sorry 4 fucking up the response - I just got soooooo excited I posted too quickly. Premature ejacupostulation as it were. Always been a problem of mine.
I have to wonder why the secret service wasn't in front of the president by the second shoe. At least Bush dodges well, must have learned that hunting with Cheney.
Doesn't matter if the secret service likes the president or not, it's their job to protect him period. Plus if Bush dies, Cheney is your president you Idiot Canuck...
You wrote: " . . . it'd be okay to take a bullit [sic] for this dumb plank"
"Bullit"? Did you really write "bullit"? Are you fuggin' hosers are so divorced from weaponry you can't even spell the word "bullet"? Geez!?! Don't you even hunt Canada geese? Maybe a bear or two? A seal? I know we've got too many guns down here in Murderville, USA, but you have got to learn how to spell, canuck.
By the way, I wish that Iraqi reporter would have had three feet. Maybe he'd have hit Bush with the third shoe.
B) that a torture-loving sonofabitch like yourself would want Cheney to OPENLY be the Prezdint, as opposed to being what he's been all along----the defacto-Prezdint-in-hiding ('cuz if you truly think Georgie-Boy had ANY brains to have been able to sit there for eight years on his OWN....then you're as doubly-stupid as you appear).
Or (C) that you even remotely believe that YOU know what would make my "head explode".
Second shoe? What are you talking about? Are you confused by the fact that the movie showed the same shoe twice, once regular speed and once in slow motion? Or did you fail to notice the large number of agents that grabbed the the guy after he threw it?
This vid is incomplete, the guy did throw one shoe, then took of his second shoe and threw that as well. The security guards were a bit slow and had to get to him first since he was in the middle of the audience.
Well technically, I'm not sure the Germans or Japanese appreciated their gratitude building carpet bombings either, at the time... but they grew to love and appreciate them with time.
No, C-, let me tell you: HD has it right. The comparison he made are appropriate. These things take time and patience. All along the way, there will be detractors and cowards, liars and clinchpoops who pose and posture around ideals they don't dare stand up for. There will be those who are not grateful, or are suspicious...maybe even rightly so. You fall into the latter camp.
It is not surprising that someone, in the press (for crying out loud), despises GWB for his leadership in the war. That you celebrate it as some sort of final point of proof that your arguments ever had any merit is as baseless as my side's belief that Achmadinijad's support for BHO is proof he is on the wrong side politically.
Really, your hatred for all things Bush shows (dare I say it) your rote and habitual bigotry.
Canuck, HD and streamy are writing so much stupid stuff that I have lost track of what could be the most stupid thing they have said. Definitely in this comment thread they are both trying to outdo each other.
I guess it takes a lot of patience and time to appreciate being bombed.
Streamy, you are not a joke, not at all, you are a very very sad waste of resources.
Wow! So if your argument has merit, and if Saddam had stayed in power long enough with what he was doing to the people, they would have come to love and appreciate him as well.
We learn this now, when all we had to do was leave him in power to accomplish the same result without all the time and expense.
...and by the way, none of us has any context upon which we can judge the reporter for his very courageous act of civil disobedience. No one was going to be seriously hurt, except himself, for making a political statement.
It was a huge personal risk for him, because he is now under "interrogation" by the Bush puppet regime, and perhaps by one of America's torturers right now.
Very, very few people can measure up to such courage. I did not want to see the President hit by the boot, but this one man removed the political facade off the whole visit.
It is newsworthy because it is a symbolically true statement against all tyrants. If this were the US revolutionary war, and this guy were a "rebel" throwing tea into Boston harbor, then we see the action from the other side. But perhaps living in New England where the fight for Liberty has always burned without prejudice, and in such light the truth shows through.
The reporter was just being entirely American in spirit, and for that Bush can take some pride.
Plus, in Mr. Yahweh's boadside against the "press", he fails to realize the basic rule of the Fourth Estate: it IS their JOB to hold ANY Administrations feet to the proverbial fire by asking the tough questions and levelling the criticisms when due. They failed miserably for the last 8 years to do so, simply because they didn't want to jeopordize their precious "access" to Georgie-Boy, and no longer be invited to the White House press scrums. I guess they plum forgot about something called the First Amendment (shoe-throwing aside).
Pods...YES! That is certainly part of the argument. Some people actually did love and appreciate Saddam. (Sounds like you, C- and Buggered are among them.)Eerily similar to kidnappees and their captors. So, we are now having a values argument. One that is sorely needed since the obvious, even when slapping you in the face, is missed. Which do you impose on them? Saddam or democracy-like conditions, that might take years to establish?
What utter stupidity in your next thread, Pods. Bush as tyrant?! Reporter a la American revolution?! If you don't see the irony of your own comments...
I have no contempt for the reporter who, if reports of his beliefs are correct, finds himself in a difficult bind: Get rid of the Americans whom they are not sure of...but, that risks Iranian influence that they are sure of. They want no part of Iran's control. I am not shocked he is angry. Nor, angry at Bush.
We'll see if you guys support such outrage at those who disapprove of BHO.
(C-, the hypocrit, sees disrespect in Hussein's initials...even though I call GWB by his. Go figure.)
Hey C-...if the press' job is to hold those in power accountable, how do you explain the lack of info on BHO and the two year pass he has received? I did not know that shoe throwing holds anyone accountable.
BTW- that is not the press' job. Disseminating info is their job. Climbing the high horse of moral superiority is and always has been their problem.
Thank you for proving my point in the last year about the press: They are not biased. Never have been.
My point is that no one appreciates being bombed, no one is grateful for being bombed. The Japanese weren't grateful. The Germans weren't grateful. The Serbs weren't grateful. And now the Iraqis aren't grateful. That doesn't make it unneccessary, because the local targets aren't properly grateful afterwards. I don't expect or need gratitude from Iraqis. I do expect them to sieze the opportunity given to them to build a better future. They can hate America for all time, it doesn't affect the necessity of the invasion. We don't automatically win the war if Iraqis are suddenly grateful. What the fuck does gratitude have to do with justifying a war?
Obama hasn't done much of anything yet, to earn my respect or scorn. But make no mistake, respect must be earned, not granted. You imply that simply being our next commander-in-chief earns Obama respect. If that were true, than simply being the current commander-in-chief should warrant some respect as well, but you've certainly never shown Bush any respect.
All I'm saying, is that Obama becoming the next commander-in-chief will automatically start out with all the respect from me, that you currently bestow on president Bush. Now I wish Obama the best, and hope he earns my respect. But I'm not listening to you lecture me on respecting the commander-in-chief. Could you be more of a hypocrite?
Great, great point, HD.
One does not do what is right in order to recieve approval or gratitude. Ipso facto, gratitude or the lack thereof is not proof that the right or wrong thing was done.
I mean, I am thankful for C- and the Buggered, and that is certainly not proof of them doing anything right. (I love you guys. You're the best.)
Stay on point, HD.
Merry HoHo
(I notice when C- gets really angry, which is always, he has to rip on Sarah Palin. C-, why must you hate those with whom you disagree? What has she done to draw your ire?)
I know the answer. I learned this lesson when I was in 2nd grade.
Stream...YES! That is certainly part of the argument. Some people actually do love and appreciate GWB. (Sounds like you, HD are among them.)Eerily similar to kidnappees and their captors. So, we are now having a values argument. Blah, blah, blah...
When the hell did I ever say I love president Bush? He has made many mistakes in executing the war, I hate the bail-out, he's done shit to secure the borders, the 10 trillion dollar debt is not to my liking, etc. etc. Do you guys even read what I write, or does it all just go through some left-wing filter, and come out "Bush is my fucking hero"?
As for Palin opening her big, ignorant, clueless, insipid, toxic, motherfucking mouth, well I just don't see how CC can hate anyone for doing the exact same thing as himself. Seems kinda hypocritical once again, kind of a pattern here.
No kidding, HD
When did I say I loved GWB?! I can be for the war and oppose aspects of it along the way. I can even be for the war and think GBW is at best a C- president. I do not agree with about 65-70% of Bush's decisions. Just not the one to go to war in Iraq.
Pods. Is this what you are reduced to: equivocation of GWB and SH? I guess so. Sad.
Sad that you think that simple perspective erases the rightness or wrongness of an issue.
Sadder still, that you equivocate.
Is it better to live in that screwy, John Wayne-ish, comic book-like world, where everything is black-and-white and the "Good Guys" wear white hats and the "Bad Guys" wear black hats and every single war has the right justifiability and certainty like WWII and leap tall buildings in a single bound and be faster than a locomotive and Dear Leader President would NEVER lie and will ALWAYS be on the up-and-up and you wake up every morning saluting your Richard Nixon portrait and you sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" every Sunday at church and sit down everyday after a hard day at the office to watch Faux News and be glad your living in a country that was founded as a God-fearing christian nation and glad that that silly Beatles-craze is over because who really liked their haircuts anyways because it was just plain Un-American and are glad that you had enough patriotism to burn their records at that rally and how when you go to bed every night you're thankful that someone else is out there making it so for you and your kids can grow up in a safer world because you KNOW you're always right and are a model of virtue for the rest of the world and who cares if I have to work three jobs to get by because our Deal Leader has said that this was fantastic and uniquly American so it must be a good thing amen and before you go to work the next morning you'll skip over to Mrs. Carmoody's house across the street with a bouquet of flowers for her saying you're sorry her nineteen-year-old bought the farm last week in Al Anbar province and God bless him for his sacrifice and whoops! you have to go to work because you're already late and have an office Chistmas party to prepare for and can't stand around all day lollygagging so you say goodbye and get into your SUV and drive off thinking it's great to be alive as one of Gods Chosen Americans and not like that silly stinking annoying foreign Canadian who you wish was standing right there in the middle of the road as you accelerate to take care of THAT problem so you can concentrate on wiping out the heathens over THERE and leave the ones who give you oil alone?
Nice statement "They revel in darkness....and abhor the Light Of Truth. "
This also goes for out government, and financial sector as well. Where the darkness is deregulation, and the light is rule of law. I wonder how many Ponzi schemes are operating out there with the full support of the government like this one: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1866680,00.html
If there is enough money you can purchase enough darkness, and not worry about the men with the lights.
....and there is still no serious discussion of regulating the financial sector, I wonder why?
The analogy I've heard to the bailout is its like cutting of the gangrene infected leg, so it doesn't spread. Sure it sucks, but the alternative is supposed to be worse. I'm just not sure I trust the people telling me that. I certainly don't like the bailout. My point is only that Obama will continue to support these bailouts, just the same as GWB has. So its very hard (and potentially hypocritical) to hate Bush for supporting the bailouts, yet support Obama doing the same thing.
