PDA

View Full Version : Congress Must Cut Off Bush Family War Profits Part 1


Stlrs4Life
04-25-2007, 09:34 PM
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0704/S00174.htm




Congress Must Cut Off Bush Family War Profits

Wednesday, 11 April 2007, 4:07 pm
Opinion: Evelyn Pringle
Congress Must Cut Off Bush Family War Profits


By Evelyn Pringle (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0704/S00174.htm#a)
On Monday, April 9, 2007, the Boston Herald reported that the US military had announced the Easter weekend deaths of 10 more American soldiers, including six killed on Sunday. The Associated Press reports that, since the war began in March 2003, over 3,000 members of the US military have been killed in Iraq, as of April 8, 2007.
The military reported the deaths of four more US soldiers on Tuesday.
Its nearly impossible to estimate the number of deaths of civilians in Iraq, but the Herald reports that at least 47 people were killed or found dead in violence on Easter Sunday, including 17 execution victims dumped in the capital.
News releases out of Iraq also report that a woman wearing a black veil and strapped with explosives blew herself up outside a police station in Iraq on Tuesday, killing 16 people.
According to the January 14, 2007 LA Times, Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, says that, starting with the anti-terrorism appropriation a week after the 9/11 attacks, he estimates the US has spent $400 billion fighting terrorism through fiscal 2006, which ended on September 30, 2006.
In January 2007, Marine Corps spokeswoman, Lt Col Roseann Lynch, told Reuters that the war in Iraq is costing about $4.5 billion a month for military “operating costs,” which did not include new weapons or equipment.
Since this war on terror was declared following 9/11, the pay levels for the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors have doubled. The average compensation rose from $3.6 million during the period of 1998-2001, to $7.2 million during the period of 2002-2005, according to an August 2006, report entitled, "Executive Excess 2006," by the Washington-based, Institute for Policy Studies, and the Boston-based, United for a Fair Economy.
This study found that since 9/11, the 34 defense CEOs have pocketed a combined total of $984 million, or enough, the report says, to cover the wages for more than a million Iraqis for a year. In 2005, the average total compensation for the CEOs of large US corporations was only 6% above 2001 figures, while defense CEOs pay was 108% higher.
But the last name of one family, which is literally amassing a fortune over the backs of our dead heroes, matches that of the man holding the purse strings in the White House. On December 11, 2003, the Financial Times reported that three people had told the Times that they had seen letters written by Neil Bush that recommended business ventures in the Middle East, promoted by New Bridges Strategies, a firm set up by President Bush’s former campaign manager, who quit his Bush appointed government job as the head of FEMA, three weeks before the war in Iraq began.
Neil Bush was paid an annual fee to "help companies secure contracts in Iraq," the Times said.
But Neil Bush is by no means the only Bush profiting from the war on terror. The first President Bush is so entangled with entities that have profited greatly that it's difficult to even know where to begin. Bush joined the Carlyle Group in 1993, and became a member of the firm's Asian Advisory Board.
The Carlyle Group was best known for buying defense companies and doubling or tripling their value and was already heavily supported by defense contracts. But in 2002, the firm received $677 million in government contracts, and by 2003, its contracts were worth $2.1 billion.
Prior to 9/11, some Carlyle companies were not doing so well. For instance, the future of Vought Aircraft looked dismal when the company laid off 20% of its employees. But business was booming shortly after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, and the company received over $1 billion in defense contracts.
The Bush family's connections to the Osama bin Laden's family seem almost surreal. On September 28, 2001, two weeks after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal reported that, "George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm."
As a representative of Carlyle, one of the investors that Bush brought to Carlyle was the Bin Laden Group, a construction company owned by Osama's family. The bin Ladens have been called the Rockefellers of the Middle East, and the father, Mohammed, has reportedly amassed a $5 billion empire. According the Journal, Bush convinced Shafiq bin Laden to invest $2 million with Carlyle.
The Journal found that Bush had met with the bin Ladens at least twice between 1998 and 2000. On September 27, 2001, the Journal reported that it had confirmed that a meeting took place between Bush Senior and the bin Laden family through Senior's Chief of Staff, Jean Becker, but only after the reporter showed her a thank you note that was written and sent by Bush to the bin Ladens after the meeting.
The current President’s little publicized affiliation with the bin Laden family goes back to his days with Arbusto oil when Salem bin Laden funneled money through James Bath to bail out that particular failed company.
Probably the most eerie report about this strange group of bedfellows is that on 9/11, the day that served as a kick-off for the highly profitable war on terror, Shafiq bin Laden attended a meeting in the office of the Carlyle Group, and stood watching TV with other members of the firm as the WTC collapsed.
The fact that so many Saudis, including many bin Ladens, were allowed to fly out of the country right after 9/11, while Americans were still grounded, has always seemed a bit strange to most people also, especially when nobody in the Bush administration was able to explain who gave permission for the flights.
About a month after 9/11, in October 2001, the Carlyle Group severed its ties with the Bin Laden Group, but the Bush family did not. In January 2002, Neil Bush took a trip to Saudi Arabia that was sponsored by the Bin Laden Construction Company and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the same Prince who offered New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani $10 million to help the 9/11 victims, a gesture that Rudy refused.
In the fall of 2003, Bush Senior finally resigned from the Carlyle Group as the accusations of family war profiteering grew louder. However, according to the Washington Post, he still retained stock in the firm and gave speeches on its behalf for a fee of $500,000.
Carlyle companies have also scored big in the Homeland Security bonanza. Federal Data Systems and US Investigations Services hold multi-billion- dollar contracts to provide background checks for airlines, the Pentagon, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. US Investigations used to be a federal agency, until it was privatized in 1996 and taken over by Carlyle.
Marvin and Jeb Bush are also highly successful members of the family war profiteering team. Marvin is a co-founder and partner in Winston Partners, a private investment firm, and Jeb is an investor in the Winston Capital Fund, which is managed by Marvin.
Winston Partners is part of the Chatterjee Group, which owned 5.5 million shares in a company called Sybase in 2001, a firm that had contracts worth $2.9 million with the Navy, $1.8 million with the Army and $5.3 million with the Department of Defense. All totaled, the federal procurement database listed the firm's contracts that year as $14,754,000. And, Sybase was not the only company delivering war profits to Marvin and Jeb. The portfolio of Winston Partners also included the Amsec Corp, which, in 2001, was awarded $37,722,000 in Navy contracts.

HometownGal
04-25-2007, 09:52 PM
Here we go again. Get your seats on the merry-go-round folks! :dang:

SteelCityMan786
04-25-2007, 10:38 PM
I agree HTG.

GBMelBlount
04-25-2007, 10:45 PM
"Scoop" - sounds well known and very reputable. Where is Vince foster?

HometownGal
04-25-2007, 11:27 PM
"Scoop" - sounds well known and very reputable. Where is Vince foster?

The same place the rest of these dearly departed are. :shake01:

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-body.html

Stlrs4Life
04-26-2007, 06:01 AM
Glad to see everybody in denial."No, none of this is true." Then do the typical Republican response: Clinton did this, Clinton did that, blah, blah.

X-Terminator
04-26-2007, 07:40 AM
Here we go again. Get your seats on the merry-go-round folks! :dang:

Agreed.

I'm staying out of this one, because you know it's going to get ugly in a hurry.

HometownGal
04-26-2007, 08:09 AM
Glad to see everybody in denial."No, none of this is true." Then do the typical Republican response: Clinton did this, Clinton did that, blah, blah.

Dom - I can't speak for everyone else who posted in this thread, but I am not in denial about anything because we've heard this same opinion by others numerous times in the past and we've debated about this same thing in the past. I posted what I did about Clinton not to deny what Bush may or may not have done or may be doing, but simply in response to GBMB's post. (Ya gotta admit, though - a lot of people died under rather unusual circumstances who were affiliated with the Clintons). :wink02:

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-26-2007, 09:06 AM
I would , with respect to the other side of this issue, give my view of the truth of our current situation. The truth is that we have only lost 3,000 lives...yet have crippled a terrorist organization that at one time was strong enough to kill Americans on American soil. The truth is that we are involved in a war where we are the occupying force...which is ALWAYS cheaper than being the army fighting an occupied force....and MUCH cheaper than the price we would pay to stand back and let terrorists have free reign.
The truth is that I would rather see a bud of freedom spring from the ashes of war...then to see weeds of terrorism invade the garden of democracy....and that is our ONLY choices.
I appreciate Stlrs4Life for presenting the other side of this situation...and for those who dont know him...DO NOT DOUBT FOR A SECOND HIS LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY....he is a VETERAN and has put his money where his mouth is!!!! ....and his take on what is happening is always well thought out and respectful.
Regardless of which side we take on this issue...everyone should do a little homework ,.....compare the cost of lives to that of past wars...compare the cost (with inflation figured in) to that of past wars. Make a decision based on being well-informed. Unfortunatley..there are people in this country (like the writer of the article) who would rather see us lose this war...then to see George Bush succeed at anything...and they let ideology get in the way of rational thought.

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-26-2007, 02:53 PM
I would , with respect to the other side of this issue, give my view of the truth of our current situation. The truth is that we have only lost 3,000 lives...yet have crippled a terrorist organization that at one time was strong enough to kill Americans on American soil. The truth is that we are involved in a war where we are the occupying force...which is ALWAYS cheaper than being the army fighting an occupied force....and MUCH cheaper than the price we would pay to stand back and let terrorists have free reign.
The truth is that I would rather see a bud of freedom spring from the ashes of war...then to see weeds of terrorism invade the garden of democracy....and that is our ONLY choices.
I appreciate Stlrs4Life for presenting the other side of this situation...and for those who dont know him...DO NOT DOUBT FOR A SECOND HIS LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY....he is a VETERAN and has put his money where his mouth is!!!! ....and his take on what is happening is always well thought out and respectful.
Regardless of which side we take on this issue...everyone should do a little homework ,.....compare the cost of lives to that of past wars...compare the cost (with inflation figured in) to that of past wars. Make a decision based on being well-informed. Unfortunatley..there are people in this country (like the writer of the article) who would rather see us lose this war...then to see George Bush succeed at anything...and they let ideology get in the way of rational thought.Only 3325! And for what? Osama wasn't based in Iraq nor was he supported by Sadam. Please don't drink the Kool Aid that this current admin. is feeding you. Where are the WMD's? A bud of democracy that will die in a civil war that we helped to create.

MACH1
04-26-2007, 03:06 PM
It could be worse.. Al Gore could be the pres. Just something to think about.:wink02:

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-26-2007, 03:20 PM
It could be worse.. Al Gore could be the pres. Just something to think about.:wink02:I don't think it can get any worse than it already is. GEORGE W. BUSH: LIKE A ROCK (only dumber)

Mosca
04-26-2007, 03:23 PM
Everyone knows where my sympathies lie; there's no love lost between me and the current administration.

But not in my wildest imagination would I ever think that the Bush family is in this for profit. I believe that all the Bushes would give every last dime they have, if it meant that we would win the war in Iraq and the war against terror.


Tom

Stlrs4Life
04-26-2007, 06:02 PM
I would , with respect to the other side of this issue, give my view of the truth of our current situation. The truth is that we have only lost 3,000 lives...yet have crippled a terrorist organization that at one time was strong enough to kill Americans on American soil. The truth is that we are involved in a war where we are the occupying force...which is ALWAYS cheaper than being the army fighting an occupied force....and MUCH cheaper than the price we would pay to stand back and let terrorists have free reign.
The truth is that I would rather see a bud of freedom spring from the ashes of war...then to see weeds of terrorism invade the garden of democracy....and that is our ONLY choices.
I appreciate Stlrs4Life for presenting the other side of this situation...and for those who dont know him...DO NOT DOUBT FOR A SECOND HIS LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY....he is a VETERAN and has put his money where his mouth is!!!! ....and his take on what is happening is always well thought out and respectful.
Regardless of which side we take on this issue...everyone should do a little homework ,.....compare the cost of lives to that of past wars...compare the cost (with inflation figured in) to that of past wars. Make a decision based on being well-informed. Unfortunatley..there are people in this country (like the writer of the article) who would rather see us lose this war...then to see George Bush succeed at anything...and they let ideology get in the way of rational thought.






Very good post. But the only thing that gets me, is no matter when we leave Iraq, Sept 08. Sept 18, it doesn't matter, we will never totally stop terrorism. It has been there for centuries, those people do not care, when they die they feel like they are doing good when they die. They think they are martyrs when they die. 9/11 could have happened no matter who was in office. Terrorism will always be there. We stay in Iraq, terrorists train in Iran, we invade Iran, they train somewhere else, it's a never ending vicious cycle.


llt, I can see tyour point about losing the 3000 soldiers, but I don't believe it matters how we lose them, we still lost them.

MasterOfPuppets
04-26-2007, 06:09 PM
Very good post. But the only thing that gets me, is no matter when we leave Iraq, Sept 08. Sept 18, it doesn't matter, we will never totally stop terrorism. It has been there for centuries, those people do not care, when they die they feel like they are doing good when they die. They think they are martyrs when they die. 9/11 could have happened no matter who was in office. Terrorism will always be there. We stay in Iraq, terrorists train in Iran, we invade Iran, they train somewhere else, it's a never ending vicious cycle.


llt, I can see tyour point about losing the 3000 soldiers, but I don't believe it matters how we lose them, we still lost them.

and since there's no exit strategy or end in sight , who knows what the final cost (both financial and human life ) or results will be.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-26-2007, 06:21 PM
Only 3325! And for what? Osama wasn't based in Iraq nor was he supported by Sadam. Please don't drink the Kool Aid that this current admin. is feeding you. Where are the WMD's? A bud of democracy that will die in a civil war that we helped to create.

If you know where Osama is ...or isnt..please pass that information on to Homeland security..the knowledge would be appreciated. As we have posted before...(and is easily veriafiable)...there WERE known connections between Sadaams regime and Bin Laden....of course Sadaams regime has stated that they were not about terrorism, and hey who are we to not believe them...right?
..as for WMD's...how did Hillary...Durbin...Pelosi..and the rest of the Dems vote when presented with the same information that was presented to the president?...Please dont ignore the inconvienent truths.

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-27-2007, 08:56 AM
If you know where Osama is ...or isnt..please pass that information on to Homeland security..the knowledge would be appreciated. As we have posted before...(and is easily veriafiable)...there WERE known connections between Sadaams regime and Bin Laden....of course Sadaams regime has stated that they were not about terrorism, and hey who are we to not believe them...right?
..as for WMD's...how did Hillary...Durbin...Pelosi..and the rest of the Dems vote when presented with the same information that was presented to the president?...Please dont ignore the inconvienent truths.No, unfortuanetly I don't know where Osama is. But if you give me 421 BILLION dollars which is what this inane war has cost thus far ,not to mention hundreds of thousands of lives, I'm pretty sure I could find him. You say you've found connections between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda? I find that hard to believe considering the C.I.A. couldn't ,and neither did The Senate Committee on Intelligence. Keep on drinking the Kool Aid, and I hope you don't lose any loved ones in this senseless war.

Mosca
04-27-2007, 10:25 AM
I think there is a misconception among many people, that those who oppose the war are against winning it.

Speaking for myself, if I thought continuing what we're doing now would win it, I would be behind that 100%. But all I see continuing the present course doing is making it worse; the current course is LOSING.

The situation can't be won militarily. It needs to be won politically, economically, and socially. (Huh. Harry Reid said that. Funny how the "winning" part wasn't picked up on though.)

We're using the wrong tool, and it's disrespectful to the ones who are trying to do it to ask them to keep trying. We're trying to drive screws with a hammer.

But again; that being said, there is no doubt in my mind about the SINCERITY OF BELIEF of Bush and his associates. In fact, I accept their totality of belief as proof of their madness.

Tom

Stlrs4Life
04-28-2007, 12:22 AM
I think there is a misconception among many people, that those who oppose the war are against winning it.

Speaking for myself, if I thought continuing what we're doing now would win it, I would be behind that 100%. But all I see continuing the present course doing is making it worse; the current course is LOSING.

The situation can't be won militarily. It needs to be won politically, economically, and socially. (Huh. Harry Reid said that. Funny how the "winning" part wasn't picked up on though.)

We're using the wrong tool, and it's disrespectful to the ones who are trying to do it to ask them to keep trying. We're trying to drive screws with a hammer.

But again; that being said, there is no doubt in my mind about the SINCERITY OF BELIEF of Bush and his associates. In fact, I accept their totality of belief as proof of their madness.

Tom



Excellent Post!!!!!!!!!!!!:cheers:

Preacher
04-28-2007, 04:40 AM
Very good post. But the only thing that gets me, is no matter when we leave Iraq, Sept 08. Sept 18, it doesn't matter, we will never totally stop terrorism. It has been there for centuries, those people do not care, when they die they feel like they are doing good when they die. They think they are martyrs when they die. 9/11 could have happened no matter who was in office. Terrorism will always be there. We stay in Iraq, terrorists train in Iran, we invade Iran, they train somewhere else, it's a never ending vicious cycle.


llt, I can see tyour point about losing the 3000 soldiers, but I don't believe it matters how we lose them, we still lost them.

