the hell do you know about danger a**hole?

You're just sad.

/wondering how your wife stands it
//lots of batteries I guess
 
2005-01-31 11:03:31 AM
radiosteele

Who is biatching about democracy?
 
2005-01-31 11:06:13 AM
Lollipop165:
That word "success" ill get more elastic as we go, I assume. First, there were reports of a 72% turnout, then they were scaled back. Some polling places in Sunni sections of the country didn't even open up; some had hardly any voters. Al Jazeera reporters have speculated that this was more about political beliefs in the legitimacy of the election than fear of terrorists.

But the overall standard for "success" in this mission has continued to be defined down--first it was believed we had a quick victory, followed by a secular, pro-Western government, then it got downgraded to a "long slog." Now I think we'll be happy to get a theocracy that doesn't totally hate us.
 
2005-01-31 11:08:13 AM
Wizzard_Of_Odds

Mike_71 outed you as a fraud, dude. Because he knows that the military, that he loves, is incapable of dealing with intelligent independent thinkers among its ranks.

I'm sure Mike_71 thanks his God daily that he has a bum knee that kept him from serving in the military.
 
2005-01-31 11:10:07 AM
Mike71:

The military is not as homogenous as you seem to think. I haven't been in for a long, long while, but I still remember a lot of dissent in the ranks back during gulf war I. WHere we are unified is that we put that behind us and go out and get it done. Biatching and handwringing comes after.
 
2005-01-31 11:13:56 AM
There was a post earlier about Democratic Underground and crazy lefties who think this is a bad thing.

Look people, we all have our crazy whack jobs on the edges that we aren't proud of. You have an elected official with his panties in a bunch over sponge bob's sexuality, we have a former KKK member.

You have Rick Santorum, we have Ted Kennedy.

Can't we be Bill Frist and Harry Reid? Can't we be John McCain and Russ Feingold? Can't we be Jim Jeffords?

Must we be Tom Delay and Nancy Pelosi?

Group hug!

/still basking in the new totalfark love
 
2005-01-31 11:17:48 AM
elendilmir
Very well said!


mindbuzz

Maybe if he calls them up and tells them I'm a fraud they'll let me stay home in March, ya think?

Surely they'll take the work of such an omniscient man.

It'll be a while before he replies, he's gotta go to m-w.com real quick.
 
2005-01-31 11:20:11 AM
ciretose

"1. We liberals think you could have done this more like Bosnia (as in cheaper, with real worldwide support and less loss of life)"

Lets get this out of the way WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP CLINTON (well that is what you would say to me if I mentioned him or anything that happened during his administration in a Bush thread) Bosnia and Iraq are night and day. Bosnia was essentially a civil war. Iraq is not.

"2. We liberals are a bit concerned about the deficit."

As are conservatives, but it will be reduced and we will run a surplus it's just a matter of when.

"3. We liberals are calling bullshiat on this being for freedom and overthrowing dictators, since the Republicans opposed Bosnia, and we still have not done much in Sudan."

And you liberals would be screaming bloody murder about how we are invading the Sudan for Halliburtion etc etc if we did. The Sudan is aweful but it is not a matter of US National Security. I pray to God that there is something we can do in the Sudan and I would back US Troop involvement if we have to. Our invasion of Iraq was about a lot of things and overthrowing a dictator and establishing a democracy in the middle east were a couple of those things. Unlike Barbara Boxer did I suggest that you actually read the congressional resolution.

"4. We liberals don't deify our leaders. Clinton should have gone into Rwanda. George Bush doesn't walk on water. He occasionally drives into hedges, but Clinton got a blowjob, so it balances."

I know you are kidding here, but Clinton was deified and still is. Hell look at the DNC this year. Wellstone was practicaly called the Second Coming at his funeral. Both parties do this. I call BS when Bush makes mistakes and I do not worship him.

"5. We liberals think this whole thing is a risky gamble, and we really hope it pays off because if it doesn't we are all hosed. We find it confusing that the "conservative" party is gambling so much."