So you're saying you don't support the bailout under Bush, and therefore you won't support the same "privatize the gains and socialize the losses" bailout under Obama either right?
I do NOT support any bail-out (and THIS, coming from someone who lives in a genuine, socialist society----and glad for it).
I couldn't disagree more with Obama's decision in supporting it as well.
He doing a huge roll of the dice here....HUGE. If they come up sevens....he looks like a hero; he will have fixed Geogie-Boys' biggest fuck-up (behind Eye-Rak); if they come up snake eyes......he's fucked, and he's gonna be wearing this one for a long time to come. It's that simple.
My own advice to him would be thus: if you insist on bailing out these companies....then you better be godddamn well forcing these outfits to accept a government stake/say-so in how they're going to be run. That would be first and foremost. No more CEO's and Wall St. tycoons doing whatever they fucking well please, to whomever they please.
I guess I've just spelled out the death of something here...haven't I?:
The bail-out is silly beyond words. (except on this thread!)
Have we not learned from the first great depression?! Honestly.
No bug, the bail-out is much worse than allowing for corrections. Much worse.
This is the sort of thing that made me leave the Republican party years ago.
They are not governing with conservative principles; they are acting just like dems. That is why they lost the election. That is part in parcel why Bush is unpopular...and rightly so.
Conservatism wins every time. Republicans don't necessarily, especially when they look like dems on economic issues.
However, some civis 101 is in order for C-:
What did GWB do, exactly, to cause the troubles we are having right now?
Holy shit, I agree with Canuck on something... wonders never fucking cease. But I disagree on letting the government have any control or say in how private businesses are run. The government is such a fucked up poorly run machine, why would we expect them to know how to run a bank or a car company better than the experts? Answer, we wouldn't. The government could only instruct Detroit to build cars nobody would want to buy.
1.) The shoe in the Middle East is the middle finger in America. The reporter meant it with utmost revulsion and disdain. Bush shrugged it off.
2.) Calling Bush a "dog" had particular significance. In America the dog is "man's best friend", a not-too-bad reference. But Moslems view dogs as unclean beasts only fitting to eat carrion and lick their asses.
Bush said he wasn't bother by the reporter's statements. Too bad for Bush he had absolutely no understanding of middle eastern culture. How this guy sleeps at night is a fuggin' mystery to me. So many deaths, so much stupidity.
In public, I respect Bush because he was our president. (In public *school*, I spray paint 'anarchy' on some loser's locker.)
My pet peeve with presidents, and the people that vote for them, is that even the rednecks should have learned by now that the promises made en route to office during the campaign only last a couple months into presidency. It just makes me want to grab one of them by the collar and scream "WHY?!" Here's me, a rebel, wishing that our country would remember the reasons it was founded. Anyway.. I said I was leaving for a spell, and it's proving exceptionally difficult. Maybe I can avoid coming back for.. a couple more days. Hey, it's something.
PIMP
1. He shrugged it off because it is meaningless to him. Who cares what symbolic gestures are made by a reporter who hates him? What was GWB to do?
2. So what.
Look, what should have been his response? For you to assert that it was his "lack of understanding" shows your biases. Baseless and silly.
Further, if that is the sort of thing that you think should upset the POTUS, then how should he deal with MoveOn...Michael Moore...MSNBC? I mean, by implication, you are suggesting that a smart person who understood the culture would have reacted differently. So...how?
Stick with the street thug lingo. You sound smarter.
Pimp i believe is underlining the naivety shown by the coalition forces when they first invaded Iraq.
Stream, please expain why Amercia went to Iraq again, i'm still confused by it, better still could you explain to the estimated 98 thousand to 655 thousand civilians who have died, better still explain it to the women who have lost their babies and children. Would love to hear you choke on your words....
Skids
Like C-, you assume that what you read is true, as fact.
The claims of that report have been discredited over and over and over again as absurdly too high. (It left out many factors in its calculations. Purposefully, I believe.)
However, your logic is flawed. (No way!)
But, to illustrate a point about the greater good that those who have no moral compass enjoy overlooking, lets look at a meth dealer in a neighborhood.
2-3 people produce the meth and might periodically use. 10-15 might sell the meth and periodically use. 100's will use and some of whom might even then get involved in the selling and producing. Were the effects simply limited to those 120 people, there might not be such an outcry for drug enforcement. But, there is the outcry. The collateral damage of this one meth producer: violent crimes to obtain money and the collaterals of that, broken homes and families, addictions and medical treatments that some here believe is the responsiblity of the taxpayer, depresssion, suicide, etc.
Now, when the cops come in and do what cops do, there is a segment of society who believe it should be a perfectly executed plan where no one is hurt and the bad guys give up. So, that segment of society argues that maybe we shouldn't raid these homes because drugs should be legal...or, (and this is my favorite) if we had left them alone, none of the carnage would have ensued.
Which scenario under which would you choose to live: A violent struggle for freedom to gain a society bound by the rule of law OR a society with all the freedom but bound by no law?
You all appear to want both or neither.
Either way, there will fighting between the arbiters of each side.
You all appear to have neither the conviction nor courage to pick a side.
Soooooo.......to use the cop analogy....when the fuck did YOU (and Georgie-Boy) decide that Eye-Rak was in your jurisdiction? Because unless I'm mistaken, you ain't gonna find a member of the NYPD enforcing any laws where the LAPD calls the shots like in, say, Los Angeles.
Georgie-Boy had no business going there in the first place, you fucking bonehead. So your cop analogy is completely retarded.
If you wanted to illustrate it more accurately, you'd have said "Corrupt/Incompetan Cop travels out of his sector, shoots alleged drug dealer saying he pulled a weapon.....but no weapon was found....and said drug dealer was shot in the back."
And this ain't a fucking John Wayne movie where one has to "pick sides" (Pods, Bugster....notice how he regurgitates Geogie-Boys inispid sewage about "either bein' with us or again' us" shit....much like a schoolyard kid with something to prove).
Nice analogoy with the cops, drug crackdowns do usually start with carpet bombing the suspected lab location and for good measure the rest of the district.
Skids, Pods and C-
I cannot believe the utter disdain for other human beings that you must hold at your core, that you dispute removing Saddam as a good thing. (Actually, I am not surpised by C-, since there is no reason to hold humanity sacred...it is life that is as empty and meaningless as the slime from which it hypothetically arose.)
You would not have supported the American revolution, the Civil War or WW2 on the same grounds: it would be painful, some will die, some soldiers will misbehave, bad decisions might get made...ergo, it is simply not worth it.
You piss on the shoulders of people who fought and died for their beliefs so that you can have this kind of freedom and....AND... Iraqi citizens can protest against the very people who are in the process of liberating them. (In literary circles, that is known as irony.)
That kind of defeats the whole Bush-as-tyrant argument, now, doesn't it?
Stream- "I cannot believe the utter disdain for other human beings that you must hold at your core, that you dispute removing Saddam as a good thing. "
--You know that this is not true, but you post the lie as a act of verbal vengeance. Why are you so angry?
"You would not have supported the American revolution, the Civil War or WW2 on the same grounds: it would be painful, some will die, some soldiers will misbehave, bad decisions might get made...ergo, it is simply not worth it."
--That's quite a decisive judgment you have cast on me, and its based on a complete and utter misinterpretation of my statement. Have you become so bitter from the worlds disdain for the Bush administration that you have to resort to invective as your only points? What you have written is utter bullshit and you know it.
"You piss on the shoulders of people who fought and died for their beliefs so that you can have this kind of freedom and...."
--More vindictive lies as usual. In fact to USE those who die for freedom, to make such a statement against others is the pinnacle of vulgarity.
Bush and Saddam both employed torture, captivity, and warfare against civilians to achieve their goal. To the average citizen of Iraq, I imagine they are the same.
Pods...would have expected you to defend against my statements.
Sadly, you did not.
Then you end with this gem:"Bush and Saddam both employed torture, captivity, and warfare against civilians to achieve their goal. To the average citizen of Iraq, I imagine they are the same."
Really?!
Really?!
You just eqivocated between GWB and SH. Speaking of vulgarity.
Which civilains did Bush torture again? Please, pods...rise above this silliness.
Stream - There is nothing to your statements except angry accusations that you know are not true. I just refuse to let you sling accusations, and let them stand. Its called integrity, and some of us have it, and some don't.
The history of the Bush administration is in the can, and the first of many books have been written. What has happened has happened, and the reality of it will be effecting all of us for some time to come. Many of the acolytes try to rewrite the history to make it seem better, and many of the aggrieved will try to make it seem worse.
I'm willing to attempt to stand philosophically in the shoes of another, and take their viewpoint. Its called empathy, and you should give it a try.
IMO you would not be so supportive of the thing you defend, if you were on the receiving end of it.
Indeed your skin is so thin as to any assault on your political idolatry, that perhaps if you were an Iraqi, whose family had been destroyed in a "collateral damage event", IMO you would be joining up to fight the imperial power, and uphold Allah's will. Most are hopeful that some good will come out of it all.
It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who believes the world is just 6000 years old. We could just kick him over the rim of the disk world.
Pods
Opinions are not lies. That you and Canuck hate GWB is obvious. No biggie.
However, that and only that is your rationale for opposition to everything he has stood for. C- has never been able to critically assess any thing without his hate-filter.
Disagree with the war in Iraq. Fine. Hate him to the point of making things up and conveniently forgetting the events and circumstances that brought us to here is why I say you piss on the shoulders of those who came before you. It is not the disagreement which I have a problem...it is the grounds for disagreement. Now, when you all routinely call GBW a liar and can show NO undisputed claim he has ever made that is a lie.
What integrity, Pods?! I see none here. In this instance, not from you.
C-...Gitmo, huh?
These are civilians minding their own business who were snatched up by the evil Americans, right? Like KSM?
Well...lemme see....no charges....no trial...no legal representation.....no finding of ANY guilt......held without just cause, reason or rational......condoned torture.........ad infinitum.
Hey stream, there is little to rebut, when all you do is whine, about those who make comments that you object to.
It is just a endless series of personal attacks about the "morals" or "faith" or "beliefs", that don't meet your personal criteria. You never discuss the subject, just those discussing it.
How about a some metaphorical cheese to go with all that whine.
...and I don't hate GWB, as I have stated to you many times before. So here I state it again ad nauesum, that he may be a nice guy, but I fully and totally disapprove of him as POTUS, and his own history has shown him to be weak minded, and intellectually challenged to say the least.