May I correct you in one place here... Terrorism has NOT been there for centuries.

the terrorism seen on 9-11 is a step up from the terrorism seen in the 1980's. That brand of terrorism started in the early '80's as the hard core religious mullahs took control of Iran and preceeded to destablize the mideast even more.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-28-2007, 05:05 AM
No, unfortuanetly I don't know where Osama is. But if you give me 421 BILLION dollars which is what this inane war has cost thus far ,not to mention hundreds of thousands of lives, I'm pretty sure I could find him. You say you've found connections between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda? I find that hard to believe considering the C.I.A. couldn't ,and neither did The Senate Committee on Intelligence. Keep on drinking the Kool Aid, and I hope you don't lose any loved ones in this senseless war.

Actually if you read what I wrote..I never said I found connections...I just have taken the time to read the report instead of basing my decisions on 30 second CNN blurps....The senate commitee looking into possible ties did find ties between Al-Qaeda and Sadaam...what they didnt find was connections between Iraqs funding of terrorism and more specifically Iraq involvment in 9-11...the report is on-line and easliy viewable..take a look.
The next day the Washington post confirms this by saying:

.....The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.....Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq....But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no proven cooperation.

and I would add that since the commision closed the report ...there has been other information that has came forth...that shows ties btween the terrorist organization and Iraq...noteably..CBS news reported

...Documents recently found in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al Qaeda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents reveal that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of American and Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps instead of simply insulting anyone who doesnt agree with you ..as "drinking the kool-aid"....a little homework is in order.

I also find it very telling that you chose not to comment on the Democrats who voted for this war based on the same evidence presented to the current administration....the truth is STILL inconvienient.

I will refrain from posting in this thread again because I see no attempt on your part to understand an opposing point of view or have an open discussion about those opinions.

But I do feel stongly to add..as for your statement about hundreds of thousands of lives lost....please refrain in the future from placing the lives of American servicemen and women...into the same category as suicidal bombers and their victims....They deserve better.

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-28-2007, 10:13 AM
Trust me my friend I've done my homework! You chose to believe what you want ,and I'll chose to believe what I want to. As far as the Dems go they based their vote on the info presented to them by the President which was questionable to say the least. As for as the hundreds of thousand of lives lost I was referring to the INNOCENT civilians that have lost their lives as a result of this stupid war! Why are Iraqi civilians better than our servicemen, and women? Do they not value life as much as we do? Our members of the military signed on to possibly give their lives for this country willingly. The same can't be said for the innocent men ,women and children that have died as a result of this conflict. Drink Up!

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-28-2007, 10:35 AM
Trust me my friend I've done my homework! You chose to believe what you want ,and I'll chose to believe what I want to. As far as the Dems go they based their vote on the info presented to them by the President which was questionable to say the least. As for as the hundreds of thousand of lives lost I was referring to the INNOCENT civilians that have lost their lives as a result of this stupid war! Why are Iraqi civilians better than our servicemen, and women? Do they not value life as much as we do? Our members of the military signed on to possibly give their lives for this country willingly. The same can't be said for the innocent men ,women and children that have died as a result of this conflict. Drink Up!

Oh the inaccuracies!!! I can see that you know very little about this situation

1) Since when did President Bush conduct investigations?....the CIA information presented to congress was the same that was presented to Bush:dang:

2) The "hundreds of thousands" of innocents...were (and still are) killed primarily by suicide bombers and muslim extremists..sunni vs shiite....and shame on you for putting that on the shoulders of any american..whether it be the President or our soldiers.

3) Soldiers do not sign up to "give their lives"..that is how you lose wars. Soldiers sign up to make the enemy lose theirs...and yes..every American soldiers life is worth more to me. To equate our soldiers lives to that of the enemy or to foreign nationals is a scenerio ussually reserved to those who dont respect the military....

..and you make want to lay off drinking for a bit:thumbsup:

Mosca
04-28-2007, 11:58 AM
OK, OK ; what do we do NOW? Forget who caused the mess, and look at what it is and ask how to fix it.

Our brothers and sisters are over there doing the job that we asked them to, without complaining. But it's a job that our armed forces were not designed and trained to do, and it's a fight that is NOT a military fight. A military solution can't straighten this out. Our military did what we trained them to do when they routed the Iraqi army; now we're asking them to occupy the country while various factions fight to fill the Hussein vacuum.

Unless we are willing to go as far as the Nazis and the Japanese did in WW2, with wholesale slaughter of the population to quell insurrection, force won't win. It will only kill people. Us AND them. But it won't win. And it ISN'T winning.

Now what? A permanent occupying force? The status quo? MORE troops? How much money? We won't even bring up the substandard care our wounded brothers and sisters and neighbors are getting when they come home.

Believe it or not, I'm a lot more conservative than you might think. If we could shoot our way out of this, I'd say, "Do it!" What the hell, all our guys are over there with guns already. It should be easy....

I'm not against Republicans. And I'm not anti-conservative. What I'm against is useless squabbling and finger-pointing, and I'm against the madness of following a course that isn't working and being told that it is and will work. If I had a solution, I'd be at the head of the government; but I'm just a scrub with a keyboard, just like you guys are. I want this to end in our favor so bad that if I thought about it too hard I would break down and cry. We need to extricate our valiant people and stop the drain on our resources, and we need to find a political solution.


Tom

SteelCzar76
04-28-2007, 12:08 PM
I think there is a misconception among many people, that those who oppose the war are against winning it.

Speaking for myself, if I thought continuing what we're doing now would win it, I would be behind that 100%. But all I see continuing the present course doing is making it worse; the current course is LOSING.

The situation can't be won militarily. It needs to be won politically, economically, and socially. (Huh. Harry Reid said that. Funny how the "winning" part wasn't picked up on though.)

We're using the wrong tool, and it's disrespectful to the ones who are trying to do it to ask them to keep trying. We're trying to drive screws with a hammer.

But again; that being said, there is no doubt in my mind about the SINCERITY OF BELIEF of Bush and his associates. In fact, I accept their totality of belief as proof of their madness.

Tom




I dissagree Mosca. I don't think the war in the middle east is one that cannot even be won socially with 'sensitive' diplomacy. As there will ALWAYS be some percentage of the population in any and all muslim Nations whom will regard the 'western' way of life and or ideals to be wicked and worthy of being destroyed.

And this percentage will never be oppossed 'truthfully' by the rest of their said peoples. Even though these remaining may not 'actively' take part in actual combat or the cowardly acts of terrorrism against civilians.

Imo,...you wage 'Total War' socially, politically and militarily against your enemies. Or,... you stay out of the affairs of others whom have no regard for your input in the first place. Especially if it profits your Nation nothing in regards to gaining resources and or wealth with which to improve it's own condition and maintain it's present and future glory.


Bottom line,.....if you are not prepared to take the neccessary measures to 'truthfully' be victorious. Don't waste the lives of your warriors, the resources of your Nation and moral of your countrymen simply for the sake of 'bullsh#t' politics,.....that are not profitable. (outside of for a select few 'families' behind the scenes)

Mosca
04-28-2007, 12:30 PM
I dissagree Mosca. I don't think the war in the middle east is one that cannot even be won socially with 'sensitive' diplomacy. As there will ALWAYS be some percentage of the population in any and all muslim Nations whom will regard the 'western' way of life and or ideals to be wicked and worthy of being destroyed.

And this percentage will never be oppossed 'truthfully' by the rest of their said peoples. Even though these remaining may not 'actively' take part in actual combat or the cowardly acts of terrorrism against civilians.

Imo,...you wage 'Total War' socially, politically and militarily against your enemies. Or,... you stay out of the affairs of others whom have no regard for your input in the first place. Especially if it profits your Nation nothing in regards to gaining resources and or wealth with which to improve it's own condition and maintain it's present and future glory.


Bottom line,.....if you are not prepared to take the neccessary measures to 'truthfully' be victorious. Don't waste the lives of your warriors, the resources of your Nation and moral of your countrymen simply for the sake of 'bullsh#t' politics,.....that are not profitable. (outside of for a select few 'families' behind the scenes)

I dunno, Steelczar, I think we agree pretty closely. Or at least I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I didn't use the word "sensitive", you put it in there. I think we need some blunt force diplomacy, not delicate negotiations.

"Total war".... yep, unless you are willing to go total war. Like in, slaughtering all the men in a village if one GI is killed. Like the Nazis did when they occupied Europe. But then, did that count as "victory?" It sure stopped insurrection, but I don't know if that's the same as victory.

And what I'm saying is exactly, "Don't waste the lives of your warriors, the resources of your nation, and the morale of your countrymen..." because that's what is being done right now. And continuing it won't validate it; it's already done.

I think we agree pretty closely on everything. It's just that I don't see total war as the solution to bring anything other than global annihilation. The planet's gotten too small, and weapons have gotten too powerful, and information moves too quickly. And war has become too expensive, in dollar cost, resource cost, environmental cost, and human cost. "Total War" is a concept that is too dangerous for the real world any more.

If the world decided to take us on, we would lose. So would they, but so would we.


"Strange game; the only winning move is to not play." -- WHOPR


Tom

SteelCzar76
04-28-2007, 01:35 PM
I dunno, Steelczar, I think we agree pretty closely. Or at least I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I didn't use the word "sensitive", you put it in there. I think we need some blunt force diplomacy, not delicate negotiations.

"Total war".... yep, unless you are willing to go total war. Like in, slaughtering all the men in a village if one GI is killed. Like the Nazis did when they occupied Europe. But then, did that count as "victory?" It sure stopped insurrection, but I don't know if that's the same as victory.

And what I'm saying is exactly, "Don't waste the lives of your warriors, the resources of your nation, and the morale of your countrymen..." because that's what is being done right now. And continuing it won't validate it; it's already done.

I think we agree pretty closely on everything. It's just that I don't see total war as the solution to bring anything other than global annihilation. The planet's gotten too small, and weapons have gotten too powerful, and information moves too quickly. And war has become too expensive, in dollar cost, resource cost, environmental cost, and human cost. "Total War" is a concept that is too dangerous for the real world any more.

If the world decided to take us on, we would lose. So would they, but so would we.


"Strange game; the only winning move is to not play." -- WHOPR


Tom




Props for the 'War Games' reference Mosca. LOL But when i speak of 'Total War' i mean in a sense of doing what 'must' be done to win. Though it may be perceived as harsh and or cruel. (When in reality it's just simply a matter of neccesity)
IMO i don't think that a Nuclear strike is exactly what's neccessary. Let's just say,.....i think we should be more 'heavy handed' so to speak with those whom aid extremists. (Be it literally or through their suppossed indifference)
In other words,.....apply 'pressure' to THEM to weed out the madmen amongst them. With the knowledge that if they do not they will be removed from their own positions of power. By literally seizing control of by force that which is the base of their said wealth and power.

(ie: no more games or worrying about the consent of SOME other nations. Or subtlety in regards to setting up Puppet goverments)

Is this fair ? Perhaps not. Would it be fair to bar entry to the United States of anyone of Saudi, Egyptian, Iraqi, Iranian or Iraqi descent until the the upstanding majority of them turn their back on the extremists amongst them ? No,....not at all.

But it would be very effective in 'curbing' the actual acts of terrorism. But i think the better question is,......do those whom hold power here actually really want to resolve issues as oppossed to allowing a 'controlled' (in their eyes) degree of chaos and fear for their own personal gain ?


And BTW,.....none of the other Nations with the capabilty to start a another World War by engaging us has the 'actual' resolve to do so short of their literal existence being threatened. (Though some might stand on the sidelines and hurl insults and make hollow threats)

Chronicgaming
04-28-2007, 01:40 PM
I can't remember the last time that I've seen the nation this divided on an issue. It doesn't help when reporters and commentators constantly throw politics into non-political issues (Limbaugh saying that the VT killer was obviously far-left was one example, although both sides do it to further their agendas). My wife and I can't really watch the news anymore simply because of all the bashing that goes on.

With non-political stories suddenly politicized, it's tough to get the real facts on such an important and difficult issue like this where thousands of our soldiers lives are at stake. With the lack of strategy that we've seen in this fight, we either need to change our approach on dealing with the insurgents, or try to find another alternative. The past quarrels are quickly becoming irrelevant, since they really aren't helping us get any closer to a solution.

Just my two cents... :computer:

</rant>

Mosca
04-28-2007, 02:58 PM
Agreed, CG. I'm against finger-pointing and useless squabbling.

Steelczar, I don't necessarily mean nuclear war. I just mean total war. And I agree, I know that the western world has no desire for total war, let alone the resolve to do it. That's not a failing in my eyes, that's positive. I don't doubt that what you propose would have an effect; what I doubt is that you could equate that effect with victory. Like I said: subjugating a population is easy, if you're bloodthirsty enough. But it never ends; there is no victory to win militarily. There is no scenario where we can kill enough Iraqis so that when we leave everyone will be peaceful and get along. We would have to stay there and kill them, forever.

If it's wrong to not have the stomach for that, well then I'm wrong.


Tom

SteelCzar76
04-28-2007, 03:39 PM
Agreed, CG. I'm against finger-pointing and useless squabbling.

Steelczar, I don't necessarily mean nuclear war. I just mean total war. And I agree, I know that the western world has no desire for total war, let alone the resolve to do it. That's not a failing in my eyes, that's positive. I don't doubt that what you propose would have an effect; what I doubt is that you could equate that effect with victory. Like I said: subjugating a population is easy, if you're bloodthirsty enough. But it never ends; there is no victory to win militarily. There is no scenario where we can kill enough Iraqis so that when we leave everyone will be peaceful and get along. We would have to stay there and kill them, forever.

If it's wrong to not have the stomach for that, well then I'm wrong.


Tom



Tom i'm not proposing staying and 'killing' Iraqi's or the citizens of any other propossed middle eastern enemy forever.
What i'm am saying is remove the cancer. Which in the case of these Middle eastern Nations that consider us their enemy overtly, (because it sounds good from a pack behavioral standpont),.......is their social ruling class.
Their leaders, whom are wealthy and powerful because they control a great deal of the worlds supply of oil. Their leaders whom truthfully follow no religious or Holy doctorine except that of their own personal gain.

Their leaders whom use ideaology to distract their flock from the fact that they are in fact absoloute capitalists themselves and greatly covet and indulge themselves in a great deal of what they claim to be 'wicked western vice'.

X-Terminator
04-28-2007, 03:59 PM
I can't remember the last time that I've seen the nation this divided on an issue. It doesn't help when reporters and commentators constantly throw politics into non-political issues (Limbaugh saying that the VT killer was obviously far-left was one example, although both sides do it to further their agendas). My wife and I can't really watch the news anymore simply because of all the bashing that goes on.

With non-political stories suddenly politicized, it's tough to get the real facts on such an important and difficult issue like this where thousands of our soldiers lives are at stake. With the lack of strategy that we've seen in this fight, we either need to change our approach on dealing with the insurgents, or try to find another alternative. The past quarrels are quickly becoming irrelevant, since they really aren't helping us get any closer to a solution.

Just my two cents... :computer:

</rant>

And this would be why I rarely discuss politics with anyone, and why I cringe whenever subjects like this come up on message boards - or anywhere else, for that matter. When people start showing more civility and understanding of opposing viewpoints, rather than dismiss them and go directly to the mudslinging, then I'll be more willing. Since that isn't going to happen any time soon, I'll stick to staying on the sidelines and keeping my views to myself.

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-28-2007, 04:06 PM
Oh the inaccuracies!!! I can see that you know very little about this situation

1) Since when did President Bush conduct investigations?....the CIA information presented to congress was the same that was presented to Bush:dang:

2) The "hundreds of thousands" of innocents...were (and still are) killed primarily by suicide bombers and muslim extremists..sunni vs shiite....and shame on you for putting that on the shoulders of any american..whether it be the President or our soldiers.

3) Soldiers do not sign up to "give their lives"..that is how you lose wars. Soldiers sign up to make the enemy lose theirs...and yes..every American soldiers life is worth more to me. To equate our soldiers lives to that of the enemy or to foreign nationals is a scenerio ussually reserved to those who dont respect the military....

..and you make want to lay off drinking for a bit:thumbsup:You're right. I know very little about this situation. What I do know is that this war was a HUGE mistake, and the reasons we went to war weren't valid. The question now is what do we do?Throw good money after bad? Waste more lives? That God this idiot no longer has a rubber stamp in Congress.:jammin: U.S.A. U.S.A.:jammin:

Mosca
04-28-2007, 07:19 PM
Steelczar,

We did that with Saddam; and look what we have.

Again, I think you make some very truthful points, but I disagree that they will work in the real world. I wish they would.


Tom

SteelCzar76
04-28-2007, 08:59 PM
Steelczar,

We did that with Saddam; and look what we have.