That is fine if you want to call it a gamble, hell life is not about always playing it safe. I believe that we will succeed in Iraq and the elections were a major step forward.

"6. We liberals have no faith in Donald Rumsfeld, or pretty much anyone else Bush has appointed, aside from Colin Powell. We also understand that appointing people is George's only real job, and he doesn't seem to be very good at it."

What is the fascination with Powell from the left? Is it because he was allegedly against the war? I have faith in Rumsfeld but he has made some mistakes. The left will never support any Republican who supported the war (Democrats who supported the war. Kerry et al are exempt). Bush has arguably the most qualified and diverse cabinet ever.

"7. We liberals wonder how it is that if you live outside of a major city, you will hear nothing but conservative talk radio telling you that there was no outlet for conservative ideas."

I am not sure what you are getting at here (I do not live in a major city).

"8. We liberals wonder why if conservatives argue that current economy is the result of Clinton, based on the arguement that the previous president sets up the economy that follows, why you all lionized Reagan for leaving Bush I a recession, and don't bash Nixon for doing the same to Carter."

I am really tired of discussing this. The President does not control the economy. He can help it but not control it. I do not blame Clinton for anything to do with the economy. He was President during an economic boom and let the thing run it's course. That is what you are supposed to do. Bush has helped the economy to where we are emerging from the recession. I would argue that Carter's foreign policy hurt the economy (OPEC embargo etc) but he did not control it.
"9. We liberals wonder why the religious right is fixated on an issue Jesus never mentioned (gays) but ignores issues he spoke on constantly (the evil of wealth)"

We conservatives wonder why you on the left who are supposed to fight stereotyping and racism always lump conservatives together. Some Republicans (like Cheney) believe this will be a state issue. When did Jesus proclaim that wealth was evil?

"10. And finally, we liberals wonder if you really feel like America is better off now than it was 4 years ago."

Depends on what you are referring to. Are we better off economically? Probably not but I feel we are on the right track. Foreign policy wise? Absolutely.

Now let me ask a couple of questions

1. Can you give the President credit for anything? Already some Democrats are saying that these elections really mean nothing, well they do to the Iraqis.

2. How can you believe that a President would go to war under intentionally false pretenses when he and his administration had to know that would be found out and that they would all be blamed? What did he gain by lying?

3. Why do you not accuse Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy et al for lying about Iraq when they saw the same intelligence from the same CIA Director and had the same warnings about Iraq?

4. Why do you keep electing people like Ted Kennedy who basically is blaming the troops for the problems in Iraq and not the terrorists?

5. What exactly is it about Christianity that you do not like? Is it Christians or the religion itself?

6. Why is it that just disagreeing about a policy automatically makes you a racist/bigot? (i.e. gay marriage, affirmative action)

7. What policy in the last 40 years has reaffirmed your faith that the government is best at spending tax money?

8. How on Earth do some Democrats still believe that the President was able to "steal" the 2000 & 2004 elections when there has not been a shread of evidence and countless investigations and not ONE person involved in this stealing has come forward?

9. What percentage, exactly, is a fair amount for someone to pay in taxes. I just want to know so that I will not be called greedy anymore?

10. Why are people that disagree with you politically labled stupid? Is this not a bigoted way of thinking? Why do you not even try to understand the real reasons why the red states voted the way they did?
 
2005-01-31 11:29:00 AM
"As are conservatives, but it will be reduced and we will run a surplus it's just a matter of when."

I honestly find this statement on the deficit to be utterly amazing. Without being specific on the timeline are you even hinting that it could happen in the next 4 years ? Or that it could ever happen at all under the control of "conservatives" as we have now ?

I'll say it right now, were that to happen I would be truly impressed and I would not hesitate to let everyone know it.
 
2005-01-31 11:35:25 AM
Wizzard_Of_Odds

Who the hell are the people in white shirts screening my bags when I fly then?

You're an asshat!


"Government baggage screeners, are NOT "airline security".

"Federal Air Marshals" were created in the 70s to protect the passengers and crew of SELECTED HIGH RISK flights!