And in the America I have known, it is within my right to disapprove of my representation, and I will express it, and it will be without having to present it for your approval.
So Bush has never lied in his entire life. Please present your proof of that, and then I will present the lies. Oh, that's right he just forgets or misstates things. I don't know what causes people like you to idolize this simpleton, to the point of worship, but I bet is has its basis in religion.
Pods...maybe you don't understand. When one is accused of something, the accuser brings the proof. The innocent then rebuts.
So when you accuse GBW of certain lies...you must prove it. It is certainly not on me to respect childish requests to Bush "never lied in his life."
C-...good article. Left out a lot, but not bad for the press. I hope these men truly are innocent since the currently undisputed claim about all detainees is that they were picked up as combatants.Your commentary as extrapolation of my comments is, as usual, absurd.
Now WHY would you just sit there on your Holy Ass and simply "hope that he's innocent"?
Ain't someone innocent until proven guilty (whether or not they are branded by Georgie-Boys' personal label of being "enemy combatants")?
Plus, seeing as how this guy was released after 7 long years in that shitpit without conviction, charge or trial......would YOU support some form of monetary compensation for him? I mean, seeing as how your fucking hero of a Prezdint had him rounded up and all and in YOUR name?
Personally, if I was THAT guy, and YOU were the current C-in-C.....I'd kick your goddamn head in, the first chance I got when released.
And that goes triple for your racist, brownshirt-wearing Posse.
C- Yep, I have a job that actually pays for the effort exerted, and there will be a product when completed.
Stream - I was imposing a cognitive test yesterday. You didn't notice? I'm a little surprised, well maybe not so surprised.
So you don't love Mr. Bush? ... Yep, I knew that. You react to it, and its all a waste of time, right? So why did I do it. To make a much needed point.
I reversed every question, and supposition. I guess I'm a little too bored with the constant attacks on the poster, and not the content. And then you make outrageous statements about our viewpoints that you know are false.
You repeatedly state that, and anyone who was against the war in Iraq, would have "utter disdain for other human beings", and "you dispute removing Saddam as a good thing", and "You would not have supported the American revolution, the Civil War or WW2", and "You piss on the shoulders of people who fought and died for their beliefs...", "That you ... hate GWB is obvious....that and only that is your rationale for opposition to everything he has stood for."
What childish venomous simplistic hyperbolic nonsense those statements are.
So why would I bother, responding to such irrationality?
Thought you boys might be interested in the latest tally by the Pentagon as to what's happening with Georgie-Boys' and Dickie-Heads' "terrorists" (you know.....they ones that ain't been charged, tried or convicted of anything----except tortured in some cases). As a bonus, this even includes the ones who've died in there.
You wrote: "I mean, by implication, you are suggesting that a smart person who understood the culture would have reacted differently. So...how?"
I am saying that Bush would have understood the act instead of just playing it off by saying "I'm not insulted." You may be referring to Bush's reaction of dodging the shoe. What else would he do? Heck, as well as he dodged the draft would you have expected any less of an effort here? (rim shot)
I am suggesting that a "smart" person never would have gone to Iraq and made all those dubious claims. All that "greeted as liberators" stuff was wrong because Bush (and his administration) saw Iraq as a nation-state of national unity. But everybody should now know that Iraqis unite at different levels: family/clan, community, religion, then (maybe) country. The culture, in fact cultures, are difficult to read and understand. The ethnic cleansing in Iraq neighborhoods, the Kurdish autonomy, the Iranian influence of the southern Shia and more illustrate what I'm saying Bush didn't understand or plan for.
Oh, and Bush's false dilemma of "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" was another of his many logical fallacies. But hay, I aint no ejumacated man. U tell me wat ta thank, streamlined, an I will thank dat way.
Pimpwithoutbrains
Which dubious claims? The ones that were made by Clinton? The same ones backed by thousands of pages of foreign intelligence? Those claims?
You conveniently forget your history.
Do not change, for argument's sake, your original premise.
You implied that a smart person would have been insulted.
Please explain.
So Canuck, is your endlessly repititious posting of Streamo's religious beliefs to be your only defense against his very sound arguements? I know you intend to show that believing in any religion automatically demonstrates stupidity. But all you ever seem to show is that non-believers in religion can be equally stupid.
I disagree. (Wow, there's a shocker!) A person's religious beliefs do not automatically affect their thinking. They can, but not automatically so, not anymore than your atheism automatically clouds your thinking.
You're atheist right? Does that automatically mean you are immoral, that you condone child abuse, rape women, and have no sense of right or wrong? Of course not. Yet you assume that people who are religious have no scientific or political intelligence? You are being bigotted against Streamo for his religion again. Frankly, I wasn't alive 6001 years ago, so I can't say with absolute certainly that creationism is wrong. I'm pretty dang certain of it, because of fossil and geologic evidence, but not absolutely certain. I am certain that believing in Creationism doesn't make someone stupid, stubborn maybe...
Anyway, I just expect that big thinkers like you guys can come up with better rebuttals to Streamo's points than the bigotted garbage you've presented so far.
You can't argue with someone on ANYTHING, if they believe the world has been around for 6,000 years. That makes them a "religious zealot".
Similarly, you can't argue with someone on ANYTHING, if they believe waterboarding isn't torture. That makes them a "war crimes supporter".
So in this respect, either one of you is no smarter or better than the other.
Both are blind; both encourage and idolize all of the shitty, rotten, corrupt deeds and lies perpetrated by their malignant leaders, and treat it as gospel; one cannot see past "God"; the other cannot see past THE FLAG. I kid you not....if Georgie-Boy went on TV right this minute, and admitted to yheir faces in no uncertain twerms that he lied, cheated, stole, and told everyone to go fuck themselves.....then you both would STILL defend him and his policies and that of his henchmen. You both know you would. Fucking blind sheep.
Now what on earth can I argue with about, with simpletons such as these?
Both are beneath my intellectual prowess as well as beneath my dignity to respond to or reply to (even though I can't help myself; it's what makes me beloved in these parts).
HD, streamy is as much an idiot as you are an ignorant party line follower.
Why should I condone rape, child abuse, or other vsuch vile things? As you clearly have pointed out I am an atheist and as such I don't have any religion that tells me it is OK to abuse or kill certain people.
"........I just expect that big thinkers like you guys can come up with better rebuttals to Streamo's points than the bigotted garbage you've presented so far."
Oh ya?
Well, how 'bout you do some fucking homework, and go and look WAY BACK at some of Stream-O's postings.
Maybe then you'll learn to shut yer gob, Mr. "I-Try-To-Put-On-A-False-Funny-Face-When-I-Try-To-Play-The-Middle".
Lord, I dont no wat 2 B writin' hera. U guyz R 2 serious fo me. I B guessin' U wen argrumunts by yellin' an shit an sheer pursistunce. I giv up. U win. Bush B smart, made all duh rite dicishuns. US won da war. Da worl luv us. Now lets git da hell outta dar an clame victoree.
I B sure not 2 post no mo to streamlined. He B a mental wisard. Caint out thank him. He B brainiack, EinStein, Nosetrodomus all wrappid up in 1.
That is the best thing for my taxes to be spent: Defense.
Not social/entitlement/welfare programs.
Priorities, I guess.
Yes, war is costly and freedom is not free. For anyone.I know you would have dictators rule the world and kill, maim and torture their subjects, C-.
You're taxes ain't goin' up (according to Georgie-Boy).
How ya gonna pay for his wars?
Or, if it'll make it easier for ya.....how are ya gonna spend money (that you ain't got) on all the great toys that kill folks....but NO MONEY (that you still ain't got) on things that would actually make peoples' lives better?
And aren't you basically saying that you'd rather have American boys die for Falluja....rather than have money spent on programs at home?
You're a a fuckin' nut.
If I started posting the names, ages and hometowns of each and every single American KIA on here......would you still have the fucking balls to say "Yeah! Cool! To hell with spending money on badly-needed things here at home-----we'll just send that young fella to DIE for a cause the Iraqis wouldn't do for THEMSELVES! And then, we can spend addtional money we DON'T HAVE, and start taking out the other 20 or 30 "dictators" as well, cuz you know, we're on Gods side and vice-versa, right? RIGHT!"
It has become so pathetically easy now, to make you look like a backwoods, clueless redneck who talks to burning shrubs.
War is the only reason I can imagine to run up a national debt. War should be an option of last resort, of failed diplomacy and vital national security interest. That is where we disagree on Iraq. But a war is either worth fighting, or its not. How to pay for it, should not be the primary concern. Its like if your kid needs a surgery to save his life. If he truly needs it, you find a way to pay for it. So if your kid only sorta sees slightly improved odds of survival it he has the surgery, then do you weigh the financial costs in your decision? Probably not.
Arguing against the Iraq war because you see it as immoral, that I can respect. Arguing against the Iraq war, because you'd rather spend the money elsewhere, regardless of the suffering of Iraqis, that I cannot respect.
At this point, we're already in Iraq. Arguing about the past need to invade Iraq is truly pointless. The only decision now, is how do we leave Iraq with the least amount of human suffering, and the best chance of future peace in Iraq? The surge has worked, in that it has pushed Iraq temporarily back from the brink of civil war, and given them a chance for future peace, where they previously had none. At this point, withdrawal of US forces in time is a given, regardless of Iraq's future. We've given them a chance, or opened Pandora's box, but either way, we've done about all we can do for / to them. Whether Bush or Obama in charge, US forces in Iraq will withdraw slowly in time, and buildup in Afghanistan. I see nothing different so far with Obama's planned foreign policy.
Rsad a bit about the history of Afghanistan and the involvement of the Britisch empire. Then read a bit about the good times the Russians had there.
Just so you are prepared for what is going to happen there in the next years unless there is put more emphasis on humanitarian projects, diplomacy, and building a genuine police and law force than on fighting.
Bug, I'm well aware of the British and Russians getting their asses handed to them in Afghanistan. You think if we start dumping billions in their economy, that things will turn around. I doubt it. They have multiple generations with no education, and that is not easily turned around. I agree that military strength alone will not solve the problems, but neither will endless funding. Economic development worked in Germany and Japan, because they had educated people with a strong industrial base. You have jack squat in Afghanistan to build on. This may become an endless welfare nation, that never stops hating us for it. No win situation.
Okay, torture-lover......please enlighten ALL of us here, by telling us something:
Exactly WHEN did YOU start giving a flying fiddlers fuck about the "suffering of Iraqis"? Hmm?? WHEN did YOU start losing sleep, wondering if some poor Iraqi has a roof over his head? WHEN did YOU start staying up late at night, worrying about if they have enough running water or food to eat?