Again, I think you make some very truthful points, but I disagree that they will work in the real world. I wish they would.


Tom



Ousting Saddam isn't what has turned Iraq into the clusterfook that it has become. Wasting money and troops trying to 'police' it is the problem. Our intiall 'costs' in removing him and his regime from power were justified. (As exacting decisive force against others like him would also be)

Bottom line is,.....the point is not just to simply destroy such anti American regimes militarily. But to also cripple the 'Puppet Master Oil Barons' ability to finance attacks against us,.. as well as the sway they hold over their people by exacting a measure of 'tribute' (if you will) until they decide it's 'bad buisness' to allow extremist any 'room to breathe' amongst them.

As far as your 'Real world' comment. I'm well aware that society as it stands now is far to effeminate to agree with and or condone such actions on our part. Henceforth the reason i stated far earlier,.....that if not prepared to actually do what's neccessary,.....then mind your own.

GBMelBlount
05-08-2007, 12:20 AM
Wow 76!

Plus if you go back to the soundbites from early 2000's, virtually ALL the turncoats agreed not only with Bush's decision, but with his information as well.

Mosca
05-08-2007, 08:03 AM
Wow 76!

Plus if you go back to the soundbites from early 2000's, virtually ALL the turncoats agreed not only with Bush's decision, but with his information as well.


LOL, yeah; in the immortal words of Otter to Flounder, paraphrased to fit: "Hey, you ****ed up; you trusted me!"

Seeing as how he controlled all the information, and all.


Tom

Preacher
05-08-2007, 02:24 PM
LOL, yeah; in the immortal words of Otter to Flounder, paraphrased to fit: "Hey, you ****ed up; you trusted me!"

Seeing as how he controlled all the information, and all.


Tom


Tom...

I respect your posts... but I gotta disagree with you.

the president does NOT control all the information. CIA, DIA, NSA, and all the alphabet soup agencies scattered throughout our government have thier own empires, and produce thier own info. That is what makes this intelligence czar position such a joke...

Anyways... the president can ONLY move on the information that has been vetted and chopped up and then reorganized into a document presented. Furthermore, other intelligence agencies of other nations had come to the same conclusions, AS DID THE UN. As did the CIA under Clinton. There was a continuous, evergrowing mountain of evidence towards Saddam having WMD. That is un-arguable for anyone that does not choose to re-write history.

The real question then HAS to become, what HAPPENED to the WMD that Saddam had?
From my perspective (which isn't much), there can only be one of three answers...

1. Saddam was bluffing, thinking that he had to keep a face and look of power for fear of uprising in his own land and attack from others (Iran, Saudi Arabia, remember... in HIS mind, that would be VERY possible).

2. His subordinates TOLD him that they had the weaponry, but did not. This would seem too far-fetched on the service, but think it through. 1000's of chemical warfare suits were found in Iraq. US military intercepted a code word from Saddam ORDERING A CHEMICAL ATTACK that never came (funny how it circulated in the media for a few days, then once they got on the no WMD bandwagon, that piece of info fell right off the radar). Saddam created an enviroment where it was better to lie to the dictator and keep your life, then tell the truth and die. That is normal in those situations... In the USSR, every factory, every farm, ALWAYS made quota... on paper. Why? Cause if they didn't, they died or went to the gulag. I suspect the same thing here.

3. They had WMD, France, Germany, and Russia KNEW they had WMD, they were involved in one way or another with the WMD (remember the big oil for food scandal), and stalled so that Iraq could get the WMD out of Iraq into Iran and Syria. IRan? wait a second, I just said in point one that they were afraid of attacks from Iran... Yep. But remember in the first war in the gulf, just 3 years after Iran and Iraq stopped fighting, IRan allowed many Iraqi warplanes to fly to Iran to escape the US... Furthermore, Saddam would rather Iran had the WMD, or syria, then the US. So yes, it is VERY possible... especially with France involved, who took the Ayotolla Khomeini in before he came back and started the revolution in 1979. There is a long history there... with France, and france was part of the oil for food, and fance had help build the nuclear facility in Iraq that Israel bombed... Yeah... this scenario moves into the possible realm with EASE...

Now, any of these three scenarios are much more possible then President Bush silencing half a dozen intelligence agencies, fooling the State department, tricking foriegn intelligence agencies to lie to thier heads of state... then getting Putin to admit on TV that Iraq WAS PLANNING AN ATTACK ON THE U.S. Oh yeah... that hit the airwaves and fell off about 3 days later as well, why derail the NO WMD chant?

In the end, I have grown to hate politics. As a true christian conservitive, I feel cheated by this president. He has ONLY touched on my issues of abortion and moral issues ONLY during election time... then ran away at all other times. I do not like this president.

However, the opposition has manipulated facts to unsubstanciated conclusions that in the end....

MAKES ME HATE POLITCS EVEN MORE...

At this point, there is not ONE person that I trust enough to vote for this coming year. It is so bad, I don't even trust the third part nominees....

Mosca
05-08-2007, 05:02 PM
Preach, it might surprise you to know that I voted for this president.

I believed him, and I too feel cheated by him. I believe that our government picked the information that fit what they wanted to do and then acted on it, ignoring the analysis that we the people paid for (by allotting tax dollars to pay for analysts) that said that there were more compelling reasons to stay out of Iraq militarily. And if I believed the executive branch, if I decided that overall we should send troops to Iraq, then I can understand how those in Congress believed. The evidence was specifically selected and presented to lead the country to the conclusion desired by the executive branch. More powerful evidence to the contrary was ignored. I could cite this if you'd like, but it's fairly well documented by now. even Tenet's new book says so. And Tenet has a MOF from Bush.

My position and Steelczar76's aren't really different; unless you have the stomach to wage war brutally and mercilessly, don't wage war. Well, unless we are willing to occupy foreign lands the same way the Germans and Japanese did 65 years ago, this occupation is doomed. But I would hope that we are better people than the Nazis and IJF were then. If the choice is acting as they did or our occupation being doomed, I'll withdraw from Iraq thank you. Because if we act as the Axis did, then America is over.

So back to my question: what do we do NOW? We can't stay, we don't have the resources, our people are dying, we are unwilling to act with total brutality (and rightly so), and our presence is contributing to the instability of the country. And we can't leave, because as soon as we do Iran or Syria (or both) will march right in.

It's a total cluster, is what it is.

Preacher
05-08-2007, 05:52 PM
Tom...

Where I disagree with you is the beleif in the WILLFUL misleading of people by the president. There is just NO WAY you can prove a conspiracy between the Brit, American, Italian, Russian, Spanish, etc. exec. branches to mold information and deny other information.

Did we miss stuff? Absolutely. Was there errors? Of course. War is not about how well it is done, but about who makes the fewest errors.

And that is what I have a problem with. Tom, it seems that most of America has taken a "management" view of war. When it become unpalatable, or when the bottom line isn't to our liking, we close that part of the business and move on. That is precisely how wars are lost.

Let us get VERY specific right now. We WON the war we went to fight. Then, in the process of setting up another government, ANOTHER ENEMY came INTO the country and attacked Iraq AND the U.S. troops. That enemy has used guerilla tactics, created trained opposition leaders, and created an underground army. It is PRECISELY what they are trying to do in the USA, Britian, and elsewhere. They are able to do it in Iraq because it is thier own backyard, and they know how to stoke the fires. WHo is this enemy?

IRAN and SYRIA.

We are now fighting a proxy war against these two states. Why? what does a democratic, pro-west Iraq look like to Iran? To Syria? It looks exactly like what it wil become... and SHOULD BECOME.. a staging ground for allied forces to end both nations' governments and finally stabilze the mideast.

It is NOT the US that has destabilzed the mideast, it HAS BEEN destabilzed for 25 years, ever since Iran became a theocracy. Heck, it has been destabilzed since before that. However, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and now Iraq have ceased to be a threat to Israel, and tried to co-exist. Now you can add Libya as well. The result is only TWO ... that is right... .TWO COUNTRIES that still exist, trying to destabilze the mideast... Iran and Syria.

A peaceful Iraq, one with ties to the west and allowing for staging grounds for American and western/UN troops is a VERY REAL THREAT to Iran. It checkmates them on three sides (Don't forget Afganistan and the gulf). Thus, they have now gone to war against us in Afganistan.

To leave now is to embolden and empower both Al Quiada and Iran to the point where we will be fighting them in a bigger war, possibly a war with nuclear weapons, and possibly over two or three continents.

That is not an option. Therefore, the option is to stay now and fight.

Granted, we need to change the way we are fighting....

Better boarder patrol, more agressive military towards iraq and iran when they come a cross the borders.. etc.

But in my mind, that is the ONLY option.

tony hipchest
05-08-2007, 06:32 PM
At this point, there is not ONE person that I trust enough to vote for this coming year. It is so bad, I don't even trust the third part nominees....in that case, may i suggest richardson? hes democrat, but realizes you cant take guns away from cowboys in the old wild west. plus his resume speaks for itself.

if the ticket comes down to hillary vs. gulianni, i may puke and them write in a candidate named hipchest. a ticket of richardson vs. mccain doesnt seem quite as scary.

Mosca
05-08-2007, 06:55 PM
I don't mean that they knew the truth and hid it; I mean that they chose the truth they already believed, out of the evidence presented. I agree that intentions were sincere.

I made the same point about winning the military engagement, a couple pages ago.

Saddam was a butcher... exactly the kind of ruthless and merciless brute that we can't and won't be. The Middle east might have been unstable, but Iraq was stable under Hussein. By brute force, the same force SteelCzar76 mentions.

I agree that we can't leave. I agree that we can't stay. I don't see how to turn either leaving or staying into victory.


Tom

tony hipchest
05-08-2007, 07:09 PM
I agree that we can't leave. I agree that we can't stay. I don't see how to turn either leaving or staying into victory.


Tomquite a quagmire, and i hate to see us between a rock and a hard place.

from peter king's MMQB this week:

h. I want to say this with all due respect, because I'm an animal lover. But I wish there would be as much hand-wringing over the 3,376 American fatalities in Iraq than there is over the death of Barbaro.
i know king is a leftie (some dont like his column because of it), and i know this point he is making is kind of extreme. but i get what he's saying.

Preacher
05-08-2007, 07:11 PM
I don't mean that they knew the truth and hid it; I mean that they chose the truth they already believed, out of the evidence presented. I agree that intentions were sincere.

I made the same point about winning the military engagement, a couple pages ago.

Saddam was a butcher... exactly the kind of ruthless and merciless brute that we can't and won't be. The Middle east might have been unstable, but Iraq was stable under Hussein. By brute force, the same force SteelCzar76 mentions.

I agree that we can't leave. I agree that we can't stay. I don't see how to turn either leaving or staying into victory.


Tom


Ahhh....

Forgive me, I should have known better.... You think too much to fall into the "Bush Lied, People Died" idiocy.


The line I highlighted is interesting... Let's discuss it... I am interested to know what you think we should do... This is the kind of discussion I like to engage in.. Thanks for being thoughtful on it!!!
.:thumbsup:

GBMelBlount
05-08-2007, 10:35 PM
Tom...

Where I disagree with you is the beleif in the WILLFUL misleading of people by the president. There is just NO WAY you can prove a conspiracy between the Brit, American, Italian, Russian, Spanish, etc. exec. branches to mold information and deny other information.

Did we miss stuff? Absolutely. Was there errors? Of course. War is not about how well it is done, but about who makes the fewest errors.

And that is what I have a problem with. Tom, it seems that most of America has taken a "management" view of war. When it become unpalatable, or when the bottom line isn't to our liking, we close that part of the business and move on. That is precisely how wars are lost.

Let us get VERY specific right now. We WON the war we went to fight. Then, in the process of setting up another government, ANOTHER ENEMY came INTO the country and attacked Iraq AND the U.S. troops. That enemy has used guerilla tactics, created trained opposition leaders, and created an underground army. It is PRECISELY what they are trying to do in the USA, Britian, and elsewhere. They are able to do it in Iraq because it is thier own backyard, and they know how to stoke the fires. WHo is this enemy?

IRAN and SYRIA.

We are now fighting a proxy war against these two states. Why? what does a democratic, pro-west Iraq look like to Iran? To Syria? It looks exactly like what it wil become... and SHOULD BECOME.. a staging ground for allied forces to end both nations' governments and finally stabilze the mideast.

It is NOT the US that has destabilzed the mideast, it HAS BEEN destabilzed for 25 years, ever since Iran became a theocracy. Heck, it has been destabilzed since before that. However, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and now Iraq have ceased to be a threat to Israel, and tried to co-exist. Now you can add Libya as well. The result is only TWO ... that is right... .TWO COUNTRIES that still exist, trying to destabilze the mideast... Iran and Syria.

A peaceful Iraq, one with ties to the west and allowing for staging grounds for American and western/UN troops is a VERY REAL THREAT to Iran. It checkmates them on three sides (Don't forget Afganistan and the gulf). Thus, they have now gone to war against us in Afganistan.

To leave now is to embolden and empower both Al Quiada and Iran to the point where we will be fighting them in a bigger war, possibly a war with nuclear weapons, and possibly over two or three continents.

That is not an option. Therefore, the option is to stay now and fight.

Granted, we need to change the way we are fighting....

Better boarder patrol, more agressive military towards iraq and iran when they come a cross the borders.. etc.

But in my mind, that is the ONLY option.

This is where I can say it is an absolute shame that the main stream media not only misinforms, but ignores critical information. Not only did Saddam break a dozen plus UN resolutions, but he had over a year to to move most of his WMD's through caravans and gutted 747's before we attacked. If you leave yourself to being a leming of the main stream media you will never know this. Plus I have recently seen footage of the shamless left.... Hillary, John Kerry, Kennedy, acting like they authorized the war based on their own personal information, then a few years later reaming Bush for what they 100% supported. SHAMEFUL!

steeler614
05-08-2007, 11:27 PM
Bush is a manipulator. as Preacher said he used abortion and other moral issues to manipulate people into voting for him. the Iraq war is pretty much the second coming of Vietnam, billions of our tax dollars being spent and lives lost fighting a scapegoat. Bush failed to shut down Bin Laden and manipulated congress into believing in these phantom WMD's. was there any real evidence presented? his whole presidency has revolved around this goddamn war and while all this money is being spent our schools, health care, and social security systems crumble. Bush is a cancer and he needs to go.

Mosca
05-09-2007, 08:07 AM
Bush is a cancer and he needs to go.


That is what is called, "vice president insurance". President Cheney? No, thanks.


Tom

GBMelBlount
05-09-2007, 11:13 PM
LOL, yeah; in the immortal words of Otter to Flounder, paraphrased to fit: "Hey, you ****ed up; you trusted me!"

Seeing as how he controlled all the information, and all.


Tom

Mosca, please listen to these democrat statements, then tell me how it is only Bush

bush.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts#

Mosca
05-10-2007, 08:58 AM
GB, I'm not interested in pointing fingers. But I don't mind poking back at others who do, which is what my comment was meant to be. You point at them now, or you would have pointed at them then, or at some other time; for what? Give it up, it's partisan bullshit. At the time America went into this, the ONLY way it was going to work was with 100% support, and the Dems gave that. Anyone who turns that support back on them as a sign of weakness is being pretty damn unloyal themselves. When your opposition trusts you and gives you total support for a plan they are wary of, do you turn back on them when your plan fails? If you do, it says a lot about who YOU are.

What I want to know is, OK. It's a clusterfreak. Now what do we do? We can't stay, we can't leave.

I disagree completely with anyone who says "stay the course." This will slowly bleed our country to death. It simply cannot be an open ended commitment. Anyone who hasn't noticed the strain on their local economy hasn't been looking, or is too affluent for it to make a difference. And each one of us has neighbors, or relatives, or friends in Iraq or Afghanistan, who we keep close in our hearts and prayers every moment of every day. Or you are there yourself, loyally serving our country despite the situation we've put you in.

I agree with SteelCzar76 who maintains that the only way to "win" (by which I believe he means pacify Iraq) is through total war, except that I have no problem saying that total war is morally wrong, in that it means America reimposing the brutalities of Hussein. So do we ask our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, our friends, to act like the SS did in WW2 and wantonly murder Iraqis to impose "peace" on a country that we tore up to begin with? Not me, pal. I'm not in for that game. And I don't think SCz76 is either.

I agree with those who say that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster of unforeseen proportions... the reason this would be a total disaster is precisely because we have no idea what will transpire, so there is no way to be prepared. We can't declare victory and leave. If we do, it WOULD make our aggression (I use the word without any negative meaning; we thought at the time it was right) pointless, because it would create any number of situations that would be exactly what we thought we were fighting to eliminate; it would create either a lawless state of terrorist training grounds, or a hotbed of WMDs as Iran or Syria (or both) get control of the oil, or give up control of a large part of the world's energy resources to our enemies, or create spreading sectarian violence, or topple the Saudi regime (despite their treachery they are our only support over there), or rekindle Muslim aggression against Israel... Or any combination of the above.