In other words, if the government had intelligence that a certain U.S. flight was at risk, for whatever reason, of being the target of an international hijacking plot, they'd deploy a Marshal to that flight, who would blend in as a "regular passenger", and be there to protect it .

They are NOT deployed as simple security for everday flights, nor should they be.

Its HILARIOUS you numbskulls don't know this stuff!

Its like listening to a bunch of illiterate high-school drop-outs trying to discuss brain surgery procedures!
 
2005-01-31 11:43:57 AM
sean007:

Lets face the facts. ... a relatively smooth election is a good thing

Exactly. And many of the so-called "liberals" in this thread have said that the elections are a good thing. And yet,

Hang On Voltaire:

10. Why are people that disagree with you politically labled stupid? Is this not a bigoted way of thinking? Why do you not even try to understand the real reasons why the red states voted the way they did?

That's a two way street, sparky. The liberals don't have a corner on the asshattery. I wonder if you and your compatriots even bother to understand why people didn't
vote for Bush (aside from your misguided notion that it's
simply because we hate Bush).

As are conservatives, but it will be reduced and we will run a surplus it's just a matter of when.

Good one! You're a funny guy. Now that we've all had a chuckle can you fill us in on what this assertion is based
on.

Bosnia was essentially a civil war. Iraq is not.

Well, not yet.

I have faith in Rumsfeld but he has made some mistakes. The left will never support any Republican who supported the war (Democrats who supported the war. Kerry et al are exempt). Bush has arguably the most qualified and diverse cabinet ever.

Quite arguably. There is pretty much a complete lack of balancing view points in the Bush white house and with the departure of Powell, it will only get worse.

The President does not control the economy.

First reasonable thing you wrote. The fact remains, however, that both sides of the fence like to blame the president and it's more often from the right side that Clinton gets blamed for the shiatty ecomony under Bush II with other Republican presidents who left their successors with the same situation
get a pass.

Depends on what you are referring to. Are we better off economically? Probably not but I feel we are on the right track. Foreign policy wise? Absolutely.

Yeah, having most of the world pissed off at us is really a step forward when it comes to foreign policy.
 
2005-01-31 11:44:45 AM
Welcome illeterate high-school drop-outs to "Brain Surgery Procedures for Dummies." Today's subject is how to detect if a person actually has a brain. Mike_71 is here to assist us. *knocks on Mike_71's skull resulting in a hollow echo* Well, students that concludes today's lesson. Our test subject is clearly without a brain.
 
2005-01-31 11:48:33 AM
farkdog

Actually, Mikey, it IS the government's job to protect the American people. As such it would be the government's responsibility to provide and pay for guards on flights, if it was required.

Protect our BORDERS, yes.

Protect the privately-owned, privately-operated, privately-serviced business contained within our borders?......

NO.

Yes, the FAA regulates just HOW they operate, but they do not, and should not provide for the security of the individual flights, or WHATEVER business youthink needs protected.

By your numbskull assertion, there should be armed uniformed military personnel guarding the halls of Wall Street, Corporate America, and every casino in Vegas!

They DON'T!

They hire out private security firms like Vector and Brinks to protect their businesses and patrons.

Here's an article suggesting that private firms are about to take BACK OVER, the screening jobs the government temporarily seized, as a result of 9/11.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803cd1.htm

You guys need to get educated on a few things, especially what all the government does and does NOT provide when it comes to security and enforcement.
 
2005-01-31 11:50:21 AM
Hang On Voltaire

First, thanks for the responses, even if I don't agree it's nice to get a debate going. Now to your points.

1. Can you give the President credit for anything? Already some Democrats are saying that these elections really mean nothing, well they do to the Iraqis.

The elections going off as they did is great. And I think he has learned from some of his early mistakes and it being a more cautious and diplomatic president. I admire his stated intentions for helping the world, and believe he has good intentions but if I agreed with his policy, I would have voted for him. You would say the same about Kerry, right?

2. How can you believe that a President would go to war under intentionally false pretenses when he and his administration had to know that would be found out and that they would all be blamed? What did he gain by lying?