When?
Huh?
Give me a fuckin' break, you torture-loving, war-mongering, self-serving, comic-book-reading, Rambo-loving, illiterate, close-minded, oblivious, anal-retentive, flag-waving, shallow, bigoted, racist, homophobic, ignorant-Johnny-Reb FUCKING PINHEAD.
Plus, considering your Georgie-Boy-Leader-Hero IS STILL spending 10-12 Billion dollars a MONTH (!) in EYE-Rak, you would have more than amply had a universal health care system by now, so that stupid scenario of worrying about whether to "pay" for living-saving surgery for a little kid in Anytown, U.S.A. would then be rendered a MOOT FUCKING POINT, now wouldn't it?
But noooooooo......YOU'D much rather it be spent on those poor, poor Eye-Raki's that you've of course spent a LOT of your life worrying about, and about whos "suffering" you're so gosh-darned worried about. Shaddap, ok? Seriously, just shut your fucking stupid, gaping cake-hole. I'll tell ya something else: if....and I stress IF......if I WAS a parent who had a son or daughter who was killed in Mosul or Tikrit or Anbar or wherever...and I heard YOU spout that fucked up reasoning.....I'd cut off your empty fucking head and stick it on a pike in front of my house with your big fucking mouth stuffed with stale apple pie.
It is precisely and SPECIFICALLY because of pinheads who believe and think as you and your flat-earth-believing buddy do, that the U.S. has been allowed to go down the disastrous road it has.
So stop playing like you've got any semblence of a fucking brain.
Ya know what asshole, it probably started around 92. After I helped bomb the Iraqis out of Kuwait, I started paying attention to the news a lot more. I read about Saddam rounding up Shiites and slaughtering them. I read about Saddam gassing the Kurds. I read about Saddam's sons just kidnapping and raping any woman they chose. I watched Saddam endlessly play cat and mouse with the UN. I watched Saddam siphon oil-for-food money into his own pockets, while Iraqi kids went malnurished. And I made a decision that Saddam needed to be removed from power, and I would support that given the chance. See I actually saw a cause worth fighting for, I took a stand. I'm not a self-absorbed little self-righteous prick like you. I've served my country, and realize and appreciate the sacrifices our servicemen are making in Iraq, because I've had just a small taste of that. I actually remember the brutality of Saddam's regime on the Iraqi people. I didn't conveniently forget all about that, because it might have justified Bush's actions. I didn't chose to not notice as thousands of Iraqis were dug out of the ground, with their hands tied behind their backs, and a bullet-hole in the back of their heads.
I watched Clinton do virtually nothing, yet support the removal of Saddam. I watched all your Democrat heros call for the removal of Saddam. Yet the moment the war went south, all your Democrat heros jumped ship and started playing party politics. I watched Bush do stupid shit and fail to plan, that endangered our troops, and I'm pissed at him about it. But I'm maybe more pissed at the self-serving Democrats who willfully support demonizing the president, and further endangering our troops, for their own political gain.
I feel bad everytime I hear about more civilians getting killed by a mistaken bomb attack, but giving up isn't the answer. I realize we can't save everybody from every brutal dictator. But we could do something about Saddam, and we did. I don't regret that.
And if I ever ran into your hate-mongering, foul-mouthed, character-assassinating, truth-perverting, self-righteous ass, I'd be hard-pressed not to kick the living shit out of you.
In fact, it was almost 18 years ago (holy crap) that I sat aboard the USS Ranger on Christmas day, steaming full speed for Iraq, not knowing if I would make it back. But I knew Iraq had already been at war with Iran for a decade. I knew Saddam had already gassed and murdered his own people, and was currently plundering Kuwait. Millions of Iraqis already killed. This was already a regime worthy of removal, but we weren't willing to go all the way then. I wish we had. This is the guy you prefer to have left in power. At least some people were willing to stand up to Saddam, and Cowardly Canuck should be grateful for their conviction and sacrifice.
You were in a joke of a "war". Got that? Kuwait? What....you liberated one dictatorship from another. You fucking kidding me?? So? Ohhhh.....my fuckin' hero. A real just cause, that was. And against the guy who was the U.S. governments BUDDY at one point, no less (I think around that time he was gassing the Kurds with weapons that YOUR government supplied him). Basically even the dumbest neocons have come out since then, and said it was about oil. O-I-L. It was NOT to help out these poor, little Iraqis you keep fucking crying about, ya lying bastard. If it WAS about THAT, then George Sr. woulda went in a finished Saddam right there and then. Case closed. But nope. He needed those oil pipelines to remain OPEN. And that's IT. Mission accomplished. You know what you remind me of? One of them thug Hitler brownshirts, who believe every spoon-fed scrap of toxic shit that's been fed to them, as soon as they put on a uniform.
You were NOT there for the good of the "Iraqi people".
Got that, asshole?
And why get steamed at me for it? Take it up with the OTHER assholes who sent you there, and put you at risk because of bullsit. Bullshit about oil.
And I would say you're fairly lucky you ain't in my proximity to spout that phoney, flag-waving shit. Because after I get done with your ribcage, I'll let your hosptial bills do the rest, and finish you off for good.
BTW....in the midst of all this crying for the Eye-Rakkis, you ever shed a crocodile tear for any of your own countrymen who fell ill, and died NOT because of enemy action....but because they were exposed to artillery shells containing depleted uranium, as used by the U.S. Army in Gulf War I?
HD - C is correct about the oil connection and Iraq. It is, and always has been about control of oil. The need for the US to monopolize the regions oil for it own power, and power over all those who need it. It is a fact that peak oil has been reached, and even Saudi Arabia can no longer pump sweet crude, and that is the sign.
The US was happy with Saddam as long as he was our OIL buddy, and he was given sovereign rights to do whatever he wanted. Iraq and Iran killed off each other in the millions in the eighties, and most of America was absolutely thrilled with the result of our little friend. We sold him billions worth of arms to help kill as many Iranians as possible, and we were even more happy. Arms sales and oil revenues for American companies make profits on "Corporate" oil pumped out of Iraq, with Corporate infrastructure. Oil being traded in US dollars by the way.
So what made Saddam the enemy of the US. Was it the massive killing of his people and his neighbors? Nope. It was when he ceased to be a obedient puppet, and nationalized the the oil fields, and all of the corporate infrastructure. He started buying his arms from Russia. Then he started a personal crusade to acquire more oil fields outside of Iraq, and became a rouge state. And then he started a campaign to trade oil in Euros, and not dollars.
After all those OIL and CORPORATE transgressions, (Not the killing) it was decided that control of the mid-east oil fields was necessary. So the oil companies, and military corporations decided that the US was going to war with Iraq.
Many will convince themselves that this is some humanitarian mission in a personal effort to justify the actions taken, and the corporate media will play both sides to keep all those willing to believe, believing anything they need to believe, as long as it is not the real truth. Divide and conquer.
If the US were in any way concerned about human rights that were not connected to regional power, there would not have been Rwanda, Darfur, North Korea, Cambodia, etc...
Many Americans need to wake up and realize they are part of a empire, with all that empire implies.
Pods.....will you PLEASE stop coming in after me being civil, and ruining the brass, crass, asshole-ish way I put things?? LOL! Kidding.
You're right, of course.
But don't tell that stuff to the torture-lover (is it just me, or have you or anyone else noticed how strange it is the way his heart bleeds for these Eye-Rakkis and about how much of a rough go they've had.....and yet will support waterboarding, i.e. torture, upon their persons? Or even not mention ONCE some of the abuses visited upon them, like Abu Ghraib? Don't you find that almost....well.....schizophrenic?)
The bottom-line is this:
He actually believes all the shit they've spoon-fed him. All of it! Hook, line and sinker. HE'LL tell you it was all about "liberation", or "freedom from tyranny", or some other such rhetorical nonsense; Stream-O will tell you its a holy crusade, based on "humanitarian grounds", and that he'll happily support slaughtering thousands upon thousands of "them" because, gosh-darnit....it's for their own good, after all and they'll get "freedom" whether they like or not and won't sacrifice THEIR OWN sons and daughters for it, by golly because it's like The Palin Whore said: "It's a task from GAWWWWD."
If either of these two deluded sheep had ANY brains whatsoever, THEY should be the first ones screaming for the Capitol Building in D.C. to be turned in a modern-day site for the Nuremburg Trials.
Now THAT would be in keeping with the principles and ideals upon which America was founded (and not "religion"; to argue otherwise, would suggest that it was created and intended to be a mild form of theocratic rule; somehow, I don't think that was the case).
I just had the greatest, most outrageous idea. It's insane enough, that it actually makes sense, and might even work! Check this out:
It has become painfully apparent that an awful lot of folks out there (who fall into torture-lovers and Stream-O's categories mainly) just plain don't care a wit for the members of the military. It's okay to feed them bullshit reasons to go off and fight; it's not a big deal to have them die for those who do not have the will to do it for themselves; it's okay to give them sub-standard care after they get home; it's okay to send them into battle with equipment that's inadequate and inferior, because as Rumsfeld famously said "You go with the army you have", and that's that. So who DOES look after these young men and women, and genuinely have have their best interests at heart, and who would best be able to represent them? Hmm? The C-In-C? Nope. The Pentagon? No way. The generals? No. The VA? Doubt it. ANY political party? Fat chance. So WHO?? Hmmmm............I know:
What if the ENTIRE U.S. military, from the rank of Warrant Officer and down (basically all senior NCO's)...was........unionized? Wait....don't laugh...think about it! And here's how it pan out:
The membership in this "union" would consist of all those I mentioned above; henceforth, they will simply be known as "the membership", okay? All those from the rank of lieutenant, j.g. and all the way up to the President, would henceforth be known simply as "The Employer". With me so far? Okay....there would then be what's known as a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the two parties. This agreement would hold accountable BOTH sides in terms of conduct, when to fight, criteria that MUST be met before any engagement in battle, having the right equipment at-hand for the job with a REASONABLE effort to ensure the health and safety of the membership, precise wording on benefits entitlements with enforceable agreements pertaining to same, etc, etc. The way the situation stands NOW, is that the "Employer" can basically do whatever the fuck he/they want: lie, make up reasons, ignore intelligence reports, make excuses, give false reasons for war, put the "Employees" at needless risk, and so forth. But wouldn't that change.....if they had to deal with a military that was set up as an organized labour force? Think about it: the head of this "Union Membership", would be privy to ALL information and resources used by the Employer to justify going to war; if those reasons were shit, or were baseless.....then the Union President would simply tell THE President to piss off and come back to him with something a little more reasonable and sane; otherwise, he will NOT risk the health and safety of his Membership on his bullshit say-so, or that of his upper-management cronies (Sec. of Def., Homeland Sec. Dept., CIA Director, V.P., etc). If the "Employer" insists on pushing the issue.....then a work-to-rule campaign is started; if the POTUS STILL won't budge after a set time period, then a strike vote is put out to "The Membership". In summation, it would go something like this:
The POTUS would appear on TV to address the Nation, sitting alongside the Military Union President (or, M.U.P., if you prefer). They would both look into the camera, make their case and the dialogue would go something like this:
(at this point, ALL military facilities up to, and including, those manning nuclear/chemical/biological weapons....cease operations domestically and internatiionally and grind to a halt, leaving the entire U.S. briefly and precariously vulnerable for a few minutes)
As a former 25-year U.S. Navy Vietnam vet told me about about 4 years ago......"If it wasn't for unions, the average American working man would be worse off today, than he was a hundred years ago."