Sure, we'd all love to rewind time and take another look at all this. And I wish I'd won the Lotto, too.

Everyone loves easy, uncomplicated solutions. "Turn the desert to glass!" "Screw 'em, let's leave and they can blow each other up!" But anything worth having is worth WORKING for, and is worth gambling for. I say, hold on where we are and let the talkers see what they can do. Someone has to get everyone into one room. Someone has to find a REASON for some of the factions to get together in one room, because right now there are factions who have a clear advantage in NOT negotiating. Much as I distrust Cheney, it was time for some frank talk with al-Maliki. Whether Cheney has the leverage to back it up, I don't see; his only choices are ramping forces up or leaving, and it's already clear he can't do either. But it's a start. The impasse of everyone being content with us bleeding while they jockey for post-occupation position, that has to end.


Tom

revefsreleets
05-10-2007, 07:10 PM
I may be out of line here, but I read all this stuff posted, and it sure seems like both sides make a lot of good points, but here's the thing that I don't get. Is Bush really making personal money off this war? I think there was a time back before the press was so powerful that things like that could happen, but now things are different. Look at Russia. Do you think if Stalin poisoned a spy with radioactive materials anybody in Russia would ever know? But know, even in Russia, the press ran the story. And it was all over the press all over the World.

When I look at how people fight about these things, I have to laugh. There are generals and people in power who have spent their whole lives studying middle east politics and others who have spent their whole lives learning about warfare in every single way it can be fought and have earned the right to make and enforce policy, yet on every website in America we have used car salesmen and Best Buy TV repairmen on the right fighting with music teachers and cable installers from the left over these issues. Like we know!

I don't see any way to fix any of this, and I don't think anybody who has any power will ever ask anybody here, anyway, so why fight about it?

tony hipchest
05-10-2007, 09:24 PM
Everyone loves easy, uncomplicated solutions. "Turn the desert to glass!" "Screw 'em, let's leave and they can blow each other up!" But anything worth having is worth WORKING for, and is worth gambling for. I say, hold on where we are and let the talkers see what they can do. Someone has to get everyone into one room. Someone has to find a REASON for some of the factions to get together in one room, because right now there are factions who have a clear advantage in NOT negotiating. Much as I distrust Cheney, it was time for some frank talk with al-Maliki. Whether Cheney has the leverage to back it up, I don't see; his only choices are ramping forces up or leaving, and it's already clear he can't do either. But it's a start. The impasse of everyone being content with us bleeding while they jockey for post-occupation position, that has to end.


Tom great post. i believe bill richardson is the best "talker" we got who has the best opportunity to end this mess were in (rep/ or dem).

if hilary knew how to work her mouth i dont think the whole lewinsky scandal woulda even happened in the 1st place. :wink02:

Stlrs4Life
05-10-2007, 09:47 PM
GB, I'm not interested in pointing fingers. But I don't mind poking back at others who do, which is what my comment was meant to be. You point at them now, or you would have pointed at them then, or at some other time; for what? Give it up, it's partisan bullshit. At the time America went into this, the ONLY way it was going to work was with 100% support, and the Dems gave that. Anyone who turns that support back on them as a sign of weakness is being pretty damn unloyal themselves. When your opposition trusts you and gives you total support for a plan they are wary of, do you turn back on them when your plan fails? If you do, it says a lot about who YOU are.

What I want to know is, OK. It's a clusterfreak. Now what do we do? We can't stay, we can't leave.

I disagree completely with anyone who says "stay the course." This will slowly bleed our country to death. It simply cannot be an open ended commitment. Anyone who hasn't noticed the strain on their local economy hasn't been looking, or is too affluent for it to make a difference. And each one of us has neighbors, or relatives, or friends in Iraq or Afghanistan, who we keep close in our hearts and prayers every moment of every day. Or you are there yourself, loyally serving our country despite the situation we've put you in.

I agree with SteelCzar76 who maintains that the only way to "win" (by which I believe he means pacify Iraq) is through total war, except that I have no problem saying that total war is morally wrong, in that it means America reimposing the brutalities of Hussein. So do we ask our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, our friends, to act like the SS did in WW2 and wantonly murder Iraqis to impose "peace" on a country that we tore up to begin with? Not me, pal. I'm not in for that game. And I don't think SCz76 is either.

I agree with those who say that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster of unforeseen proportions... the reason this would be a total disaster is precisely because we have no idea what will transpire, so there is no way to be prepared. We can't declare victory and leave. If we do, it WOULD make our aggression (I use the word without any negative meaning; we thought at the time it was right) pointless, because it would create any number of situations that would be exactly what we thought we were fighting to eliminate; it would create either a lawless state of terrorist training grounds, or a hotbed of WMDs as Iran or Syria (or both) get control of the oil, or give up control of a large part of the world's energy resources to our enemies, or create spreading sectarian violence, or topple the Saudi regime (despite their treachery they are our only support over there), or rekindle Muslim aggression against Israel... Or any combination of the above.

Sure, we'd all love to rewind time and take another look at all this. And I wish I'd won the Lotto, too.

Everyone loves easy, uncomplicated solutions. "Turn the desert to glass!" "Screw 'em, let's leave and they can blow each other up!" But anything worth having is worth WORKING for, and is worth gambling for. I say, hold on where we are and let the talkers see what they can do. Someone has to get everyone into one room. Someone has to find a REASON for some of the factions to get together in one room, because right now there are factions who have a clear advantage in NOT negotiating. Much as I distrust Cheney, it was time for some frank talk with al-Maliki. Whether Cheney has the leverage to back it up, I don't see; his only choices are ramping forces up or leaving, and it's already clear he can't do either. But it's a start. The impasse of everyone being content with us bleeding while they jockey for post-occupation position, that has to end.


Tom



Best post in thread.:cheers:

GBMelBlount
05-10-2007, 10:26 PM
At the time America went into this, the ONLY way it was going to work was with 100% support, and the Dems gave that. Anyone who turns that support back on them as a sign of weakness is being pretty damn unloyal themselves. When your opposition trusts you and gives you total support for a plan they are wary of, do you turn back on them when your plan fails? If you do, it says a lot about who YOU are.
Tom

It's funny, Churchill said it was only natural to question going into war, but once in war, there is no excuse for cutting and running from your leader. If they were wary, they should have said so before hand. not now. It sounds a little disingenuous to me. The people who are cutting & running are being pretty damn unloyal. Many have said that if this was the thinking in WWII we'd be speaking German. Again, Mosca, nothing personal, this is just my humble opinion.

Mosca
05-11-2007, 08:12 AM
Understood. But what do you do when the war takes a turn that you don't agree with? If Bush decides to go nuclear, do we have to all stay behind him?

What the opposition is saying is that the present prosecution of the war is not working, that the occupation of Iraq isn't working, and that the administration has no plans to do anything other than "stay the course" (IMO until his term ends so he doesn't have to make a decision), and that staying the course is madness. The legislative tactic of tying funding to withdrawal isn't withdrawal of support for the troops; it's designed to force the administration to try to do something different (and witness Cheney's surprise trip to Baghdad).


Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-11-2007, 10:51 AM
Understood. But what do you do when the war takes a turn that you don't agree with? If Bush decides to go nuclear, do we have to all stay behind him?

What the opposition is saying is that the present prosecution of the war is not working, that the occupation of Iraq isn't working, and that the administration has no plans to do anything other than "stay the course" (IMO until his term ends so he doesn't have to make a decision), and that staying the course is madness. The legislative tactic of tying funding to withdrawal isn't withdrawal of support for the troops; it's designed to force the administration to try to do something different (and witness Cheney's surprise trip to Baghdad).


Tom

I understand what you are saying Mosca and appreciate the intelligence that you put into your posts....but to touch on what Blount was saying.....If we applied the same standards to WWII as we have to this war...would we have pulled out after our early defeats in the pacific...after 44,000 American soldiers were captured at Bataan...would we have quit, and never known the victory at Iwo Jima?....after the incredible losses of 2,200 Americans at D-day, should we have quit and never known the victory and eventual destruction of the Nazi government?..the incredible thing is that our level of losses over the same period of time have been miniscule compared to past wars. Our Department Psychologist is writing a thesis on how the LACK of casualties in this war has bred an attitude lacking the affront and outrage that this country felt in WWII. Morality and Ethics seem to play a smaller part in this war then in the past. Of course that is a generality and some people will claim moral outrage ..but that is probably outrage at war itself and not outrage at THIS war.

Mosca
05-11-2007, 02:10 PM
I share your frustration. But not all wars are the same, and this one is at an impasse. I think that if WW2 had hit the same stalemate there would have been a similar hue and cry; imagine no DDay, just perpetual horrific losses as we sent Forts and Libs over Germany.

I want to win this. What we are doing isn't winning. I want to see a plan that works, from the people we elected to make it work. Again, Cheney's visit with al-Maliki is a start, but I don't know if he has the leverage to back up his frank talk.

stlrtruck
05-11-2007, 03:21 PM
I believe that the problem with our military leaders (aka the President, Congress, and Senators), is that they waiver back and forth and do not fully support our troops at this point. I also believe that they've placed restrictions on our military and they can not function in the capacities that they have in the passed.

Ask an Old Vet. One that served in the WWII. It had nothing to do with the loss of civilian life (although they did want to limit civilian losses) or protecting some religious building. It had to do with going in, cleaning house, and getting home! We can no longer do that because our society has become so PC. However, it's ok for the terrorist to cry a bloody river when they are mis-treated. What gives? Tell me, who was truly upset when they saw the pictures from the POW camp of the prisoners with underwear on their head? I wasn't. Was it right? No, but it wasn't like I was too concerned with it, knowing that if they had an opportunity, they would bomb some building in the US to kill "INNOCENT" people that have nothing to do with their hatred of this country.

I digress. What do we do now? The statement has been made, and I agree, that we can't stay and we can't leave. So let's change the plan of attack. How do we do that? I'm not sure but it definitely has to be something different than stay the course.

The one thing I know we as individuals (forget the government and their selective party propaganda) is to support our troops 100%. Show them the love, the respect, and the honor that they not only deserve but one that they have EARNED!

Mosca
05-11-2007, 04:05 PM
The one thing I know we as individuals (forget the government and their selective party propaganda) is to support our troops 100%. Show them the love, the respect, and the honor that they not only deserve but one that they have EARNED!

ABSOLUTELY!

These are our friends, our neighbors, our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, and us ourselves. They didn't question the duty they were given; they went did it, and they are doing it as best they can with the situation and tools they've been given.

The difference between WW2 and now is that in WW2 we were seen as liberators and treated as such; here we are seen as occupiers and treated as such. Putting aside whether or not that is actually the case, in order to do the job of occupying the way it was done during WW2 we would have to act like the German SS did and decimate populations wantonly to enforce the occupation. Not considering the implications of actually doing that, I wouldn't want to put any of my neighbors and loved ones in the position of carrying that out, of lining up women and children and old men and executing them. Because that is the only way to enforce an occupation; like SCz76 says, total war. And not wanting to wage total war has nothing to do with PC, and everything to do with it being wrong... that's why we fought WW2, to stop people from doing it.


Tom

Preacher
05-11-2007, 05:47 PM
ABSOLUTELY!

These are our friends, our neighbors, our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, and us ourselves. They didn't question the duty they were given; they went did it, and they are doing it as best they can with the situation and tools they've been given.

The difference between WW2 and now is that in WW2 we were seen as liberators and treated as such; here we are seen as occupiers and treated as such.

Tom

Tom...

Gotta disagree..

"Yankee Go Home"
was the cry for the american "occupiers" to leave Germany.

I found this article which is very enlightening... and seems pretty balanced.

precedent because postwar Germans, unlike modern Arabs and Afghanis, supposedly had a strong cultural affinity for liberal democracy. As one of my commenters put it, Germany was "the land of Kant" and therefore (it is implied) highly receptive to liberalism and democracy. This claim is largely a myth. The truth is that Hitler and Goebbels were much more reflective of German opinion in the immediate post-WWII years than Kant. According to a series of surveys conducted by the US occupation authorities in 1951-52, 41% of West Germans saw "more good than evil" in Nazi ideas, compared to only 36% who said the opposite. In a 1949 survey, 59% of West Germans said that National Socialism was a "good idea badly carried out," compared to only 30% who said that it was wrong. 63% in a 1952 poll said that German generals held on war crimes charges were innocent and only 9% said that they were guilty. Well into the 1950s, large numbers of Germans rejected liberal democracy and expressed sympathy for various forms of authoritarianism. By the time the 1951-52 surveys, were conducted, West Germany had been occupied by the Allies for 6 years, and had had its own democratic government since 1949. Thus, German support for authoritarianism and even for many aspects of Nazism was quite deeply rooted. For these and other survey data from postwar Germany, see Anna J. Merritt & Richard L. Merritt, Public Opinion in Semisovereign Germany (1980).
Indeed, Iraqi and Afghan opinion today is probably more pro-democracy than German opinion in the 1940s and early 50s. For example, a December survey (http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228)shows 57% of Iraqis expressing support for a democratic form of goverment, compared to 14% who endorse an "Islamic state" and 26% who support "a single strong leader."
Nor was it the case that Allied occupation forces were highly popular in German eyes, another distinction that critics of today's democratization efforts try to make. To the contrary, many Germans hated the Western Allies for the understandable reason that Allied bombing had flattened virtually all of Germany's cities, killed some 300,000 civilians, and left 7.5 million homeless. (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm) Whether or not strategic bombing was morally justified, it certainly didn't endear the Allies to the average German. Abu Ghraib notwithstanding, the US has not done anything comparable in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Obviously, German opinion changed over time and today Germans are as supportive of liberalism and democracy as most other Westerners. But it was not German affinity for liberal democracy which led to its successful imposition. Rather, it was the success of liberal democratic institutions that gradually led Germans to support them - an important historical lesson that we would do well to learn.
This is not to say that there aren't any relevant differences between the democratization of Germany and today's efforts to democratize Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, in Iraq (and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan) we face a stronger insurgency than existed in Germany, and Iraq and Afghanistan have so far failed to produce democratic leaders as effective as Germany's Konrad Adenauer. However, it is a mistake to argue that German democratization succeeded because German political culture supported it, while today's democratization projects are doomed to failure for lack of such support.
UPDATE: Many (including some of my commenters) also argue that Germany was better prepared for democracy because of the experience of democracy under the Weimar Republic. Given that the Weimar Republic was a disastrous failure and was perceived as proof of the undesirability of democracy by the vast majority of Germans (including many moderates and leftists), it was probably at least as much of a liability as an asset to efforts to implant democracy and liberalism in Germany after WWII. For what it's worth, Iraq had similar brief and unsuccessful experiences with democracy in the 1920s and 1950s. No one contends that they "prove" that democratization will succeed there.
UPDATE #2: I am aware that this post fails to systematically distinguish democracy from the protection of individual rights. To do so would have made it even longer! But the plurality of Germans who in the 1950s continued to express sympathy for Nazism very likely were not too fond of either democracy OR individual rights. Thus, the evidence cited has implications for both democracy promotion and the promotion of liberal values.


The link is http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1143498871.shtml (http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1143498871.shtml)
Make sure you check the link... as it seems there is a balance to this discussion...

Something that is SORRILY missing in the Whitehouse, congress, and the national press. Dang... we have done a better job at it in this forum then our national leaders!

Mosca
05-11-2007, 06:44 PM
Preach, I was referring to France, Belgium and Italy. I didn't think the parallel to Germany was accurate; we didn't go into Iraq intending to conquer it as we did Germany, we went in intending to liberate it. It is the Iraqi people who see us a occupiers.

One important difference to remember is that we did fight a war of total annihilation against Germany and Japan; even at that time, the doctrine of unconditional surrender was controversial. But there is no doubt that it was the Allies' intent to wipe Germany and Japan off the face of the earth if need be. Our occupation of those lands was peaceful compared to the Axis occupations precisely because this was made clear, through the brutality of the Soviet sweep from the east and through the American and British carpet bombing of German cities, and the nuclear bombing of Japan. We occupied lands that had been drained in every sense; militarily, economically, socially, emotionally, and humanly. Again, are we prepared to do the same thing against an Iraqi opposition that consists mostly of armed civilians? Especially considering that we chose to invade and occupy in the first place?

I think that one of the problems with our strategy right now is precisely that we are comparing this to previous wars, and it is not like them at all. In Germany there was a delineation between combatants and non-combatants, and there are vast cultural differences and historical differences between a European nation such as Germany and a Middle Eastern nation such as Iraq, not the least being Islam. We are in a situation where we need to negotiate an advantage from people whose main advantage lies in not negotiating.

If I saw a solution, I wouldn't be some chump sitting at a keyboard. I can call 'em, but I'll be doggoned if I can solve them.

Tom

Polamalu777
05-11-2007, 08:30 PM
I think Senator McCain would make an excellent President. I really don't see any democrats that I would vote for.