I believe that he believed it was in the best interest of the country to invade Iraq, because he believed Iraq would embrace us as liberators and it would be a cakewalk. I believe he didn't think he could sell that to the American people, so he got Rove to package it. He gained what he wanted, we invaded Iraq. It just hasn't been the war he predicted.

3. Why do you not accuse Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy et al for lying about Iraq when they saw the same intelligence from the same CIA Director and had the same warnings about Iraq?

It's all presentation and spin. They had no hard evidence, just circumstantial evidence. But they wanted to invade, so they saw what they wanted and made the evidence sound like more than it really was. If Clinton invaded Iraq on the same evidence, I'd be just as pissed.

4. Why do you keep electing people like Ted Kennedy who basically is blaming the troops for the problems in Iraq and not the terrorists?

I don't live in Massachusetts. Do I blame you for Rick Santorum and Tom Delay? I will also apologize for Robert Byrd, but he's old, we humor him. See Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms.

5. What exactly is it about Christianity that you do not like? Is it Christians or the religion itself?

I like secularism. I am not fond of Jihads or Inquistions. When religion gets government power, people get burned at the stake. Both 9/11 and the Salem witch trials were bad.

6. Why is it that just disagreeing about a policy automatically makes you a racist/bigot? (i.e. gay marriage, affirmative action)

In 1960 if you were pro-segregation, was it policy or race? In 2004 if you are against gay rights, what is it? It doesn't effect you, it's none of your buisness who farks who when and where. As a conservative I thought you would want government out. As to affirmative action, I would personally like to see it more income based, but I'd also like to see the estate tax stay so trust fund babies have to actually work.

7. What policy in the last 40 years has reaffirmed your faith that the government is best at spending tax money?

Way to make it 40 years so you could dodge the great depression and Eisenhower (great republican president, btw) but I'll bite. I like social security, I like that we won the cold war, I like public education, I like with roads and law enforcement. I'm rather fond of the nation institute for health and the vaccines and medical advances they have found...but this could go on for hours. Government is the only institution that exists exclusively to better the lives of it's people. Sometimes it does it better than others.

8. How on Earth do some Democrats still believe that the President was able to "steal" the 2000 & 2004 elections when there has not been a shread of evidence and countless investigations and not ONE person involved in this stealing has come forward?

They didn't steal, they out manuvered, and we lost because of it. But you can't argue Bush "won" in 2000 with less of the popular vote any more than I could argue Kerry "won" even if Ohio flipped over. Either way half the country is disapointed.

9. What percentage, exactly, is a fair amount for someone to pay in taxes. I just want to know so that I will not be called greedy anymore?

I'm not walking into your call for a flat tax. We need to pay enough to pay the bills, which considering you guys always run a deficit is apparently a lot. Look, we have things we need. I would like to cut some things and reform things, but until we do, we are currently paying over 1000 a year PER PERSON on INTEREST on the national debt. So I guess I think that 1000 dollars is excessive.

10. Why are people that disagree with you politically labled stupid? Is this not a bigoted way of thinking? Why do you not even try to understand the real reasons why the red states voted the way they did?

Your only labeled as stupid if you can't make a good arguement. I'm the only lib in my family, I know why my family votes republican, they aren't dumb, they just happen to be wrong. Your team has all the cards, and we are in deficit spending as far as the eye can see and caught up in a war without an exit. Who's fault is that?
 
2005-01-31 11:50:33 AM
I actually think the connection between Iraq and the Balkans is worth looking at. The Balkans (former Yugoslavia in particular) are a good example of what happens when a Western power draws borders willy-nilly across a region, like, oh, say the middle east.

In Yugoslavia/Serbia, how many years after being free from Soviet Authoritarian power did it take for them to establish a free and peaceful nation?

Oh! Wait! It didn't happen! Instead, the ethnic and religious factions in Yugoslavia had a huge and bloody civil war, sending the region into a politico-economic tailspin, and necessitating NATO and UN intercession. To this day there are rapes and murders over the cultural conflict caused by the West's artificial border in Yugoslavia.