C - as to what people believe, I think Julius Caesar said it best: "Men willingly believe what they wish." as per, to hell with facts, just give me the fantasy that I desire.
The unusual thing about the propaganda that surrounds Reaganomics, and socialism is that those who decry socialism and up hold Regan and deregulation, only desire such actions to be imposed on others, but never themselves. A clear example is the child dependent tax credit ($4000 per kid) (as well as many other entitlements), that so many anti-socialist folks claim every year.
They would have some credible arguments if they turned down their SS checks, and all of the government entitlements that the taxpayers pay for. The only people in America that are not hypocrites are the Amish. They even pay taxes, but never receive benefits.
As to your Road Warrior bargaining, don't we have to get to the post- apocalyptic, past peak oil world to get there.
But seriously the people should have a voice on such matters as war, and with the congress with the way it operates, we are muted.
C - And as for the story of Saddam, you have probably made the correlation between his path to media hype, matches the Hugo Chavez path. He nationalized the oil fields and equipment in what he absurdly considered the property of Venezuela and has considered expanding such actions throughout the region. The oil companies will get their fields and oil back, after the media has made the case for war.
When the mid-east runs out of opportunities to create wealth, and hold power, the Chavez problem will be brought front and center as a "humanitarian mission" in South America, in an attempt to overthrow the brutal dictator, and bring those poor people the government they deserve.
C- well if you look at the list of "rogue" countries, then each and every one has nationalized assets, and the quote "Crazy dictator" in charge. If the corporations cannot get the war started with Iran, then certainly Venezuela is next.
Oh, the good ole days when we had puppet dictators in each of these countries.
...and if the American people will ever have a voice as to war, then there is one answer, the draft. The Volunteer army disenfranchises the bulk of America from even giving it a thought.
Pods
You mix fact and conjecture so easily.
Now, you suppose that the first war in Iraq was solely for oil...which you are mistaken, of course.
Just like the recent war, you assume that there is ONE reason to take up arms and if that ONE reason does not pass the smell test, then you assume corruption, lies, etc.
Flawed thinking.
There were, in the first Gulf War, a number of reasons, of which was a stable oil supply. (Forgive me if I don't see how USA was looking to "control" it by keeping it from Russian hands. Which, of course, is a good thing...or, do you disagree?)
Saddam's gasing and killing were also among those reasons. His agressive nature, in this political mix, certainly put a war on the table.
Attempting to re-develop WMD's is among the reasons we go in there after 9/11. Taunting the UN with WMD smoke and mirrors. Rape rooms. Mass graves. Funding suicide bombers. Terrorist rehab and training.
(It is missing the forest for the tree analogy run amok with you and C-.)
Nah, I see no reason to interfere.
I'm sure some negotiations and sanctions would have worked. I know, I know...they haven't worked up until then. Even with the magic that is Bill Clinton. But, we must appease these dictators. It matters not what they intend to gain or who they kill.
c-...You yellow dove. Everytime you call anyone a torture lover and then suggest we should not have removed Saddam, you show yourself to be a
coward.
You have offered no alternative. Your hate has been soley directed at GWB and not at the actual purveyors of real torture. Nick Berg?! Daniel Perle?!
You both stand for nothing but appear to rationalize your own short-comings
Thank you, HD, for your service.
God bless you. My step-father is a Marine, my father was in the army and both grandparents fought in WW2. The sickness thrown at you by the coward C- (and I know you know this) does not warrant a reply and you certainly don't need my defense.
However, I would love to meet C-.
Not for the reasons you state, but to know that he would not speak this way nose-to-nose with me.
Well...lemme see....no charges....no trial...no legal representation.....no finding of ANY guilt......held without just cause, reason or rational......condoned torture.........ad infinitum.
A) If you come from such a grand military family, then how come YOU didn't have the guts or wherewithall to ever put on the uniform and take a stand yourself, for all these great "humanitarian" ideals? Huh? Don't make me fucking laugh. But you'll easily let some other shmuck do it, for whatever cause, and give the perfunctory pat on the back, and the usual "Hey great job! Thanks for everything! Have your people call my people! We'll do lunch!"
Idiot.
B) ".....Rape rooms. Mass graves. Funding suicide bombers. Terrorist rehab and training"...... Again, I'm gonna ask you, retard: How does ANY of that come to be YOUR fucking business? The Iraqis were quite happy to let it go on and on, without lifting so much as a finger, and those same Iraqis would now GLADLY have HIM back in power if they could, instead of what Georgie-Boy gave them. So, get it through your head, zealot: THEY DON'T WANT YOU THERE. End of story. Period.
C) I do NOT call "anyone" a "torture-lover"......just those who vocally support it, by their own mouths. And judging by your glossing over of those saod comments.....it appears that you are one as well. Gee...I'm shocked.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not exactly democracies, but they weren't killing their own people like Iraq, or attacking their neighbors, and so were the lesser of two evils. Saddam had in 10 short years attacked Iran killing millions, attacked Kuwait, attacked Saudi Arabia, attacked Israel, and slaughtered or executed thousands of Iraqis Kurds and Shiites. Yet you would leave him in power, basically because you don't give a fuck.
As for Rwanda and others, no war is never justified solely by humanitarian concerns. That might be the justification in some peoples minds, but its not a justification for a nation to go to war. A nation only cares about national security interests. Helping liberate people or end genocide is frankly only icing on the cake. Its the threat that to do nothing, will result in some harm to America. Rwanda and Darfur were no threat to America, so sadly we did shit. Serbia was a strategic threat to the peace of Europe, and the possibility of a wider war, the only reason NATO eventually got around to ending the ethnic cleansing there. North Korea holds a gun to Seoul's head, so we can't really touch them without millions of South Koreans dying, even if NK points nukes at us. Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, its own people, and the ME oil supplies, this was a threat we could do something about. Oil was one component justifying the war, it was not the only component. It is a reality that our society needs oil for our economic prosperity. Having a weakened economy does impact our military readiness. However, the first gulf war was not only for oil. I readily admit that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds didn't make the news at the time Saddam was fighting our archrival Iran. You probably didn't hear too much about the treatment of captured German POWs by the Russians during WW2 either, didn't make the Russians any less evil. Saddam was a US ally for a time. But Saddam was a ruthless killer, who threatened the peace of all his neighbors, and he needed to be stopped. Saddam attacked his neighbors, killed his own citizens, developed WMDs, and threatened the world's oil supply. And the US didn't sell nearly so many weapons to Iraq, as France and Russia did. Show me a poll where the majority of Iraqis want Saddam back in power. Only the ex power holding Sunnis want Saddam back, so they can continue exploiting and murdering the other ethnic groups for their gain.
As for US soldiers in Iraq, I've gone through a bit of what they're going through. I don't take their lives lightly, as mine was once one of them. I understand what its like to be expendable to your government, not a pleasant feeling. But I understand that they are volunteers, willing to take a stand, and most overwhelmingly support the mission. Most who say they're against the war because they're so concerned about US troops, frankly are against any war, for any reason. No objective, no war is worth fighting for, for any reason. You either believe some things are worth fighting for, or you fall into the apathetic abyss. So before you condemn the war in the name of protecting our soldiers, ask our soldiers if they feel this war is worth fighting and potentially dying for. Its been five years since this war started. No one is forced to fight a war they don't support anymore. They've all had time for enlistments to end, and make a conscious choice whether to re-up or not. What are re-enlistment rates now compared to in peace time? Canuck says we have no problems sending others to die for wars we are unwilling to fight. Well Palin and Biden have both sent sons to Iraq. I've fought in a war against Iraq. So Canuck, as usual, you're full of shit.
But I agree we should re-instate the draft. I think our volunteer army has created a warrior caste in America, that maybe is more willing to fight than the whole of America. A draft would force Washington to consider the wars it fights a little harder, before getting into them.
Canuck, the likes of you are the sheep, because you're unwilling to ever stand for anything or defend anything. You always need other sheepdogs to protect you from the wolves of the world, while you endlessly bitch about the cruelty of the sheepdogs. So maybe Bush is right not to be offended when some Iraqi calls him a dog.
So many things were hackneyed, wrong and just plain outright crap in what you said/believe. All you're doing is regurgitating the same old flag-waving rah-rah bullshit that's been hammered into your skull. So I'll make this reply VERY simple:
1. The only "neighbour" (singular....NOT plural) that Saddam was a threat to, was Iran. They had an eight-year-long bloody war, that killed a million in total. THAT'S IT. He was NOT a fucking threat to Uncle Sam----AT ALL. Not THEN....and not recently. Period. This guy who you were taught to believe was a "threat" was on YOUR governments' fuckin' payroll for a LONG, LONG TIME. Got that? This "threat" was YOUR pal. Get it now?
2. "Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not exactly democracies".....LOL! You fucking dope...they are DICTATORSHIPS. So stop fucking minimizing it, ok? You like supporting dictatorships, be they Saddam, the Saudis or the Kuwaitis? Fine. Just be fuckin' honest about it, you tool.
3. As for whether the soldiers themselves support the mission (I KNOW they don't)...well...what's your fucking point? Since when is THAT relevent? When did the U.S. military (or ANY military, for that matter) suddenly become a democracy?? Are you seriously all there in the head? They support it, or they don't. So? Their job is to pick up that goddamn weapon, and go where they're told. Period. They do NOT pick and choose their wars, so it don't matter a fucking wit whether they support it or not. That's just a fact, without any moral implication or flag-waving bullshit attached to it. One can only hope that since that IS the case, they will NOT be put in harms way unless absolutely necessary, and as a last resort. Clearly, in THIS case (as with Vietnam, Gulf War I, Panama, Grenada, etc. ).....they were NOT given this. Georgie-Boy gave them bullshit, and served it up hot.