Preacher
05-11-2007, 08:31 PM
If I saw a solution, I wouldn't be some chump sitting at a keyboard. I can call 'em, but I'll be doggoned if I can solve them.

Tom


And that is what makes you far smarter then most the people speaking against this war... or even about this war... Thank you!!

Let me tweak what you said just a little. I wouldn't go as far as to say it is a different war, it is the same war as WWII... a war of attrition. It is the WAY the war is gone about that is different.

In this war of attrition, we have to be ready to deal with low-level threats for years on end. The bet laid down by the Iranian/Syrian/al Quada solders/terrorists is that they can outlast us. When they do, they then have won here just like they won in Mogadishu, and will be emboldened to find another place to strike, thinking that America is ever the weaker.

The problem is, Americans (and Europe) have forgot what the rest of the world is really like. We have also forgot our past. War is a LONG TERM issue. What we are engaged in now is a struggle to create a new order from disorder which came from the destruction of the old order. THere are multiple parts fighting to create that order. Whoever wins will dictate what the order is. If we win, that order will be self-rule with liberal ideals. If syria/Iran wins, that order will be another Islamic/fascist state in the middle east (No, I don't throw the word fascist around lightly. I truly beleive that Iran and Syria have bought into a bastardized version of fascism).

The latter is completely unacceptable as it will continue to drive instability in the form of terrorists and aggression towards Israel and the West.

It is truly my belief that we either win this war NOW... stay and fight... even if we loose 100,000 soldiers...

Or we fight this same group of people... In a full-out war, in Germany, France, etc. in a generation, two at the most. That war will expand into Russia, Africa, Far east, etc.

MILLIONS upon MILLIONS would die, including millions of American troops AND CIVILIANS.

I am not willing to pay that cost... It is time to win the war now. And that is done through attrition. Every step towards the order of a democratic government that is strong, is another win.


(Tom... The rest of this isn't directed towards your post)

AND TO THE TITLE OF THE THREAD....

Funny... Nancy Pelosi and family are making more money off this war the ANY of the Bush or Cheney Family. Yet no one askes why she all bark and no bite....

Politics anyone? Why don't those who are against this war bring THAT UP? Hmmm?

For those who do NOT know... Pelosi's husband runs a company that is a MAJOR Dept. of Def. CONTRACTOR... It is from the money THE GOVT. is spending on this war THAT SHE GETS ALL HER MONEY...

Mosca
05-11-2007, 09:07 PM
Preach, I agree with what you said about this being a war of attrition. The problem as I see it is that our soldiers are halfway across the world and chewing up our resources at a horrifying rate, while those against us are fighting in their own neighborhoods and relying on improvised weaponry. That's why we can't stay; we will lose a war of attrition, because... well, because their attrition is nil and ours is huge.

Some of the rest of your post is why we can't leave, either. I don't see the future the same way you do, but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. I don't think they have the resources or the organization to take the war to us; it is to their convenience that we've gone to them. 9/11 notwithstanding.

I guess we'll see. We could sure use a rewind button though.


Tom

GBMelBlount
05-11-2007, 11:02 PM
Preach, I agree with what you said about this being a war of attrition. The problem as I see it is that our soldiers are halfway across the world and chewing up our resources at a horrifying rate, while those against us are fighting in their own neighborhoods and relying on improvised weaponry. That's why we can't stay; we will lose a war of attrition, because... well, because their attrition is nil and ours is huge.

Some of the rest of your post is why we can't leave, either. I don't see the future the same way you do, but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. I don't think they have the resources or the organization to take the war to us; it is to their convenience that we've gone to them. 9/11 notwithstanding.

I guess we'll see. We could sure use a rewind button though.


Tom

MOSCA "That's why we can't stay: we will lose a war of attrition."

Mosc, we have lost 3,000 out of 300,000 million and kept the fight out of america. look at our attrition vs. all of the other wars. our attrition is smalll. (not that it doesn't matter) but we have had NO attacks since 911 (compare that to the rest of the world.) You may not think they have the resources but they have nailed many others around the world. You are very right, what is the right solution?Just like WWII and every other war, no one knows the outcome going into it. I don't know. I respect your open mindedness. I hope & pray we choose the best decison.

Preacher
05-11-2007, 11:13 PM
Preach, I agree with what you said about this being a war of attrition. The problem as I see it is that our soldiers are halfway across the world and chewing up our resources at a horrifying rate, while those against us are fighting in their own neighborhoods and relying on improvised weaponry. That's why we can't stay; we will lose a war of attrition, because... well, because their attrition is nil and ours is huge.

Some of the rest of your post is why we can't leave, either. I don't see the future the same way you do, but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. I don't think they have the resources or the organization to take the war to us; it is to their convenience that we've gone to them. 9/11 notwithstanding.

I guess we'll see. We could sure use a rewind button though.


Tom

Yeah... except that we would have to rewind all the way back to 1979 and keep the Shah in Iran.

Preacher
05-12-2007, 04:40 AM
Preach, I agree with what you said about this being a war of attrition. The problem as I see it is that our soldiers are halfway across the world and chewing up our resources at a horrifying rate, while those against us are fighting in their own neighborhoods and relying on improvised weaponry. That's why we can't stay; we will lose a war of attrition, because... well, because their attrition is nil and ours is huge.

Some of the rest of your post is why we can't leave, either. I don't see the future the same way you do, but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. I don't think they have the resources or the organization to take the war to us; it is to their convenience that we've gone to them. 9/11 notwithstanding.

I guess we'll see. We could sure use a rewind button though.


Tom

If the voices in AMerica that were challenging or questioning the war were like yours... there would be a lot more questions asked...a nd the whole thing would be a lot more productive.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 09:14 AM
I share your frustration. But not all wars are the same, and this one is at an impasse. I think that if WW2 had hit the same stalemate there would have been a similar hue and cry; imagine no DDay, just perpetual horrific losses as we sent Forts and Libs over Germany.

I want to win this. What we are doing isn't winning. I want to see a plan that works, from the people we elected to make it work. Again, Cheney's visit with al-Maliki is a start, but I don't know if he has the leverage to back up his frank talk.

Here is a time line from when we were bombed at Pearl Harbor ..until we started to win some of our offenses...these were not generally stalemates..but losses.

1941 --Dec 7. Japan delivers simultaneous bombing attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Wake, and Guam, invades Malaya and Thailand, seizes Shanghai, and declares war on the U.S. and Great Britain. ...Dec 8. German offensive in Russia bogs down Canada Declares War on Japan. ... Dec. 9 China declares war on Japan, Nazi Germany, and Italy.... - Dec. 10 Japanese capture Guam, land on Luzon in Philippines. 11 - Dec. Nazi Germany and Italy declare war on United States, and United States declares itself at war with them.... Dec 18. Japanese attack Hong Kong and on Christmas Day the British surrendered. ... Dec. 23 General Macarthur decides to evacuate Manila and withdraw to Bataan. Wake Island captured by Japanese.

1942 - Jan 1 United Nations Declaration signed by twenty-six nations at war with Axis.... Jan 2 Japanese occupy Manila. ...Jan 7- American and Filipino forces complete withdrawal into Bataan. Jan 19 Japanese capture British North Borneo.... Jan 23 Japanese capture Rabaul and Kavieng in the Bismarck Archipelago, invade Bougainville in the Solomons....Feb 1 U.S. Navy bombards Gilberts and Marshalls..... Feb 2 Singapore surrenders.... Feb 27 -28. Allies loose the Battle of Java Sea. Japanese invade Java. Mar - Nov. Submarine attacks in Atlantic rise to record heights.... Mar 7 Japanese occupy Burma. 9 War Department is reorganized. ...Mar 17 General MacArthur retreats to Australia and takes command of Allied forces. ...Mar 9 Surrender of Bataan. ..Mar 18 First U.S. air bombardment of Tokyo....May 2Japanese land on Tulagi, adjacent to Guadalcanal, where they soon began to build an airstrip.... May 6 Surrender of all U.S. forces in Philippines. May 8 Allies win Battle of the Coral Sea....May 20 Japanese complete conquest of Burma....May 27 Rommel opens drive into Egypt.... June 3-6.. Allies win Battle of Midway..... June 7 Japanese invade western Aleutians.... June 1 Axis troops seized Tobruk in North Africa...Jul 1Germans capture Sevastopol... July 21 Japanese landing near Gona, New Guinea, starts Papua Campaign. ...Aug 7 South Pacific forces invade Guadalcanal, Florida, and Tulagi Islands, in the Solomons....Aug 19 British Commonwealth force raids Dieppe, France that results in a disaster with 3,367 casualties including 1,946 prisoners of war.

Soon after this you begin to see a smattering of successes...with our counter offensive in El Alamein ...the battle for stalingrad..amd our troops landing at Casablanca, Oran, and Algiers in French North Africa....

In 1943 you begin to see a refersal of fortune and our success rate rises dramatically....with the Allied Eighth Air Force making its first attack on Nazi Germany, at Wilhelmshaven....the Soviet Army destroying the remnants of the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad..... organized Japanese resistance on Guadalcanal ceases...the Allies retaking Kasserine Pass....The Allies defeating the Japanese in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea....the Japanese troops retreating across the Yangtze ...Montgomery breaking through the Mareth Line. ..the Japanese are driven from the Aleutians....Axis forces in northern Africa and Tunisia surrendereing....the Allies invade Sicily and Mussolini falls from power in Italy.....

It is very obvious that the beginning of WWII was mired in loses and an INCREDIBLY High casualty/POW count that makes our current assessment of losses and feeling of being in a stalemate rather odd to me.

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-12-2007, 10:00 AM
"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Bagdad what would we do?" Dick Cheney 1991 There will be no Stalingrad, or Midway for us there. To compare this war to WWII is like comparing apples to oranges!

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 10:10 AM
"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Bagdad what would we do?" Dick Cheney 1991 There will be no Stalingrad, or Midway for us there. To compare this war to WWII is like comparing apples to oranges!

The comparisons I was making were that of attitudes of Americans towards Wars...and that the beginning of WWII was less than a stalemate....you may want to read things in context and not on a stand alone basis ...otherwise it will seem as out of context as...say.... taking a quote from the Persian Gulf War..and applying it to todays situation

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-12-2007, 10:19 AM
And what exactly has changed to not make that quote applicable to the current situation in Iraq today?

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 10:29 AM
And what exactly has changed to not make that quote applicable to the current situation in Iraq today?

Well nothing...other than the toppling of the regime he was talking about at the time...the unheard of democratic elections by the Iraqi people for a new government...the beginning of a religious war between Sunni & Shiite....the participation of foreign radicals and foreign Jihad fighters....the elimination of several heads of Al-Queda....

.....it was in all the papers.

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-12-2007, 10:38 AM
Well nothing...other than the toppling of the regime he was talking about at the time...the unheard of democratic elections by the Iraqi people for a new government...the beginning of a religious war between Sunni & Shiite....the participation of foreign radicals and foreign Jihad fighters....the elimination of several heads of Al-Queda....

.....it was in all the papers.QUAGMIRE!

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 10:43 AM
QUAGMIRE!

.....uh.......okay.....I give up...you win...I cant debate against such a well thought out arguement...:dang: :dang:

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-12-2007, 10:52 AM
.....uh.......okay.....I give up...you win...I cant debate against such a well thought out arguement...:dang: :dang:
By the way did you happen to catch George Tenet on 60 Minutes? Iraq Al-Queida connection? Not according to him. But then what does he know?

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 11:06 AM
Originally Posted by CapeCod Steel Head 04-28-2007 03:06 pm
You're right. I know very little about this situation.

nuff said

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 11:37 AM
By the way did you happen to catch George Tenet on 60 Minutes? Iraq Al-Queida connection? Not according to him. But then what does he know?

George Tenet?....the person who called the intelligence on WMD's in Iraq a "slam dunk"?...ironic that you would choose him as your choice of information!!!:toofunny: :toofunny:

Thats good stuff!!!

Mosca
05-12-2007, 11:46 AM
LLT,

The point I was trying to make wasn't frustration with losing, or with winning. We have a fighting spirit that is unparalleled in the world today; most of the rest of the world doesn't realize, by and large we're a bunch of nasty bastards. Great friends, but not good enemies.

What I meant was, what would Americans thought if we halted the Japanese at Midway, and set up the 8th Air Force in Britain... and then just stopped? You know, sent the Forts over Festung Europa, and parried the Japanese Navy, but otherwise allowed everything to become a stalemate? That was the point I was trying to make; Americans would have been livid at nothing happening, which is what I think most of us are livid about today.

We're impatient sonsabitches, too. A couple folks hit on this; Preach mentioned it. But there's a reason we like answers and solutions NOW. We're a culture that likes to force the game. It fits our way of doing things. Long term conflicts favor them, short term conflicts favor us. One way allows history to unfold, the other forces and influences history. (Now how's THAT for talking through my hat BS! But think about it, we do better when we push the game along.)


Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 12:20 PM
David Kay Iraq Weapons Inspector 1991-1992, Iraq Survey Group, 2003-2004
... If the President thinks you're important and shows you're important, people will treat you very differently [than] if the President isn't interested in you. Clinton didn't take personal briefings from the head of the CIA, the DCI, and he didn't meet with them. And so Tenet came in realizing that if the institution he was now in charge of was going to succeed, he indeed had to be useful to the president, and it was Clinton.

It's a Faustian bargain, because ultimately, anyone who heads an intelligence agency has got to speak ... truth to power. And very often that's going to be telling policy-makers either things they don't want to hear, or telling them things that seem so ambiguous that they can't figure out why they're being told it. ...

Steve Coll The New Yorker .. I think it is true that George Tenet wanted to be a player. And he understood that if you didn't give the policy-makers what they wanted, he believed, I think wrongly, that you weren't a player, and therefore your views wouldn't be taken and you wouldn't be invited into the closed meetings, etc. He traded integrity for access, and that's a bad bargain any time in life. It's particularly a bad bargain if you're running an intelligence agency.

He said "Don't worry, Mr. President, that's a slam dunk." The data was not that solid. George Tenet knew we had no agents inside Iraq. George Tenet knew that on the case of Curveball, no American had ever talked to Curveball directly, no American had been given his name by the Germans. He was in a position that he would have had to know that the data was not of a character that one could describe that way, even in a loose manner, and certainly not in the Oval Office of the President, who has expressed doubt about the presentation he's heard.

Regardless of which side we all take on this...I dont think anyone gives George Tenent much credibility.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 12:27 PM
LLT,

The point I was trying to make wasn't frustration with losing, or with winning. We have a fighting spirit that is unparalleled in the world today; most of the rest of the world doesn't realize, by and large we're a bunch of nasty bastards. Great friends, but not good enemies.

What I meant was, what would Americans thought if we halted the Japanese at Midway, and set up the 8th Air Force in Britain... and then just stopped? You know, sent the Forts over Festung Europa, and parried the Japanese Navy, but otherwise allowed everything to become a stalemate? That was the point I was trying to make; Americans would have been livid at nothing happening, which is what I think most of us are livid about today.

We're impatient sonsabitches, too. A couple folks hit on this; Preach mentioned it. But there's a reason we like answers and solutions NOW. We're a culture that likes to force the game. It fits our way of doing things. Long term conflicts favor them, short term conflicts favor us. One way allows history to unfold, the other forces and influences history. (Now how's THAT for talking through my hat BS! But think about it, we do better when we push the game along.)


Tom

Believe it or not Tom..I totally agree with you on this matter...I have friends telling me that the "rules for engagement" have changed several times since they have been in country....first they could fire and anyone within a certain radius of them who was armed...then it had to be a person approaching them who was armed..then it had to be a person approaching sho had fired a shot.... I cry "BS" on that and plae the blame on politicians who are tying the hands of the soldiers....
It is way past time for those who have never served their country to quit trying to dictate policy from 10,000 miles away in a Washington D.C. office....hoping for some leverage in a future election..at the EXPENSE of the soldiers who are doing the work!!!
I can promise you that if we had the joint chiefs making these decisions instead of the decisions being forced upon them....there would be alot of "radicals" hiding in the deepest caves they could find in fear of their lives.

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-12-2007, 12:47 PM
George Tenet?....the person who called the intelligence on WMD's in Iraq a "slam dunk"?...ironic that you would choose him as your choice of information!!!:toofunny: :toofunny:

Thats good stuff!!!The one and only! I'm guessing you didn't see the interview .So no WMD's. No Al Queida connection. Why is it again we are there? As I've said before you believe what you want to and I'll do the same. Only time will tell whose right and whose wrong.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 01:10 PM
The one and only! I'm guessing you didn't see the interview .So no WMD's. No Al Queida connection. Why is it again we are there? As I've said before you believe what you want to and I'll do the same. Only time will tell whose right and whose wrong.

Its not even a matter of right or wrong anymore with you....you just used as a "credible" source...the very person who gave the information that you have been labeling as "false" earlier in your arguement!!!!!!!!...PRICELESS!!!!:toofunny: :toofunny:

..and again...get your facts straight...read the ACTUAL report..and not the ramblings of the incompetant who lost his job over his inaccuracies!!