While a democracy in Iraq is certainly a good thing, it is turning out to be a 'Shi'ite Only Club'. This, unless checked by intervention by some inter-governmental organization like NATO, the UN, or the EU, will be inevitable. The US cannot prevent conflict that has been brewing for this many years. The most optimistic possible scenario is that the Sunni Arab, Shi'ite Arab/Iranian, and Kurdish factions in Iraq do fully unite into a coalition; the problem with that view is they most likely would unite on the grounds of expelling the US from Iraq, as it seems to be the only thing they truely agree on.

Bosnia would be like the Sunni area of Iraq: like the Bosnians killing the Serbs, Sunni Iraqis (specifically the Ba'athists) have a legacy of brutalizing Shi'ite Iraqis. In retaliation, like the Serbs towards the Bosnians, Shi'ites have emerged as a power in Iraq and their treatment of their fellow Iraqis will dictate the future of their nation. If it took Catholics and Protestants this long to get this far in Europe, how long do you think it will take the Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq to get along with each other?

And of course, there is the wild card: my prediction (not a certainty, but a definite possibility) is that the Kurds will form an independent Kurdistan within 3 years. This would create a major migration of people from Syria and Turkey to the new independent Kurdish nation-state. Whenever a large migration of people has occurred, it has created major political conflict. It will certainly be interesting to watch. In a way, the Kurds are like the Kosovars.
 
2005-01-31 11:53:22 AM
Re:"2. We liberals are a bit concerned about the deficit."
As are conservatives, but it will be reduced and we will run a surplus it's just a matter of when.

Probably not in our life time,
But hey that's the next presidents and next presidents and... Problem.
 
2005-01-31 11:53:51 AM
mindbuzz

why don't you actually try looking up the Marshals, and learn what they REALLY do, before you get your facts wrong, then accuse those of us who are right of being the idiots?

By the way, the Surgeon General told me to tell you that "playing in traffic" is NOT healthy.

So, by YOUR way of thinking, it IS good for you, because "Mike_71" says its wrong, so it must be good for you!

Have fun dodging the semis, moron....
 
2005-01-31 12:01:44 PM
 
2005-01-31 12:04:05 PM
6. Why is it that just disagreeing about a policy automatically makes you a racist/bigot? (i.e. gay marriage, affirmative action)

You can blame Bush for that black and white argument. If you're against it, you're not with it.
 
2005-01-31 12:07:31 PM
Mike_71

I never made any comments regarding the responsibilities of the Marshalls. I do find it odd that you worship the military and President Bush, but somehow you get your panties in a bunch when it is implied that these entities may somehow enter into your private life. Do you have something to hide?
 
2005-01-31 12:10:06 PM
LawrencePerson

Ha! Great link. The New York Post makes The Weekly World News look like The Economist. Find something that is factual and not an op-ed piece of conservative rhetorical drivvel. Show us a source that quotes someone from either side saying outright: 'we hope democracy does not succeed in Iraq' or 'gee, free elections in Iraq are a horrible thing.' I don't know how you conservatives have enough of a grasp on cultural relativism to understand what goes on inside a liberal's head and extrapolate that to be liberal is to be against democratic self-determination. Show me that and I'll dig up a functional conservative capitalist democracy. See ya in the next millenium.

/NEXT!
 
2005-01-31 12:12:21 PM
Hang On Voltaire:

2005-01-31 11:20:11 AM Hang On Voltaire

Now let me ask a couple of questions

1. Can you give the President credit for anything? Already some Democrats are saying that these elections really mean nothing, well they do to the Iraqis.


(tried really really hard here so go easy on me)

(a) Pakistan/India:
This is the President's major success in office. He has definitely neutralized the danger in the region and from the US perspective.

There may be others, but I just wasted 15 minutes coming up with that one.

2. How can you believe that a President would go to war under intentionally false pretenses when he and his administration had to know that would be found out and that they would all be blamed? What did he gain by lying?

I, personally, don't think he willfully lied. I do think he willfully surrounded himself with loyalists with and agenda. I think this is extremely poor, ("criminally negligent" depending on my mood) management.