4. You're comparing WWII (or anything about it) to THIS shit going on now??? Don't waste my fucking time, you simplistic child.
Plus, I WAS gonna add number 5, by AGAIN asking you where were these Eye-Rakkis with their nifty IED's and suicide bombers and snipers and insurgents during the reign of Saddam, and didn't lift ONE FINGER to fight for their own "freedom".....buuuuut........niether of you fucking dimwits wanna answer that; instead, you just ignore it. Completely. And instead you quietly support the deaths of over 4,200 young Americans, which strangely seems okay in YOUR books.
Fucking seriously cuckoo you are.
Disgrace, even.
Plus, please stop referring to the war you were in as "being against Iraq". You were sent there to secure oil flow. That's it. That's all. Texas tea. Black gold. Understand that, Mr. Clampett?
File the following under "Continuing Education" for YOU:
Just prior to Gulf War I, Kuwait had purchased all kinds of nifty American oil-drilling equipment. Very efficient tools. So they set it up at a point where they brush up against the Iraqi border. Now this eqipment is SO good, that it actually manages to siphon oil out from the Iraqi side of the border, underground. Saddam of course finds out about this, and summons the Kuwaiti Emir for a civil little chit-chat. He basically says to him, "Look.....I know what you fuckin' assholes have been doing, okay? I just spent 8n years trying to kick the snot outta the Iranians, and I need every revenue at my disposal to build my forces back up again, so I can finish off Khomeini. So quit STEALING MY SHIT! And I'm warning you NOW, to knock it off. You wanna wind up like those Iranian-sympathizing Kurds? Huh? Do you?? Then stop fucking around. Now....get the fuck outta my limo before I throw you in a wood-chipper."
Obviously, the Kuwaitis didn't listen, and kept right on drilling.
It's now painfully obvious that Saddam honestly didn't believe he'd encounter the opposition he did when he invaded Kuwait; just a few short years ago, Rumsfeld had paid him a personal visit (1982), sat down with him over some goat stew and tea, warmly shook hands with him and happily provided his regime with aerial recon photos showing Iranian troop movements/strengths during the war. So why on earth would he believe his American friends would suddenly stab him in the back? Well, that's simple: by the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Reagan was out; Daddy George Sr. was in. Under New Management, in other words. And Daddy George Sr. decided that it was A-OK by him if the Kuwaitis kept using American equipment to siphon Iraq oil. And why was THAT? That's easy, too:
Bush/Arab business dealings go back a long, long ways.
So it was easy to toss Saddam under the bus, given that choice. But to launch ANY war, it MUST be packaged properly to be sold to the public at large. Hence, you then had all of the flag-waving, liberating, we're-the-good guys-in-a-just-cause kind of nonsensical way to make it, shall we say, more palpable.
Coward.
All the rationalizing boils you down to a coward.
No morals to defend...so, why have the courage to defend something that is nonexistent.
Lot's of people do and do not enter the military, C-.
Everytime you suggest that I didn't enter for any speculative reason, you implicate everyone else on the same grounds.
I know, I know...it's just what bigots do. You have no control over it. This is the enlightened state to which you randomly evolved.
So when Saddam invaded Kuwait and massed his forces on the Saudi Arabian border, that was only threatening Iran right? And when Saddam lobbed his Scud bottle-rockets into Israel, that again was only threatening Iran? No wonder you wouldn't fight for anything, you can't even recognize a threat.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are monarchies, not strictly the same thing as a dictatorship. However, both have been strong US allys for decades, even if they hate us. America defends its allies.
As for why the Iraqis didn't fight for their freedom from Saddam? They did, you just didn't notice. The Shiites rose up in 91 after Saddam was beaten back. Saddam figured out the US wasn't going any further, and decided to slaughter a few thousand Shiites for their uprising. Those mass graves didn't fill themselves. Oh and then you have those pesky Kurds, who started fighting against Saddam again around 92, a few years after Saddam had killed them with chemical weapons. Saddam started wasting them again using attack helicopters (since the Kurds were able to defend their ground territory), which is precisely why the Iraqi no-fly-zones were created.
So there was just a smidgen of Iraqi resistance to Saddam well before 2003. Why do you think so many Iraqis were unwilling to fight for Saddam?
As for US history with Iraq, I'm well aware of it. But Bush Sr. and the UN made it perfectly clear that Iraq needed to withdraw from Kuwait, that Iraq had stepped over the line. We even gave Saddam a deadline to withdraw, and there could be little doubt of coalition willingness to enforce this UN resolution, as the buildup of military forces from many nations was slow and deliberate. All Saddam had to do was withdraw, he could have even smashed all the American made drilling equipment (we could always sell more anyway). He just tried to call our bluff, and got his ass handed to him for it. But I don't seriously believe Saddam had many doubts about US intentions at the time.
At the time Reagan was president, Saddam was left alone, even encouraged. Saddam was fighting Iran, something we should have done ourselves, but we had those darn cold war concerns to worry about. Maybe you forgot? And of course Saddam hadn't actually invaded Kuwait yet...
CC, you can rewrite history as you see fit, but that doesn't make it fact.
"By this post, you have just demonstrated that YOU live in that same screwy, nutty make-believe world as Stream-O and his Posse."
You must mean reality? Yes I do live in reality, and I'm pretty sure Streamy does to. You really should try it sometime.
I've also soundly refuted a great many of your ridiculous "historical facts", which you've apparantly given up trying to challenge. It must really suck for you trying to argue history, when you really don't know your history very well.
Canuck, its not that you don't know a lot of things. Its just that so many of the things you know are untrue.
Once again, when you realize you've lost the rational arguement, you fall back on attempted humor and character attacks. What's that like, to never acknowledge anyone else's points, or have to think hard enough to realize you're wrong? Ignorance is bliss after all.
C-
So, these Iraqi's that can NOW storm the streets to protest...SOLEY BECAUSE OF OUR ACTIONS IN IRAQ AND SADDAM'S REMOVAL...do so, and you think that is proof for your side of the argument.
You, my challenged pal, need help.
Further, aren't these jsut a bunch of religious nutjobs? I mean, you made no comment about the reporter's brother thanking God for this moment.
Hypocrit.
You are too easy.
Keep posting articles, though, C-. You get smarter with each one.
Pointless. First, no proof of claimed injuries. Second, broken arm and ribs could have happened when security dog-piled on him during Bush's press conference. The shoe thrower was supposedly crying out in pain as he was carried away, and supposedly left a trail of blood on the carpet. This is certainly not proof of torture as you claim.
Anyway, seems like enough punishment to me, I'd let the guy go.
Gawd, I love when neocons trot out their stupid argument about how these ungrateful Eye-Rakki's use their new-found, Bush-given "democracy" to be able to throw shoes and criticize government......and yet troops will apparently open fire on them, when they stage a support rally for the shoe-thrower.
Who could turn this entire shoe incident into a statement of unity and democratic expression for the Iraqi people.
Hmmm? Who could make a statement, about freedom and democracy, and the forgiveness in their personal beliefs, and express them unto the thrower of the shoes, and make international headlines, and diffuse the whole mess, and garner some respect for himself, and the US?
If only such a person with real depth of character, and a modicum political intelligence, and with real empathy toward that man and his fellow citizens existed. It is all about the Iraqi people right?
Perhaps if the US had someone in power who was really concerned about those people. If only...
If you're implying Bush should pardon the shoe-thrower, it would be totally stepping all over Maliki's sovereignty. The Iraqis don't appreciate us telling them what to do. Bush did immediately say he was not offended by it, regardless of how he may have actually felt.
This guy is now being tried by Iraqi courts, as due a process as one can get in the Arab world. I think Maliki will quietly pardon him after Bush leaves office.
HD - Wasn't suggesting Bush do something he is not legally or morally allowed to do, such as a "Pardon", but it is possible to do what his "Christian beliefs" and what is responsible as a "President", and not be perhaps privately vengeful or shallow as to do nothing.
It may be just gestures and words, but that is what politics are about, and it could be received in the Islamic world that the US really believes the rhetoric about freedom and democracy. Correct?
Podman, maybe I'm not understanding what you're suggesting... What is it you want Bush to do? We certainly don't want the president exercising his religious beliefs by forgiving this guy do we? Damn bible-thumpers! Bush immediately said he took no offense, I'm not sure what more you're after?
I certainly realize Iraq is not the perfect western democracy, maybe nor should it be, to be acceptable to Muslims. But this guy is certain to receive something much closer to due process under the new "democratic" Iraqi government, than under Saddam's old government. Saddam would have tortured the guy, and threw him into a plastic chipper, or shot him in the back of the head. So it is an improvement, but still not perfect.
HD - Political statements have power and effects that can sway the multitude. It also carries weight by position of the speaker. I want to be vague here, because the solution and opportunity should be as clear as a desert sky.
...and yes it does have to do with his purported personal beliefs, and how those are intertwined with actions.
In my opinion The White House knows what should be done, but they are either too arrogant, or too self involved to do it.
Gotta love that there Georgie-Boy-style of "democracy"......what with handing the country back to a bunch of religious-zealot muslim-fanatics, who know how to keep women in their place. Now they're back to their rightful place: getting clipped if they advocate for any rights; wearing their Halloween head-coverings; prohibition from teaching, driving cars, holding political office, etc.
Gosh-darnit.....what a grand place to live! Great formula as well: take out the secularist dictator......and replace him with a collective group of muslim fanatics! YAY!
Who you going to believe the Oxfam workers on the ground, or the the administrations beltway image team, that attend many lavish D.C. parties where the subject of Iraq is sometimes discussed.
Podman, you're doing that thing again, where I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. What solution by the white house is as clear as the desert sky? You digress either because you have no real solution, or you just don't want the white house to steal your idea.
I already said the shoe-thrower should just be released, but that is for Iraq's government to decide, not Bush. I've proposed nothing more that Bush needs to do, he's already dismissed the offense.
Now CC, try to stay focused on topic. Podman is the one proposing some action required of the white house here, in regards to this one shoe-throwing instance. Apparantly this necessary action is as clear as the desert sky, I'd just like to know what it is. Maybe Podman has a very good idea, and the white house should be notified to act on this? Maybe its not too late for a really really good white house PR man to turn things around for the Bush administration?
Actually...thanks for reminding me about your comment (meant to respond to it, y'know):
I'm lost on the whole "public school" thingy you mentioned several times. What exactly do you mean??? What grade? Are you going back after being out? Is this a continuing adult-education kinda thing? Are we talking elementary? High? College? Or what?