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-12-2007, 01:22 PM
Please just tell me why we are there! Why are our troops dying? And don't give me that democracy building BS, or the evil dictator crap. Blind faith in your country and/or its leaders will get you killed.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 01:53 PM
Please just tell me why we are there! Why are our troops dying? And don't give me that democracy building BS, or the evil dictator crap. Blind faith in your country and/or its leaders will get you killed.

YOUR TROOPS!!!...you mean the ones that you flippantly said "signed up to give their lives"...spare me the transparant sympathy. You have been given facts and choose to ignore them.

To spare the rest of the forum members (and to save myself a warning from the mods)
I have no further inclination to try and debate with you for 4 reasons....1) Anything that anyone says that goes against your shallow understanding of the situation is described as "drinking the koolaid". 2) You back peddle and use as credible sources the very person you say is not a credible source. 3) You ignore all facts given to you..ignore when others point out the innaccuracies of your own "non-facts"...and divert attention away from issues to chase rabbit trails. 4) You do all this with a condescending attitude..(which blows my mind)..instead of rationally giving your view and listening to the views of others who have taken the time to check out a facts and educate themselves before formulating an opinion. (..and there are people on both side of this issue who have done this).
I appreciate Moscas ability to rationalize and listen to opposing points of view and will continue more productive discussions with him and those who are willing to be non-confrontational and factual.

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-12-2007, 02:17 PM
YOUR TROOPS!!!...you mean the ones that you flippantly said "signed up to give their lives"...spare me the transparant sympathy. You have been given facts and choose to ignore them.

To spare the rest of the forum members (and to save myself a warning from the mods)
I have no further inclination to try and debate with you for 4 reasons....1) Anything that anyone says that goes against your shallow understanding of the situation is described as "drinking the koolaid". 2) You back peddle and use as credible sources the very person you say is not a credible source. 3) You ignore all facts given to you..ignore when others point out the innaccuracies of your own "non-facts"...and divert attention away from issues to chase rabbit trails. 4) You do all this with a condescending attitude..(which blows my mind)..instead of rationally giving your view and listening to the views of others who have taken the time to check out a facts and educate themselves before formulating an opinion. (..and there are people on both side of this issue who have done this).
I appreciate Moscas ability to rationalize and listen to opposing points of view and will continue more productive discussions with him and those who are willing to be non-confrontational and factual.
I just asked a simple question. Yes they are MY troops My tax dollars are being used to support them are they not? And the fact is that I care so much for MY troops that I don't want to see them dying in a senseless war. Good Day Sir!

Mosca
05-12-2007, 02:23 PM
Let's not forget that EVERYONES goal, and the initial goal of our administration, includes and included our troops coming home.

It's just a matter of how and when.


Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2007, 03:10 PM
Let's not forget that EVERYONES goal, and the initial goal of our administration, includes and included our troops coming home.

It's just a matter of how and when.


Tom

I understand where you are coming from Mosca..but I believe with all my heart that there is a "fringe" group of people out there who would like to see us lose this war...and suffer enough casualties to embarrass the current administration.
I was responding to a message board on our local newspaper site to a person making outrageous claims...and with little facts to back himself up he became so agitated ..he actually told me to "join the rest of the baby killers in Iraq"....I think we hate to believe that there are those with this twisted mentality, but the truth is ,that political ideology is much more important to some than the future of this country. It is a shame that "Civics" is not taught in our schools anymore....but its not...and now we live with the reality that every President elected will be subjecated to a witchhunt.

Mosca
05-12-2007, 04:48 PM
I gotcha LLT.

Anyone who actually understands the stakes wants us to win, and the only debate we REALLY have is how to do that. Anyone who says "leave now" is wrong, because we have no plan on how to shape the world post-occupation; anyone who says "stay the course" is wrong because we are leaving our troops in harm's way for no benefit... and anyone who wants to ramp up and occupy with total war, we can't do that.

And, civics IS taught, in my daughter's school it was anyhow. There are still pockets of sanity.

:cheers: Props to you, bud.

GBMelBlount
05-13-2007, 12:50 AM
LLT, Mosca,

I am thankful for our troops and their sacrifices. Is this war or any war perfect...no. I truly believe we did what we believed was the right thing. On the positive side, I am thankful our country has been safe (from outsiders) since 911. We will have to make a decision on what to do. I hope & pray we make the best decision. Do I know for sure my opionions are the right way?....no. Thank God this is still a free country and we are entitled to our opinions. Mosca, LLT, we all want the same thing & hopefully those freaks from the 60's who spit on our troops & reproduced (unfortunately in my opinion) are far more the exception than the rule.

GB

LambertIsGod58
05-13-2007, 08:47 AM
Only 3325! And for what? Osama wasn't based in Iraq nor was he supported by Sadam. Please don't drink the Kool Aid that this current admin. is feeding you. Where are the WMD's? A bud of democracy that will die in a civil war that we helped to create.


We only gave Saddam 8-9 months to move the WMD's to Syria:dang: That civil war that you claim we helped to create has been going on for a long time.

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-14-2007, 05:59 PM
We only gave Saddam 8-9 months to move the WMD's to Syria:dang: That civil war that you claim we helped to create has been going on for a long time.Its a shame that with all our spy satellites and intelligence we couldn't track them.:dang: Maybe we should invade Syria next, since according to you they now posses WMD's. Wait are they run by an evil dictator? And yes the hatred between the Sunnis and Shiite has existed for centuries, but they did not engage in open warfare against each other under Saddam.

MasterOfPuppets
05-14-2007, 06:31 PM
Its a shame that with all our spy satellites and intelligence we couldn't track them.:dang: Maybe we should invade Syria next, since according to you they now posses WMD's. Wait are they run by an evil dictator? And yes the hatred between the Sunnis and Shiite has existed for centuries, but they did not engage in open warfare against each other under Saddam.
actually it was one sided warfare with sadaam ordering chemical weapon attacks and assasinations.

Cape Cod Steel Head
05-14-2007, 06:49 PM
actually it was one sided warfare with sadaam ordering chemical weapon attacks and assasinations.
I believe the chemical attacks were against the Kurds.

Hammer67
05-14-2007, 07:07 PM
I understand where you are coming from Mosca..but I believe with all my heart that there is a "fringe" group of people out there who would like to see us lose this war...and suffer enough casualties to embarrass the current administration.


You are ABSOLUTELY right. It sickens me so much to see the doubters and haters. The "Bush Lied, People Died!" crowd. So stupid. It's like people, US CITIZENS! are actually rooting for Iraq to go poorly! It makes me furious. I am all about being able to share opinions and disagree, but there is a line you cross between disagreeing with policy to outright treasonous attitudes. Yeah...I said treasonous.

I am going to post a great editorial I read recently...

Hammer67
05-14-2007, 07:08 PM
We all may have our disagreements with President Bush (no President has ever been perfect or uniformly loved). Immigration, US Attorney firings, Iraq, Darfur, etc. are all hot topics these days. The following "speech"was written yesterday by an ordinary Maine-iac. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective.





THE SPEECH GEORGE BUSH SHOULD GIVE



Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans." Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.



I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now, before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: there's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.



The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.



Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high.



Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.



Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.



We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this blood for oil" thing. If I was trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied People Died' crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?


You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.


That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe.


You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since 9/11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor'.


Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.


Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.


In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.


I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.



So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.


Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there're just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.


So that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean.


The rest of you can piss off.

:jammin:

83-Steelers-43
05-14-2007, 07:53 PM
I'm with you Hammer67. I was and still am all for the invasion of Iraq. But I want to see some progress. That is all. I do believe there are sick individuals in this country who actually want to see us fail. These are the same idiots who would have probably been rooting for the Normandy invasion to fail back in 1944. Outside of this country I personally don't give a damn what they think. I'm not a military general by any stretch of the imagination but it seems to me that we entered Iraq without a solid overall stragedy.

I'm all for the greatest country on this globe succeeding, but I need to see some results. IMO, I think our boys and girls are fighting this war with one hand tied behind their backs.

Hammer67
05-14-2007, 09:37 PM
I'm with you Hammer67. I was and still am all for the invasion of Iraq. But I want to see some progress. That is all. I do believe there are sick individuals in this country who actually want to see us fail. These are the same idiots who would have probably been rooting for the Normandy invasion to fail back in 1944. Outside of this country I personally don't give a damn what they think. I'm not a military general by any stretch of the imagination but it seems to me that we entered Iraq without a solid overall stragedy.

I'm all for the greatest country on this globe succeeding, but I need to see some results. IMO, I think our boys and girls are fighting this war with one hand tied behind their backs.


And I am not even saying I think Bush is doing a great job (although you can't argue with the economy).

It's just way too early to make historical judgements. I think it's too early to truly judge Clinton, too. They need to show progress. I am appalled they didn't think that Iraq would fall into civil war...anyone with a quick history lesson on the region could see that coming. But, that doesn't mean I hope they fail, either. I hope the result of this is our soldiers spent their lives giving those people an environment of freedom. The reason terrorism exists is not only religious fundamentalism but also the complete lack of hope. Hopefully in 30 or 50 years we will look back on this and be thankful it happened.

Preacher
05-14-2007, 10:01 PM
And I am not even saying I think Bush is doing a great job (although you can't argue with the economy).

It's just way too early to make historical judgements. I think it's too early to truly judge Clinton, too. They need to show progress. I am appalled they didn't think that Iraq would fall into civil war...anyone with a quick history lesson on the region could see that coming. But, that doesn't mean I hope they fail, either. I hope the result of this is our soldiers spent their lives giving those people an environment of freedom. The reason terrorism exists is not only religious fundamentalism but also the complete lack of hope. Hopefully in 30 or 50 years we will look back on this and be thankful it happened.

Very intelligent post. Thank you

LambertIsGod58
05-20-2007, 09:52 AM
Its a shame that with all our spy satellites and intelligence we couldn't track them.:dang: Maybe we should invade Syria next, since according to you they now posses WMD's. Wait are they run by an evil dictator? And yes the hatred between the Sunnis and Shiite has existed for centuries, but they did not engage in open warfare against each other under Saddam.


LOL!! First, whether or not we found WMD's doesn't make a shit of difference to me. Which by the way we did.....Saddam Hussein was given more than ample time to allow chemical inspectors back into Iraq. He kept playing games and playing games. He's been committing genocide against his own people for years. Must be you are OK with that? Some people can not defend themselves. So that's where we do it for them...Yeah, we'd be much better off with John Kerry:dang: He is a communist, who by the way intentionally injured himself to win a Purple Heart in Vietnam. That's your kind of guy, I can tell.

Mosca
05-20-2007, 10:03 AM
WTF does John Kerry have to do with this?

revefsreleets
05-20-2007, 04:22 PM
If this was a war for oil, shouldn't the oil companies be pumping trillions of gallons of crude back to the US and the oil companies charging 1.50 a gallon for gas that only cost them .10 to make so that people would love the president because oil is cheaper than Kool Aid?

SteelCzar76
05-20-2007, 06:18 PM
WTF does John Kerry have to do with this?



No Tom,....i think the better question is, "WTF does John Kerry have to do with ANYTHING ?" LMAO

SteelCzar76
05-20-2007, 06:19 PM
If this was a war for oil, shouldn't the oil companies be pumping trillions of gallons of crude back to the US and the oil companies charging 1.50 a gallon for gas that only cost them .10 to make so that people would love the president because oil is cheaper than Kool Aid?



Exaaaactly.

revefsreleets
05-20-2007, 06:32 PM
I have another question. If this is a war to benefit the military/industrial complex, then why are our troops lacking armor and equipment? I mean, the big military corporations make the equipment, and we pay for it, and the troops need it. If this was just about giving military companies money, we could choke them with cash and over-equip our troops with stuff to make the people back home happy that at least our troops were safe. And why aren't we bombing more? If we want to make the defense industry more money, we need to drop a LOT more bombs than we do now. As a matter of fact, do we even drop bombs anymore?

Preacher
05-20-2007, 06:46 PM
I have another question. If this is a war to benefit the military/industrial complex, then why are our troops lacking armor and equipment? I mean, the big military corporations make the equipment, and we pay for it, and the troops need it. If this was just about giving military companies money, we could choke them with cash and over-equip our troops with stuff to make the people back home happy that at least our troops were safe. And why aren't we bombing more? If we want to make the defense industry more money, we need to drop a LOT more bombs than we do now. As a matter of fact, do we even drop bombs anymore?

See, it is that kind of logic that leads people to intelligent discussions... DANG IT!

Actually Revef... you are exactly right. In the end, this was a war to rid a region of a dictator that actively worked to destabilize teh rest of the region. A stable iraq under democracy, not trying to destabilize other nations is scary to Iran and Syria who have come to depend in Iraq to keep the palestinian conflict riled up (Saddam paid a lot of money to suicide bombers).

Why? Because right now, Iran, Syria, etc. can blame all thier problems on the Jews. If the Jewish/Palistinian conflict was settled, the governments would have to deal with thier own people who are actually upset AT them

Blitzburgh
05-20-2007, 08:11 PM
Let's get one thing straight ... this was NEVER a war .... it was an invasion of a soverign country in which the case to invade was built upon lies and deception from the very onset. This invasion was cooked-up to the American people at a time where we were still in shock over being attacked by terrorists and spoon fed to us under the guise of "Fighting Terrorism" This administration used genuine American loyalty and patriotism against us as a way to support this invasion. Yes, they took advantage of us at one of our weakest moments and also at a time where rational thoughts took a back seat to genuine rage and anger. The war I originally supported was the one which would have taken us into Afganistan to look for Bin Ladin. Not the "bait and switch" which led us to Saddam in Iraq!

This invasion of Iraq was was wrong from day one ... and those that supported this inept, corrupt, and croniest administration are now feverishly scraping "W" bumperstickers off of their automobiles as if to say, "Who me? .... I didn't vote for these dumbasses!" Shame on you ... go put your collective heads in the sand already.

You know exactly who you are and may you live with your mistake. My only hope is that the next time you go to a damn voting booth ... .you NEVER .... EVER put your party before country as so many of you have over the past few elections.

That is all ..... as you were.

HometownGal
05-20-2007, 09:08 PM
We all may have our disagreements with President Bush (no President has ever been perfect or uniformly loved). Immigration, US Attorney firings, Iraq, Darfur, etc. are all hot topics these days. The following "speech"was written yesterday by an ordinary Maine-iac. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective.





THE SPEECH GEORGE BUSH SHOULD GIVE



Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans." Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.



I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now, before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: there's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.



The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.



Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high.



Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton Administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.



Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.



We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this blood for oil" thing. If I was trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied People Died' crap either. If I was the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?


You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.


That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And the bastards are all over the globe.


You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since 9/11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor'.


Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.


Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dammit, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.


In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.


I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.



So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.


Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there're just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.


So that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean.


The rest of you can piss off.

:jammin:

Excellent Hammer!!!! :thumbsup::cheers::jammin:

Blitzburgh
05-20-2007, 09:23 PM
Our country would be better off with a speach like that ..... I think he should close it by saying, "and when I get to Crawford ... I'm thinking of hanging myself from a tree as a result of screwing our country up so badly"

Preacher
05-21-2007, 01:40 AM
Let's get one thing straight ... this was NEVER a war .... it was an invasion of a soverign country in which the case to invade was built upon lies and deception from the very onset. This invasion was cooked-up to the American people at a time where we were still in shock over being attacked by terrorists and spoon fed to us under the guise of "Fighting Terrorism" This administration used genuine American loyalty and patriotism against us as a way to support this invasion. Yes, they took advantage of us at one of our weakest moments and also at a time where rational thoughts took a back seat to genuine rage and anger. The war I originally supported was the one which would have taken us into Afganistan to look for Bin Ladin. Not the "bait and switch" which led us to Saddam in Iraq!

This invasion of Iraq was was wrong from day one ... and those that supported this inept, corrupt, and croniest administration are now feverishly scraping "W" bumperstickers off of their automobiles as if to say, "Who me? .... I didn't vote for these dumbasses!" Shame on you ... go put your collective heads in the sand already.

You know exactly who you are and may you live with your mistake. My only hope is that the next time you go to a damn voting booth ... .you NEVER .... EVER put your party before country as so many of you have over the past few elections.

That is all ..... as you were.


This is the type of reasoning that makes debate over the issue impossible. To even suggest that the president intentionally lied to a nation to get us into a war is ludicrous. I beleive Bill Clinton was the most slimy president ever. However, his intentions in all of his foreign engagements were on the up and up.

For anyone to beleive anything else about any president is simply putting their own personal politics above logic.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-21-2007, 05:11 AM
This is the type of reasoning that makes debate over the issue impossible. To even suggest that the president intentionally lied to a nation to get us into a war is ludicrous. I beleive Bill Clinton was the most slimy president ever. However, his intentions in all of his foreign engagements were on the up and up.