3. Why do you not accuse Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy et al for lying about Iraq when they saw the same intelligence from the same CIA Director and had the same warnings about Iraq?

There was plenty of opposition to the war from the public and to a large extent in congress (in the form of debate). The fact that the intelligence was called into question prior to invasion is quite damning, IMO. I do agree, ultimately, with Kerry that the responsibility lies with the President to

(1) make the decision to go to war
and
(2) make the case to go to war.

On the second point Bush failed.

4. Why do you keep electing people like Ted Kennedy who basically is blaming the troops for the problems in Iraq and not the terrorists?

I haven't heard him say that and it seems unlikely that it is true. My Senators (Clinton and Schumer) certainly haven't.

5. What exactly is it about Christianity that you do not like? Is it Christians or the religion itself?

I am a Christian. Most Democrats are Christian. I don't like being told I'm not a Christian because I'm liberal. This makes little sense to me as I try to live as Christ would and I think he would be a liberal.

6. Why is it that just disagreeing about a policy automatically makes you a racist/bigot? (i.e. gay marriage, affirmative action)

I don't think it does. The issue of gay marriage, in particular in this last election, has been used as an appeal to emotion, even though the scope of the issue (right or wrong) is very small. Both candidates had a very similar stance; yet some made their decision based on this issue and I think it is irrational.

7. What policy in the last 40 years has reaffirmed your faith that the government is best at spending tax money?

I don't understand the question.

8. How on Earth do some Democrats still believe that the President was able to "steal" the 2000 & 2004 elections when there has not been a shread of evidence and countless investigations and not ONE person involved in this stealing has come forward?

Federal elections in the US are of "poor quality" (broad stroke trying to avoid specifics). It does not meet the criterion of the Carter foundation to be legitimate, in general. Whether or not this hurts our Democracy is up for debate. After 2000 Bush said he would address the issue. He didn't.


9. What percentage, exactly, is a fair amount for someone to pay in taxes. I just want to know so that I will not be called greedy anymore?

I don't understand the question.

10. Why are people that disagree with you politically labled stupid? Is this not a bigoted way of thinking? Why do you not even try to understand the real reasons why the red states voted the way they did?

Somebody else already answered this, his answer was fine.
 
2005-01-31 12:13:20 PM
sorry for the horrible grammar.

/goes back to work
 
2005-01-31 12:15:19 PM
Entering the flame war a little late here... sorry folks.

Let me start by saying that of all the things that came out of this war, the free election is by far the best. Ok, so the rest of the war basically turned into a crap-fest, but the election is still pretty well awesome. I was expecting an exceptionally low voter turn out, and the Iraqis have pleasantly surprised me. Congrats to our soldiers, the Iraqi police, the British, everyone else involved on the ground and of course, the congrats to the Iraqi people.

A Midnight Bout of Frenzied Concupiscence: I saw all the crap leading up to war too. I said to myself, "Freeing the Iraqi people isn't worth losing american lives, but this WMDs thing could be true. The President has access to more info than I do, so I suppose if he says it's so, we can't just ignore it." That was my reason for VERY tenatively supporting the war. I say tenatively, because WE have WMDs, and if we can, why can't everyone else? What makes us better? If the Iraqi's TRUELY wanted freedom, they'd have fought for it themselves. At which point I think we should have lent a hand with troop training, weapons, and air/sea support. But the fact remains that the SOLE reason I ever supported the idea of the war (WMDs, they're in Iraq and we should be frightened) turned out to be a blatant lie. Not only did they not have any WMDs at the time, but wouldn't have for years (and that info is from a Bush Administration picked team of investigators). Now, OUR soldiers are dying for a combination of a lie, and the freedom of people who weren't willing/ready to fight for it on their own. I agree, the liberation of the Iraqi people was going to be a very nice side effect of the war. I knew damn well we weren't going to bomb the crap out of them and then leave them to the wolves. But that WASN'T the main reason to go to war. And now that it suddenly IS the main reason, I don't blame people for being pissed off.
 
Displayed 50 of 1432 comments

First | « | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report