Or maybe he meant grillz as in "Grills".... in that case, he might be able to do some serious Q'in........ then he's all good in my book... I have an excellent method for smokin' on a weber grill, and would enjoy exchanging recipes with him. Smoked pork roast is the best!!!
Alright... I'm 15, in 10th grade, left public school for cyber at the end of the first quarter in 9th. I've basically wasted around a years worth of time that was supposed to be spent on school. My entire session on Glumbert has been within that time period. Now, I'm going back to public school. In short, you guys will probably be seeing a lot less of me.
Quick response, hope that clarifies things for you.
I aint B no regalur vizitor 2 Glumburt. I B droppin' in frum tyme 2 tyme. I B likin' sum of da funny banter, ceptin' wen religious guyz B hatin' on me (i.e. streamlined).
PimpwitGrillz
PS: I swear I'm no poser. I'm an original creature from the Deep South in the good ole' USofA. Pretty liberal on the social side, with a little conservative thrown in on the economic side. Too much bureaucracy pisses me off, and too much hard core neocons really raises my hackles. I like women (especially goldbarbeb) and enjoy mental gymnastics.
I have missed you by no more than an hour... such a shame. I'm still curious as to who else you are known as on this site.. Keep in mind that should you ever take a spell of absence, I'll happily fill in for you. Come to think of it, I could probably pull Adolf off, too. I actually did for a few days... Maybe I should try and figure out the password for my adolf impersonator alias...
That is sickening. But I thought its not our job to be the world police, and use our military force to impose our wills on others? You can't have it both ways. You either interfere with local customs or let them resolve their own problems. What would you do, seriously? Should the base commander have freed the boy? Should the troops kick those Afghans off the payroll? Should we give Afghanistan back to the Taliban? If is a fucked up nation, with fucked up customs. It has been fucked up for thousands of years, and it will remain fucked up after we're gone. We can't change their customs, we'll be lucky if we can establish a lasting government, which will hopefully one day have the strength to tackle its domestic child abuse.
Because C, deep down under your loud-mouthed obnoxious facade, there is a little boy obviously crying out for acceptance. Clearly you were abused as a child, so I'm trying to give you a second chance to not be an asshole... and a third chance... and a fourth...
So basically you present this horrific moral dilemna, curse the actions of your countrymen, yet don't present any solution to the problem? I don't want to hear you whine about problems in the world, or simply tear others down. That takes no intelligence. Did you have a point? What would you do differently to improve Afghanistan?
Why the fuck would I (or anyone) want to "improve Afghanistan"?
Wasn't the whole point of going there to try and kill-capture the SOB behind 9/11? Why in thee fuck would I want to even THINK about "improving" a country where other nations have been trying to "improve" it for hundreds of (if not a thousand) years previous.....and failed?
Great stuff Canuck and Pod a pleasure to read amigos
Stream your meths analogy just made me laugh, before that i actually believed you had something to say!
Helldiver; respect for going to war for your country! total respect, but as more information is leaked onto the internet, propaganda is becoming a harder game to play by the government, as highlighted nothing is black and white. Canuck i believe is not questioning your integrity
Canuck your idea on unionizing the army, one question , who pays their wages when they don't want to go to war?
Pod ; brilliant comment on double standards, exactly, humans are one big contradiction, we have to live in the fantasy world, or imagine the world we would like to live in, maybe reality is to much to take, daydreaming is a favorite pass time for everyone, look at glumbert, one big fantasy world!
I'm game. What propaganda? I though all the propaganda was on the internet, and precious few facts. We have a website now that does nothing but chronicle lies. Real fact checks, that sort of stuff. If the US government is lying about Iraq you must be speaking of the democrat party side of the government. Again, you're trying to paint a lie with just too wide a brush stroke. Problem is, do you know it's a lie, or are you just misinformed? Or, like Canuck, just plain stupid. It's got to be one of the three. You forget, your side, the socialists, are in charge now (or soon enough). The Big Lie not longer has any utility. It won. Now what do you do? One of the reasons we're back on Glumbert is we want to see how you girls behave now that your side won, after it reaches up and bites you ass. The next year will be a hoot....watching you all sink into irrelevency. :) :) How fun!
Not questioning 'integrity' on anyones part......just their sanity/intelligence (or susceptability to it, at any rate).
As for your question about who pays for the militarys wages if they refuse to wage a war......that's easy: any legitimate union will have a "strike fund" on permanent stand-by, for its membership.
This fund would, of course, be solely administered by the militarys Union Executive, and would be accumulated on an on-going basis, vis-a-vis monthly dues which would be collected. Because of the fact that the lying, corrupt neocon sonsofbitches who want war so bad would captiualte in this scenario.....the 'strike fund' needn't even be that large, as this would probably all get wrapped up in a jiffy.
Thanks Skid. It would seem that everyone has a reality limit, hence the various psychoneurosis that afflict those who are over exposed. I think a sense of humor helps, and Ive noticed that it is always absent in the truly deranged.
I'd just like to thank the preceding cast of characters for their entertaining dialogue and reparte, which amused for over an hour, link-visits included.
Please try to keep within armsreach of civility...I fear the tether binding you all within a sphere of discourse may become tested beyond its strength, and what a loss to idle minds like my own if you stopped aggravating each other so wonderfully well.
Helldiver, Tweedle dee, also known as Canuck, and I go way back. He's a big terror-symp. He spends all his time complaining about America while telling us we're wrong to stick our noses in other people's business. Doesn't make sense, does it? Makes you sort of scratch your head...until you to stop to think and realize that talk is cheap. He despises people of action. Last year Canuck admitted, and in fact, is proud of the fact, that he would not lift a finger to go to the aid of his neighbor. In fact, he thinks (and it could be true) that is a national custom. Cowardice. Canadians, at least third shift nightwatchmen with flat feet, don't see much profit in saving other men's lives...if it means they might risk their own. Americans do, and that is probably why he hates us so. He is also a great plagiarist. Steals my lines, for one. He cites a lot of other people's sites because, for 1) beyond "fuck and cock-sucker" he has a limited vocabulary and it's hard to put them into real sentences. Most of his one-liners come from a Jerry Lewis joke book, so he may in fact be French-Canadian. Quebeqios...and you know about those shaggers. Oh, and he lies. A lot. He quotes facts that aren't facts, and to prove them, cites places like the dailyCuss, Keith Olberman.
Hey, Canuck, howya doing buddy? Still on your anti-Semitic, terror-loving rampage? I see you've found a lot more than just Stream to tie into you. The highway is filled with wise guys now. That pleases me. It also pleases me to see you back in your bathrobe, in Mom's basement, still pissed off cause you can't get laid. What a bunch of gang-bangers. I've been busy, the Balkans, China, Russia. But Ivana sends her love. Vassar Bushmills has also decided to look in. Like I promised, the social scientists are watching, now, so make sure you keep making those zoo faces. Remember, ding a ling, ding a ling, woof, woof. (For those of you who have fun gaming Canuck, That's a Pavlov's dog joke, fellows. It goes back a year or more. I even published an article on it last year. Canuck and a couple of his mates are as easy to manipulate as that. Just lay the fly out easy on the current, let it float with a few teases and tugs, and they'll bite every time. I love. That is news you can use and why I checked in.) Keep it up, girls. Your very best friend Chummin
Oh, in October I spent a week with a bunch of Lebanese Muslims in the Black Sea during Ramadan. Pretty cool. We have two websites, and Vassar Bushmills and I have a blog at Townhall.com, but no since in going there as they won't let you say cock-sucker, mother-fucker and stuff like that. With those things cut out, your comments would look something like this. "I was then that and Iraq torture Bush and the horse you road in on. " Canuck63 Not very revealing, huh? We have a book coming out in 2009, too. Just like I promised, Canuck, me darling, you're going to make me a lot of money.
The shit line may be leaking, from what appears to be a missing foot of pipe, AND they've replaced the standard copper plumbing for a 6' cement construction-grade pipe system; but somehow it STILL manages to get backed up. Go figure. Either the shit is just that thick, or there's enough that maybe we should upgrade to a tunnel. Or a canal. Or... maybe we should just start packaging it and sending it to China. Since the shit doesn't need to breath, we can probably save some time by not putting holes in the box.
While I agree that Canuck is a coward, I don't agree that all Canadians are cowards. They fought with us in WW2 and Korea. They're fighting bravely with us now in Afghanistan, and taking losses. Don't paint all Canadians with the same brush. That pretty much applies to any group of people, even the French.
Face it canuck, you are a complete failure and the holy HD is here to help you get a life at all. I only you would understand that GWB is killing all those people for their own good...
I really can't put up with my friends fighting to this extent... I could see playful banter over sports, or the news, something trivial; but this is almost an all out war...
Helldiver, I can talk to you, as Tweedle-dum proved himself a coward a long time ago, so we don't respond directly to his talk. besides, all he knows is "fuck" and hard words like that. About the Canadian comment, you're right. They are really some fine soldiers. Only Canuck purports to speak for the lot of them, so as canuck hangs, so does Canada. i know it should be the reverse, but you see where I'm going. I enjoy visits to the monkey cage, and Streamline invited to take a looksee. It had been awhile. I'd even lost my old ID. Seems someone else lost theirs, or is just trying a new ID as Redshift knows me , but I don't, so he's probably one of those lazy lap-dog layabout know-nothings, " les lazarons" for those of you girls who read, who always seemed to be yipping alongside canuck. Imagine John Candy with groupies???!!!! How lonely do you have to be? Oh, well.
CC, I didn't call you a terror-simp. But you have demonstrated your cowardice many times, you unwillingness to fight for any cause.
And I honestly wouldn't mind your liberal thinking, if only you weren't such an arrogant, rude, self-rightous liar. Perhaps this is what makes you a liberal, your lack of understanding of history and reality? You can't civilly agree to disagree, you have to lie and smear, until in your twisted mind you've won. But its your tactics alone that will always make you the loser.
Thats right. Obama was a terrorist because he wouldn't wear a pin as hiz Massa's told em to
....and then he and his wife were terrorists because of the Terrorist fist bump.
Oh how soon we forget those labels, and actions of terrorists. I was at the grocery store the other day and nobody was wearing pins... The whole store was filled with terrorists!
"And so the coalition of the unwilling dwindles even further. Even UK conservatives abandoned Iraq as the wrong war, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time, some years ago - as did the bulk of the British populace. Now Gordon Brown has flown to Bagdhad to announce a withdrawal of British forces by the end of July next year. Only 300 troops will remain to train Iraqi forces.