For anyone to beleive anything else about any president is simply putting their own personal politics above logic.

Exactly Preacher....but as I have said in the past..there are those in this country that will always put political ideology over reason....and are hoping for an embarrasing end to this conflict , praying that the current administration walks away with egg on their face. The sheer THOUGHT of a positive end result in Iraq will send them all scurrying to their computers with hate-filled pseudo-intellectual ramblings of conspiracy and incompetance.

Just a little background for those who would want to re-write history:

Under the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War -- and the U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized the use of force .... Iraq was to destroy its existing WMD stockpiles and missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (93 miles) and halt any development efforts. The resolution also created the U.N. (not U.S.) Special Commission (UNSCOM) to monitor Iraq's compliance with restrictions on weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles...... Iraq accepted some..... and refused other weapons inspections almost from the beginning but especially after the team found some evidence of biological weapons programs at one site and non-compliance at many other sites.

UNSCOM accused Iraq of 1) destroying weapons without outside monitoring, then claiming to have destroyed more weapons than they did..... 2) offering false documents on their development programs...3) claiming that documents did not exist.. (documents that were later found)...... and 4) hiding weapons and the material to make them at "presidential sites" that they declared off-limits.

Over the next few years, UNSCOM interrupted DOCUMENTED Iraqi efforts to buy contraband missile guidance systems from Russia and Romania and rocket motors from Ukraine.

In 1997, Iraq expelled all U.S. members of the inspection team..... The team returned for an even more turbulent time period between 1997 and 1999..... one member of the weapons inspection team, U.S. Marine Scott Ritter, resigned in 1998, alleging that the Clinton administration was blocking investigations because they did not want a full-scale confrontation with Iraq..... In 1999, the team was replaced by UNMOVIC, which began inspections in 2002. In 2002, Iraq ....and especially Saddam Hussein .... became targets in the United States' War on Terrorism...partially due to Iraqs failure to comply...faulty intelligence directly attributed to Iraqs FAILURE to allow teams the access that had been agreed to after the persian Gulf War, and partially due to confirmed meetings between Al-Queda operatives and the Saddam regime.....There has not been a confirmed link between Iraq and the 9/11 bombings.... but there was a justified fear in Iraq providing chemical and biological weapons/technology to terrorists......whom Saddam was supporting through a "Bounty" paid to the families of homicide bombers.....ALL these factors led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by the United States and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom.

Blitzburgh
05-21-2007, 09:05 AM
This is the type of reasoning that makes debate over the issue impossible.

Not really ...


I beleive Bill Clinton was the most slimy president ever. However, his intentions in all of his foreign engagements were on the up and up.

Slimy? Why, because he had an extramarital affair like a few hundred thousand other Christian husbands out there that ended up in a well publicised blow job? ... It took the Republican evangelicals nearly 2 years and milllions and millions of dollars dedicated toward their witch hunt to find that out, how constructive was that may I ask?

All I know is that the Monica-gate never took second seat to his leadership or put this country in the financial and and emotionally divided condition that Bush did. Go back to the first page of this thread and see again who profited from this war and how close a bed-fellow the Bush family actually is with the Bin Ladens and the middle east oil in general. Bush made the decision to put his corporate friends and personal greed in front of our own countries best interest and only now are we finding out how bad a decision that really was.


For anyone to beleive anything else about any president is simply putting their own personal politics above logic.

The neo-con Right has only proven that they don't really care that they're terrible leaders or that they're fiscally irresponsible, or that the majority of American's don't approve of their decisions on many levels to many issues ... Iraq being the main focus.

They just care that they're in control a the top and they're all making money .... It's really that simple.

It will be a cold day in hell before the Republican right ever earns my trust and respect back I can assure you.:usa:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-21-2007, 09:32 AM
...

Slimy? Why, because he had an extramarital affair like a few hundred thousand other Christian husbands out there that ended up in a well publicised blow job? ... It took the Republican evangelicals nearly 2 years and milllions and millions of dollars dedicated toward their witch hunt to find that out, how constructive was that may I ask?



This is a perfect example of sticking ones head in the sand and re-writing history.....Clinton was not impeached for an "extramarital affair"....Clinton was impeached for perjury in front of a grand jury and a second charge of obstruction of justice....He lied to a grand jury that was investigating a very serious charge of abuse of power in soliciting sex by using his position of authority....the liberal "extramarital affair" arguement is the legal and intellectual equivelant of trying to use a reckless discharge of firearm charge after placing a gun to someones head and doing a "double tap"...I mean...hey....a few hundred thousand republicans shoot their guns every year...right?:dang:

...oh and thanks for ignoring the post stating documented FACTS surrounding this war...and going straight to another emotional arguement without merit...

Mosca
05-21-2007, 09:47 AM
Yelling about Clinton either pro or con does nothing to help us solve our problems NOW. Whether you believe Bush is the second coming of Washington or the Antichrist, it has no bearing on thinking about how we should proceed with the dilemma facing us TODAY; that the current strategy isn't working and that simplistic exit strategies may end up even worse, and that we very likely need to negotiate with people who have an advantage in not negotiating.

We can see each other's points when we stick to the issues, friends. Although we are far, far from the action, and have absolutely no chance of actually affecting the course of history, we can share how and why we believe.

Anyone who thinks we should up and split hasn't been listening to the very valid point that our presence there (regardless of how it happened) is the only thing keeping the region from exploding.

And anyone who thinks that what we are currently doing is working hasn't been paying attention to the fact that nothing is changing and we can't stay there doing this forever (to put the argument at its most basic and incontrovertible level).

Which is why there is a dilemma; there are currently only two choices, and neither of them lead to victory. We need a third choice. (Would that make it a trilemma?) The stakes are too high for anything other than victory, and we have no idea of what victory in this sense would look like, let alone how to get there.

Blitzburgh
05-21-2007, 09:49 AM
Like I said, classic Salem witch hunt on Clinton and everyone knows it . . . The neo-righties wanted him out so badly they would spend millions upon millions to get anything they could on him. If Clinton was charged for abusing his power for sex and it was considered a "very"criminal act as a leader, I guess Bush abusing his power for personal profits and misusing our military assets which led to thousands of our own soldiers dying is a misdemeanor eah?

This comparison would equate to giving the jay-walker a life sentence while allowing the armed gunman that robbed the bank and shot the guard to say two "Our Father's" and some community service work.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-21-2007, 10:15 AM
Like I said, classic Salem witch hunt on Clinton and everyone knows it . . . The neo-righties wanted him out so badly they would spend millions upon millions to get anything they could on him. If Clinton was charged for abusing his power for sex and it was considered a "very"criminal act as a leader, I guess Bush abusing his power for personal profits and misusing our military assets which led to thousands of our own soldiers dying is a misdemeanor eah?

This comparison would equate to giving the jay-walker a life sentence while allowing the armed gunman that robbed the bank and shot the guard to say two "Our Father's" and some community service work.

Are you serious?...you are comparing an obvious DOCUMENTED...ADMITTED....breaking of the law...to your disagreement about this war....Please...all emotion aside...what LAW has Bush broken?....enlighten all of us...please keep it to 1) Facts ....2)actual crimes committed ...since you are the one who used the jaw-walking/bank robbery analogy.


Whitewater...was a witchhunt....Bush/Bin Laden connections are a witch hunt....Clintons impeachement cannot be compared to a witchhunt by any sane peson.

Mosca
05-21-2007, 10:21 AM
Like I said, classic Salem witch hunt on Clinton and everyone knows it . . . The neo-righties wanted him out so badly they would spend millions upon millions to get anything they could on him. If Clinton was charged for abusing his power for sex and it was considered a "very"criminal act as a leader, I guess Bush abusing his power for personal profits and misusing our military assets which led to thousands of our own soldiers dying is a misdemeanor eah?

This comparison would equate to giving the jay-walker a life sentence while allowing the armed gunman that robbed the bank and shot the guard to say two "Our Father's" and some community service work.

Yeah, so what. It's a rough business, politics, and Clinton played (and still plays) hardball with the best of them. Hoisted on his own petard? Sure. Next.

Name me a politician who HASN'T abused power for personal profits, anywhere in history, anywhere in the world. Tell you what; I'll grant you Mohatmas Ghandi. Now name me the next politician who hasn't profited somehow from being in office. Even saintly Jimmy Carter has used his status as an ex-president to sell his books and promote his foundations.

Like it or not, Bush is president and we have to figure out how to maximize our position FROM THE CURRENT CONDITIONS. Tossing on about war crimes and stolen elections is unhelpful.


Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-21-2007, 10:25 AM
.

Name me a politician who HASN'T abused power for personal profits, anywhere in history, anywhere in the world.

William Henry Harrison:flap:

Blitzburgh
05-21-2007, 12:48 PM
Yeah, so what.

Name me a politician who HASN'T abused power for personal profits, anywhere in history, anywhere in the world. Tell you what; I'll grant you Mohatmas Ghandi. Now name me the next politician who hasn't profited somehow from being in office. Even saintly Jimmy Carter has used his status as an ex-president to sell his books and promote his foundations.

Like it or not, Bush is president and we have to figure out how to maximize our position FROM THE CURRENT CONDITIONS. Tossing on about war crimes and stolen elections is unhelpful.


Tom


Just like a neo-righty to immediately ask a question in order to deflect responsibility for addressing one. "Tossing on about war-crimes and stolen elections" as you put it is our patriotic responsibility as Americans pal ... and let me tell you "asleep at the wheel" Bushie ball washing crowd something else .... this American, along with a few million others won't be happy until both Bush and Cheney are strung up by their nuts for the death, fiscal devistation, and international embarassment they've caused our countrymen over the past 6 years.

You 'ain't seen 'nothin yet my friend .... :wink02: You can sip your "let's just forget about how bad Bush has been and move on" kool aid all you want, but I'm all about accountability when it comes to getting our own killed for a personal agenda.


I'm done here ....

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-21-2007, 01:12 PM
Just like a neo-righty to immediately ask a question in order to deflect responsibility for addressing one. "Tossing on about war-crimes and stolen elections" as you put it is our patriotic responsibility as Americans pal ... and let me tell you "asleep at the wheel" Bushie ball washing crowd something else .... this American, along with a few million others won't be happy until both Bush and Cheney are strung up by their nuts for the death, fiscal devistation, and international embarassment they've caused our countrymen over the past 6 years.

You 'ain't seen 'nothin yet my friend .... :wink02: You can sip your "let's just forget about how bad Bush has been and move on" kool aid all you want, but I'm all about accountability when it comes to getting our own killed for a personal agenda.


I'm done here ....

MOSCA????...a neo-righty?????:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:
....and he threw in the "kool-aid" comment....

I KNOW there are some liberals, moderates and some conservatives who are against the war... who make a good arguement....but its this type of shallow "pillow case full of shredded wheat" rhetoric that makes it me wonder which is the majority on the left....those who have ethical legitimate heart-felt arguements...or those who give these baseless...factless...tirades based on immature name-calling... hate-filled...emotion towards our president....and for the record....I asked specific questions that were completely ignored.

This is ....what?...the third person in this thread who has resorted this same tactic...when faced with logical courteous debate.

Kudos to Mosca for not responding in kind:thumbsup:

Blitzburgh
05-21-2007, 01:35 PM
Whatever snaggle-tooth .... Your propensity to want to immediately discredit or paint those with opposing views as shallow or baseless are very Hannity'esq. I know your ilk .... your tactic is to ask a question in place of an answer as a means to not have to answer for your leaders actions and behaviors. Always trying to discredit the opinion of others as you subjectively cherry-pick what you believe to be fact over fiction.

Put down the soap and move away from GW's testicles for a moment. Perhaps it will give you some added perspective on the subject that may actually be something other than what Faux News is telling you.

fansince'76
05-21-2007, 01:42 PM
OK folks - I know this is an emotionally charged issue, but please tone it down a bit. Thanks.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-21-2007, 01:43 PM
Whatever snaggle-tooth .... Your propensity to want to immediately discredit or paint those with opposing views as shallow or baseless are very Hannity'esq. I know your ilk .... your tactic is to ask a question in place of an answer as a means to not have to answer for your leaders actions and behaviors. Always trying to discredit the opinion of others as you subjectively cherry-pick what you believe to be fact over fiction.

Put down the soap and move away from GW's testicles for a moment. Perhaps it will give you some added perspective on the subject that may actually be something other than what Faux News is telling you.

Unlike some..you'll not hear me talking about others testicles and calling names in order to make a point....why dont you look back over the posts...and see that it is ironically YOU who are asking questions (which we answer) and divert the questions asked of you... I did give a detailed answer to your accusations...(to which you have yet to respond)..and in rebuttal I asked a question...(to which you have yet to answer)

...so how about it...can you bring your debate out of the gutter and join us for a legitimate debate about this?

Mosca
05-21-2007, 01:50 PM
Just like a neo-righty...


LOL, it just goes to show you didn't read anything I wrote in this thread, or anywhere else. I will admit to being to the right of Mao, and probably Lenin and Marx.

My point, over and over again, is that finger pointing is counter productive. We ain't making it ANYWHERE without each other. I can't win if you lose, you can't win if I lose. So instead of yelling at each other we have to work it out, because we can't tear each other apart. Brothers and sisters don't do that to each other.


Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-21-2007, 01:57 PM
LOL, it just goes to show you didn't read anything I wrote in this thread, or anywhere else. I will admit to being to the right of Mao, and probably Lenin and Marx.

My point, over and over again, is that finger pointing is counter productive. We ain't making it ANYWHERE without each other. I can't win if you lose, you can't win if I lose. So instead of yelling at each other we have to work it out, because we can't tear each other apart. Brothers and sisters don't do that to each other.


Tom

....:sofunny::sofunny:...Mein Fuhrer Mosca!!!!:sofunny::sofunny:

Blitzburgh
05-21-2007, 04:59 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/Fan_of_STEEL/George-W-Bush-Dunce.jpg

Mosca
05-21-2007, 05:28 PM
(Image snipped)

Irrelevant.

GBMelBlount
05-21-2007, 10:59 PM
LOL, I will admit to being to the right of Mao, and probably Lenin and Marx. Tom

Mosca, we've talked, we're friends (regardless of differences) I am curious, in the world past & present, how often communism/marxism has done well versus capitalism? I think all communists (like most of the left wing - unlike the JFK's) know that communism has failed but only because the right people have'nt implemented it...THEM. They think if they did it, unlike those in the past, it would work. = Arrogance?

HometownGal
05-21-2007, 11:13 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/Fan_of_STEEL/George-W-Bush-Dunce.jpg

Now that's what I call a real American - loaning the President of the United States your hat. What a guy - your Mama did right by you teaching you to share. :thumbsup:

Mosca
05-21-2007, 11:29 PM
Mosca, we've talked, we're friends (regardless of differences) I am curious, in the world past & present, how often communism/marxism has done well versus capitalism? I think all communists (like most of the left wing - unlike the JFK's) know that communism has failed but only because the right people have'nt implemented it...THEM. They think if they did it, unlike those in the past, it would work. = Arrogance?

Well first GB, I'm really not all the way over there on the left. I'm just a tad to the left of center, and much more center than I am left. I'm a VERY strong believer in capitalism, capitalism is my life, and has always been since I owned the Good Humor route in Brookline in the early 1980s. My entire life (after bouncing around, and working in the factories in the '70s) I've worked on 100% commission, either as a business owner or as an agent for someone else.

I'd be willing to bet we're not very different at all in our belief in how the world works. Just a little bit.

I'd agree pretty much with what you said. My review of history says that all practical implementations of communism have been excuses for totalitarianism. It's just been used as a tool for suppression. I don't think anyone has actually tried to do it because they believed in communism; they did it because it decentralized and demoralized their opposition. It's hard to rise above and organize when you are being levelled out.

Communism goes completely against individual nature, one's urge to improve. It has never evolved naturally beyond small groups and needs to be imposed at larger scales.

Also, much of what we call "left" here in the US would be called center or right in much of the world! Not much of the left in the US is communist, it's more socialist; capitalism with government subsidized programs. My personal belief is that there's room for some of that, and some of it is pure crap. Just like on the right; there are smart people with good solutions on both sides, and it makes sense to listen; we might actually learn something!

Tom

GBMelBlount
05-21-2007, 11:39 PM
Well first GB, I'm really not all the way over there on the left. I'm just a tad to the left of center, and much more center than I am left. I'm a VERY strong believer in capitalism, capitalism is my life, and has always been since I owned the Good Humor route in Brookline in the early 1980s. My entire life (after bouncing around, and working in the factories in the '70s) I've worked on 100% commission, either as a business owner or as an agent for someone else.

I'd be willing to bet we're not very different at all in our belief in how the world works. Just a little bit.

I'd agree pretty much with what you said. My review of history says that all practical implementations of communism have been excuses for totalitarianism. It's just been used as a tool for suppression. I don't think anyone has actually tried to do it because they believed in communism; they did it because it decentralized and demoralized their opposition. It's hard to rise above and organize when you are being levelled out.