Brown had to spin it as completing a noble exercise in "the tasks of overthrowing a dictatorship, the task of building a democracy for the future and defending it against terrorism", of course, but I don't see him, his ministers or his senior officers heaving any kind of sigh except one of relief. Britain only stayed because of the "special relationship", not because anyone believed the narrative Bush and Blair concocted any more.
Oh, and the Iraqis tacked five other nations with a smaller troop presence, including Romania, El Salvador and Estonia, onto Britain's withdrawal agreement."
Dumb ass. they've been leaving for three years. Cackle once they leave. By the way, they're leaving because they won. That's what civilized people do. Ding a ling, woof woof.
I've decided not to side with "Stweam-O'-Bullshit" on this one, mostly due to the fact that his name allows for a good deal more mockery in wordplay than Canuck's does. =D
Haha, the expanded alphabet. I know some of it because my dad used to be an airplane mechanic, and later on a supervisor, for UPS. Heh, brings back memories...
"By the way, they're leaving because they won. That's what civilized people do. Ding a ling, woof woof."
HUH???? WHAT????
(scratching head here)
They....they...."won"??
WTF??? Did I miss something here??? Oh man! Am I ever PISSED at ALL of you! What's the big idea?? Someone actually WON over there.....and no one here told me about it??? Like, WTF???
Why didn't anyone give me the DOV (date of victory)????? And why the eff didn't anyone tell me where and when the surrender (or at least the admission of surrender) was made???? Why didn't anyone tell me that SOMEONE....ANYONE...made the decision to officially declare victory?? How the christ did I miss this???
AND WHY DIDN'T ANY OF YOU BACKSTABBERS TELL ME THIS, AND INSTEAD LET ME GO ON AND ON AND ON?????
Can you verify any of this. The site ID says it all. We can say that all day...but don't. We're honest. Truth doesn't matter to the stupid and gullible. Which one are you.
Canuck....even you must acknowledge that Iraq presents impossible scenarios daily, what with their willingness to kill without discretion anyone at all, including each other. That does make the whole "security" thing quite ephemeral as to who is who. I suggest there is as yet too little in the report you cite to make conclusions, reserving, however, the thought that it doesn't look good.
Also.....Bush's political coffin is already moving toward a cold grave. I think it unseemly to heap detritus on it at this point.
I also think if you continue this way, you may be at risk for appearing strident....shrill, even...as you persist in your flagellations of the now-departing Bush administration. That would tend to undermine the credibility you depend upon as you express your opinions, particularly as to the US.
These are my thoughts, offered to an intelligent source of info and opinion, who as often departs on flights of vulgar confrontation as sensibly discusses differences in views. I really enjoy the latter.
Do you let a criminal walk away just because he has found a new job? I think a little prosecution for war crimes would be fitting for GWB and his friends.
And in any case getting replaced does not make GWB a better president, it just makes him an ex president.
The first is more than a little controversial. I think so long as GWB et al can show they acted in what they believed to be the best interests of the country, no criminal fault will be found.
As to the direction they moved the US in accord with their collective mindset, however, they can be faulted. But I doubt that will rise to the level of criminal action.
But I just want to stress here, that contrary to the way it appears, I do NOT spend my waking hours frothing and shrilling about how much I "hate" GWB. Au contraire. In the real world, I could care less. As you say, he's "heading to a cold grave", and that's that. What DOES twig me, is the banal lunacy amongst his scant-few followers that he has left. THEY are what gives me the fuel, as opposed to The Man himself. Y'see, there's something....something...I dunno....something about confronting misinformed, inane, ignorant and brainwashed individuals that compels me to jump into it. Kinda like a fly being attracted to a deposit of excrement, if you will. Having said that, if ONE Bush-supporter/Republican/Neocon/Right-Winger can cross my path, and give me some HONEST and SENSIBLE arguments (minus the flag-waving, apple pie-eating, rah-rah-rah cheerleading, party-line nonsense) as to why or how they still believe The Man or his policies are A-OK...then we have the makings of a pretty decent political discourse. But when all they have to offer is the same old tired, close-minded, regurgitated comebacks....then it all goes to pot. Sure, I may use profanities and obscenities directed at individuals in the government as well as those around here, even.....BUT.....have you seen some of the nonsense above? I mean, come on...it's pretty insipid, don't you think? "Terror-symp"? "Coward"? "Anti-semitic"? "Commie"? "Bigot"? I mean come on, you have to admit that those labels (even compared to calling someone a "f---k", a "p--ke", a "ze---lot", an "a---hole" as I have done) are laughable, no? And THESE are the kinds of folks whom one tends to find, more often than not, in GWB's camp. Take Steam-O's Posse up there, for instance: in the very beginning, they were happy to spew out every vicious slag and insult at Canada and Canadians as a whole, simply because of MY comments. Rememeber that? Now read above: they have backed off, and emulated MY style, i.e., being VERY careful to level criticism/insults at a specific target (or government), rather than paint the whole with the same ugly brush. Now suddenly, it's "brave Canadians" this, and "honorable Canadians" that.....see? Quite a change from the early days for them....yes? So, I like to think I've had even a SMALL amount of a positive efect on some folks hereabouts, theatrics aside (and believe-you-me...they ARE mostly theatrics).
As to comments above, I tend to think that Bugster brings up a good point: since GWB is no longer President, does this absolve him of being the subject of any investigation during his tenure, after he's out of office? Note I said "investigation".....and not "prosecution" (that would only happen if the "investigation", per se, yielded something tangible to "prosecute"). Because they it APPEARS to ME, at any rate, is that this fellow surpasses far-and-away the deeds/actions of, say, Richard M. Nixon. Just because the Democrat Party lacked the will or fortitude to even "investigate" (and potentially "prosecute") this individual and/or his staff, does not necessarily indicate there was NO wrong-doing performed. Think of it this way: say I'm a cop. And say you're my captain. You see many, many alarming signs that I'm up to no good, in whatever way.....but you just aren't sure. How will you be sure? Well, I would imagine you'd alert internal affairs, and have a probe or investigation launched, right? I mean, you'd have me held under the microscope, and make sure I'm squeaky-clean. If I am, I am. If I'm not...then game over. But if you do NOTHING.....that does NOT mean I'm clean. See my point? Were to you to simply sit there, as my commanding officer, and say "He's coming up to retirement soon anyways. So to hell with it. He'll be gone soon as it is", you'd have let me off the proverbial hook simply by not doing YOUR job. I also guarantee you, that if you thought my suspicious activity was serious enough, you would (and could) pursue ANY investigation/prosecution of wrong-doing on my part, even when I'm well into retirement or if I resigned.
%u201CHaven%u2019t seen it; we don %u2019t torture,%u201D -George W. Bush Aug, 2007
"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do....And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it...." -Dick Cheney Dec. 2008
stupid glumbert quote problem! here is the cleaned version:
"Haven%u2019t seen it; we don't torture." -George W. Bush
"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do....And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it...." -Dick Cheney
It's always the same characters: 2, 0, 1, 9, %, u, t, D... I still say it's some sort of conflict between fonts, or the way glumbert is programmed. Otherwise, the characters glitched probably wouldn't be so consistent.
Well as the resident torture-lover, I really should chime in here. First, consider the source. Second, the government has admitted to using water-boarding on only one man, Sheik fuzzy pillow head.
The abuses of Abu Graib had the positive effect of forcing the government to very carefully review and be able to defend its interrogation techniques. Senator McCain also wisely pushed his anti-torture legislation through, maybe because McCain didn't trust Cheney.
So maybe Cheney went too far, hard to say. But freedom of the press, and constitutional checks and balances have proved their worth once again. It will be interesting to see what Obama does with Gitmo.
RS - I'm pretty certain its glumbert's comment parser. They strip out HTML, and other tagging chars, and somehow confuse the backquote and back apostrophe with something else. It is a font problem, that Glumbert could easily repair, by back ending the error with the correct chars.
Constitutional checks and balances and freedom of the press have effectively limited executive ability to interrogate and treat prisoners as they see fit. The executive branch has had its power in this regard limited, and precedent set for future presidents. The press broke the stories. The constitutional checks and balances are all about limiting power in any one branch. They're not so much about punishing abusers of power, although that is certainly within the abililty of congress to do, if they could actually prove any wrong-doing. Differences of opinion alone do not make a crime.
So are you guys pissed at Nancy Pelosi for not trying to impeach Bush? Is she now an evil Nazi whore like Palin, or is she immune from that cause she's a democrat?
HD - I think the point here is that the media should not have to "effectively limited executive ability to interrogate and treat prisoners as they see fit.", and we don't know what occurred outside of the medias reach via "extraordinary rendition" which was designed to hide the greater bulk torture from the media.
Differences of opinion are not a crime, well that's true. But, once again we come to the crux of the issue. I give Cheney credit for stating that he was all for torture, and that he set up the program to do it, as he has no intention of hiding behind the law, domestic or international. He is hiding behind his money and power though, as most of those in power do.
Congress will do nothing, as that is their primary skill. Lobbyists rarely purchase action, they are most often purchasing inaction. There is a great deal of entrenched long term DC power there, and the millionaires club will never prosecute fellow members of the club. Any such prosecutorial action would have to come from outside the beltway, and be backed by massive popular demand. Considering the meltdown of the economy, and the fact that most citizens will be working twice as hard to survive, there will be almost no interest in investigating for possible prosecution.
The media now consists of a few very large corporations (one is even a defense contractor), who know who butters their bread, and as such they will give it all a pass and produce the propaganda to make it all go away.
Most of the Bush administration will return to their lobbyist and law firm offices in the beltway. They will all Republican and Democrat continue on doing what they have always done. Make money, manipulate power, and feed greedily off the taxpayers.
Wow Podman, that is an extremely cynical view of government, and possibly not too far from the truth. But to take your overly-cynical view one step further, surely there are some up-and-coming Democrat vultures that could build their political careers prosecuting Bush for years to come? What better way to get your name in the media constantly, and drum up the illusion of having a sense of justice?
Red, you're 15, like you have a real job yet? Hopefully the economy will be all better by the time you go to buy your first foreign car, or used domestic car. Maybe Obama will give you your first house? Maybe he'll draft your ass and send you to Afghanistan? Can you possibly work long enough, or work hard enough, to pay off the $11 trillion dollar debt we've created? How will you ever retire with the rising cost of medical expenses and dwindling social security? I know, you care more about scoring an XBOX than any of the above. But Bush and Obama have / will be shaping the world you inherit. Christ, you have everything to worry about, you just don't know it yet! Merry Christmas. =D
Comments (306)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.