Communism goes completely against individual nature, one's urge to improve. It has never evolved naturally beyond small groups and needs to be imposed at larger scales.

Also, much of what we call "left" here in the US would be called center or right in much of the world! Not much of the left in the US is communist, it's more socialist; capitalism with government subsidized programs. My personal belief is that there's room for some of that, and some of it is pure crap. Just like on the right; there are smart people with good solutions on both sides, and it makes sense to listen; we might actually learn something!

Tom

Sorry if I mischaracterized you Tom, I apologize, maybe we can share a good humor bar & chat. (Not meant negatively) You are amazing. I hope our Steelers banter is on par!!!!!!

Bless, GB

Preacher
05-21-2007, 11:48 PM
Not really ...




Slimy? Why, because he had an extramarital affair like a few hundred thousand other Christian husbands out there that ended up in a well publicised blow job? ... It took the Republican evangelicals nearly 2 years and milllions and millions of dollars dedicated toward their witch hunt to find that out, how constructive was that may I ask?

All I know is that the Monica-gate never took second seat to his leadership or put this country in the financial and and emotionally divided condition that Bush did. Go back to the first page of this thread and see again who profited from this war and how close a bed-fellow the Bush family actually is with the Bin Ladens and the middle east oil in general. Bush made the decision to put his corporate friends and personal greed in front of our own countries best interest and only now are we finding out how bad a decision that really was.




The neo-con Right has only proven that they don't really care that they're terrible leaders or that they're fiscally irresponsible, or that the majority of American's don't approve of their decisions on many levels to many issues ... Iraq being the main focus.

They just care that they're in control a the top and they're all making money .... It's really that simple.

It will be a cold day in hell before the Republican right ever earns my trust and respect back I can assure you.:usa:

Thank you for proving my point about politics trumping logic.

Preacher
05-21-2007, 11:49 PM
Whatever snaggle-tooth .... Your propensity to want to immediately discredit or paint those with opposing views as shallow or baseless are very Hannity'esq. I know your ilk .... your tactic is to ask a question in place of an answer as a means to not have to answer for your leaders actions and behaviors. Always trying to discredit the opinion of others as you subjectively cherry-pick what you believe to be fact over fiction.

Put down the soap and move away from GW's testicles for a moment. Perhaps it will give you some added perspective on the subject that may actually be something other than what Faux News is telling you.

And thank you again.

Preacher
05-21-2007, 11:50 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/Fan_of_STEEL/George-W-Bush-Dunce.jpg

And one more time!

Preacher
05-21-2007, 11:54 PM
Blitzburgh.

The point is. When you post things such as that, you immediately discredit any arguement. Then, when you try to prove your point that your politics does NOT trump your logic, you move to political rhetoric INSTEAD of logic. If you were to engage in logical debate, great. But I refuse to get into rhetoric attacks. They do nothing

And before you go on some rant about my "Neo-con nazi (which is actualy leftist by the way) evangelical, oil-guzzling, world-raping" ways and non-ability to debate,

May I suggest you ask around to those who disagree with me.

X-Terminator
05-22-2007, 07:53 AM
It never, EVER, ceases to amaze me how some people just cannot have a reasoned political debate without resorting to petty, ridiculous rhetoric and name-calling. Hell, if it were up to me, I'd ban any political discussion on the open message board. Radical? Sure it is. But given what I've dealt with over the past 5 years as a mod and an admin, I've just had it up to here with the childish nonsense.

I personally have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to politics. Don't ASK me what I think, because I'm not going to TELL you.

Mosca
05-22-2007, 08:14 AM
Sorry if I mischaracterized you Tom, I apologize, maybe we can share a good humor bar & chat. (Not meant negatively) You are amazing. I hope our Steelers banter is on par!!!!!!

Bless, GB

It sure is, GB! I'm "left" in the Democrat, traditional Pittsburgh union way. I believe in taking care of one's own business and being responsible for one's own success, but still recognize that economic and political power left unchecked is ruinous, in EITHER direction. But, people can never see that in their own party. So, some of up have the job of calling the Dems on their bullshyt, and some of us have the job of calling the Reps on theirs. Lots of folks here have the job of calling the Dems on their bs, I have the other one.

And I do need to say, it's not hard for either of us to find work, is it?


Tom

Preacher
05-22-2007, 02:45 PM
It never, EVER, ceases to amaze me how some people just cannot have a reasoned political debate without resorting to petty, ridiculous rhetoric and name-calling. Hell, if it were up to me, I'd ban any political discussion on the open message board. Radical? Sure it is. But given what I've dealt with over the past 5 years as a mod and an admin, I've just had it up to here with the childish nonsense.

I personally have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to politics. Don't ASK me what I think, because I'm not going to TELL you.

Your very right. which is sad.

After the first few posts, this discussion turned into an excellent debate about what should/shouldn't, could/couldn't be done... at least for a while, until the rhetoric all started again.

What a shame.

revefsreleets
05-22-2007, 04:32 PM
Maybe someone can help me understand how only Bush and the right and neocons and Nazi's or whatever are responsible for the war? Didn't we have a bunch of intelligence from all over the World that stated clearly that Iraq was a big, big risk? Didn't pretty much every politician from both sides of the aisle not only endorse the war, but strongly endorse attacking Iraq? Haven't we learned that the botched intelligence was not orchestrated by Bush, but pretty much just some mistakes and errors made by some confused analysts?

There is a lot of blind hatred that stands in the way of solving the problem in Iraq, and I wish that wasn't so.

Stlrs4Life
05-22-2007, 09:19 PM
It sure is, GB! I'm "left" in the Democrat, traditional Pittsburgh union way. I believe in taking care of one's own business and being responsible for one's own success, but still recognize that economic and political power left unchecked is ruinous, in EITHER direction. But, people can never see that in their own party. So, some of up have the job of calling the Dems on their bullshyt, and some of us have the job of calling the Reps on theirs. Lots of folks here have the job of calling the Dems on their bs, I have the other one.

And I do need to say, it's not hard for either of us to find work, is it?


Tom



I can totally agree with you on this. I believe the same.

Hammer67
05-23-2007, 09:44 PM
Our country would be better off with a speach like that ..... I think he should close it by saying, "and when I get to Crawford ... I'm thinking of hanging myself from a tree as a result of screwing our country up so badly"

Wait a second...are you telling me you can disect the influence of this situation as it is happening? Wow...you are better then most historians! Most people after WW2 thought that the world would never recover...:huh:


Bush was just continuing a US policy that began under Clinton...regime change in Iraq. Plus...He did violate 14 UN resolutions...what should they have done, slap him on the wrist again?

Hammer67
05-23-2007, 09:51 PM
MOSCA????...a neo-righty?????:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:
....and he threw in the "kool-aid" comment....

I KNOW there are some liberals, moderates and some conservatives who are against the war... who make a good arguement....but its this type of shallow "pillow case full of shredded wheat" rhetoric that makes it me wonder which is the majority on the left....those who have ethical legitimate heart-felt arguements...or those who give these baseless...factless...tirades based on immature name-calling... hate-filled...emotion towards our president....and for the record....I asked specific questions that were completely ignored.

This is ....what?...the third person in this thread who has resorted this same tactic...when faced with logical courteous debate.

Kudos to Mosca for not responding in kind:thumbsup:


Blitzburgh lost me when he avoided any discussion of the facts you presented and continued Bush Bashing...that's what liberals/socialists just don't get. Utopian emotion does not a lead to intelligent political discourse! Smart people HATE those who bash without actual answers to counter. Typical "Bush lied, people died" BS...sad, really.

:coffee:

Hammer67
05-23-2007, 09:59 PM
It sure is, GB! I'm "left" in the Democrat, traditional Pittsburgh union way. I believe in taking care of one's own business and being responsible for one's own success, but still recognize that economic and political power left unchecked is ruinous, in EITHER direction. But, people can never see that in their own party. So, some of up have the job of calling the Dems on their bullshyt, and some of us have the job of calling the Reps on theirs. Lots of folks here have the job of calling the Dems on their bs, I have the other one.

And I do need to say, it's not hard for either of us to find work, is it?

Tom

I can honestly say I am glad I don't believe in the traditional Pittsburgh Union way. That thinking is why Pittsbugh is one of the oldest counties in the US. And is also the reason why many of the towns along the Ohio, Allegheny and Mon are run down (Ambridge anyone?).

That union mentality is helping to kill Detroit right now....it's sad, Detroit is Pittsburgh 30 years ago...

HometownGal
05-23-2007, 10:10 PM
Bush was just continuing a US policy that began under Clinton...regime change in Iraq. Plus...He did violate 14 UN resolutions...what should they have done, slap him on the wrist again?

Personally, I think he should be "hung from a tree as a result of screwing our country up so badly". :yawn: No - I take that back. He should be shot at sunrise for marrying a hermaphrodite.

Of course I'm just kidding......or am I? :wink02:

LambertIsGod58
05-26-2007, 01:54 PM
Our country would be better off with a speach like that ..... I think he should close it by saying, "and when I get to Crawford ... I'm thinking of hanging myself from a tree as a result of screwing our country up so badly"

Well, I'm glad that the majority in this country realized that Bush was the best of the options available. That's what John Kerry has to do with this. He was the ONLY other choice. I seriously thank God that Kerry never got elected and looks like now, never will. But, it's always easier to bitch and complain about what the President is either doing or not doing. Since 9/11, no other incidents have occured on our soil. Our women & men are fighting so we keep it that way. And to show our gratitude, we have demonstrations and speak out against the war...I hope we do pull out of Iraq. And when another incident like 9/11 happens, you will regret what you have wished for.

Here is a TRUE AMERICAN HERO, who it seems like many of you have forgotten:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/Lambert58/20011029beamer.jpg

Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer, who gave his life to stand for freedom. Tell his family the war on terror is wrong. Tell Dom Pezzulo's family the war is wrong. The PAPD Officer who gave his life trying to save others.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/Lambert58/250px-Pezzulo-jacket.jpg

LambertIsGod58
05-26-2007, 02:12 PM
I'd also like to add that the "Great" Bill Clinton had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden and didn't take it. So maybe we came blame Clinton for the war in Iraq? And blame him for the lives lost on 9/11. It seems only fair since Bush takes the blame for everything...But I've learned that Democrats are never to blame for anything.....

SteelCityMan786
05-26-2007, 03:37 PM
Well, I'm glad that the majority in this country realized that Bush was the best of the options available. That's what John Kerry has to do with this. He was the ONLY other choice. I seriously thank God that Kerry never got elected and looks like now, never will. But, it's always easier to bitch and complain about what the President is either doing or not doing. Since 9/11, no other incidents have occured on our soil. Our women & men are fighting so we keep it that way. And to show our gratitude, we have demonstrations and speak out against the war...I hope we do pull out of Iraq. And when another incident like 9/11 happens, you will regret what you have wished for.

Here is a TRUE AMERICAN HERO, who it seems like many of you have forgotten:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/Lambert58/20011029beamer.jpg

Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer, who gave his life to stand for freedom. Tell his family the war on terror is wrong. Tell Dom Pezzulo's family the war is wrong. The PAPD Officer who gave his life trying to save others.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/Lambert58/250px-Pezzulo-jacket.jpg

Telling his family the war on terror is wrong is saying that it's not wrong to commit a crime.

Mosca
05-26-2007, 06:29 PM
Huh? What makes you think that because some of us think that the war in Iraq is a huge mistake, it means that we have forgotten those who have sacrtificed for us? That's a mighty far leap of logic you're making my friend. Those people fighting over there are my friends, my relatives, and my neighbors. Same with the folks who died on Sept 11th. It is not disrespectful, nor at all forgetful, to insist that we make wise choices in this war. What we are doing now may very well be unwise, and may create far more heros in vain.


Tom

Livinginthe past
05-26-2007, 06:44 PM
Huh? What makes you think that because some of us think that the war in Iraq is a huge mistake, it means that we have forgotten those who have sacrtificed for us? That's a mighty far leap of logic you're making my friend. Those people fighting over there are my friends, my relatives, and my neighbors. Same with the folks who died on Sept 11th. It is not disrespectful, nor at all forgetful, to insist that we make wise choices in this war. What we are doing now may very well be unwise, and may create far more heros in vain.


Tom

From what I can tell, it is fairly typical of the pro-war contingent to set up as many strawmen arguments as possible.

Alot of it is done by insinuation, a hint here an allusion there.

Im still amazed that genuine American citizens had their patriotism questioned when they dared question the validity of the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing bungled 'restoration of democracy'.

I look at the GW Bush speech where he mentions 'either being for us (presumably America and its allies) or against us' and think of it as empty grandstanding - but it did set the tone for the publics reaction to the 'war on terror'.

Apparently you either accept in an unquestioning fashion or there is a possibilty you are anti-American.

Mosca
05-26-2007, 08:50 PM
I hope we do pull out of Iraq. And when another incident like 9/11 happens, you will regret what you have wished for.


And this sounds just like what I keep hearing the far right say, that there are those who want us to lose so that someones' nose gets rubbed in their own **it. That is an incredibly strange statement to make. Your hatred for your dissenting brothers and sisters is greater than your love for your country!

EVERY sane American wants to win this thing; what many of us are saying is that what we are doing won't win it. That's all. There is absolutely no forward progress in Iraq, and a lot of backward momentum. Many top people in the military, in the administration, and in the government believe that this is true, and their numbers are growing. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemy; we cannot distinguish him from the people we are there to help, and in fact the enemy IS the same as the people we went there to liberate. And we do not understand why these people do not respond the way we predict they should. The situation will continue to deteriorate until we find a way to make our enemy respond the way we want him to.


Tom

SteelCityMan786
05-26-2007, 08:57 PM
Huh? What makes you think that because some of us think that the war in Iraq is a huge mistake, it means that we have forgotten those who have sacrtificed for us? That's a mighty far leap of logic you're making my friend. Those people fighting over there are my friends, my relatives, and my neighbors. Same with the folks who died on Sept 11th. It is not disrespectful, nor at all forgetful, to insist that we make wise choices in this war. What we are doing now may very well be unwise, and may create far more heros in vain.


Tom

I can see where you going here tom,

1.)Back when this war started, I was In favor of it 100%, If this meant my national security, then fine, but now, I'm not as much in favor of it as I was . I've come to point when it comes to war, use if neccessary so call me in the middle on that.

2.)I am now getting into the point where I have relatives going over to Iraq as well as my brother's friend is over there now. Which doesn't sit well with me, but hey, I'm just hoping they come back alive.

SteelCityMan786
05-26-2007, 09:40 PM
And this sounds just like what I keep hearing the far right say, that there are those who want us to lose so that someones' nose gets rubbed in their own **it. That is an incredibly strange statement to make. Your hatred for your dissenting brothers and sisters is greater than your love for your country!

EVERY sane American wants to win this thing; what many of us are saying is that what we are doing won't win it. That's all. There is absolutely no forward progress in Iraq, and a lot of backward momentum. Many top people in the military, in the administration, and in the government believe that this is true, and their numbers are growing. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemy; we cannot distinguish him from the people we are there to help, and in fact the enemy IS the same as the people we went there to liberate. And we do not understand why these people do not respond the way we predict they should. The situation will continue to deteriorate until we find a way to make our enemy respond the way we want him to.


Tom

No progress that's being sustained since the constitution and the elections took place in my opinion.

GBMelBlount
05-26-2007, 10:01 PM
Churchill said it is only natural to question going to war, but once in war, to undermine the efforts of the soldiers & the commander in chief is treasonous. This ex-post facto Anti-war, pull out propaganda is undermining this war & emboldening the enemy. Much of which is for political purposes.

Mosca
05-26-2007, 10:58 PM
(see next post)

Mosca
05-26-2007, 11:01 PM
Churchill said it is only natural to question going to war, but once in war, to undermine the efforts of the soldiers & the commander in chief is treasonous. This ex-post facto Anti-war, pull out propaganda is undermining this war & emboldening the enemy. Much of which is for political purposes.


Even during his own time Churchill was thought of as sort of a blowhard; he was voted out of office by landslides not once, but twice. He happened to be the right man at the right time when England was facing a lonely defensive struggle and there was no doubt that to question Britan's resolve would end in defeat. Sort of like the Giuliani of 1940.

Otherwise he opposed public education and health care, advocated using poison gas against the Kurds as early as 1922 (how about that one, huh? Saddam finally got to fulfill Churchill's desire), backed Mussolini as a bulwark against Communism (he called Mussolini the "Roman genius? the greatest lawgiver among men.") He "masterminded" the ill fated Gallipoli campaign in WW1. He deployed military force against striking workers in Wales. He oversaw Britan's disastrous return to the Gold Standard in the mid-20s, which led to deflation, unemployment, and the General Strike of 1926, where he again advocated the use of machine guns against striking miners. He also denigrated Mahatma Ghandi as "a half-naked fakir" and founded the India Defence League, dedicated to the preservation of British power in India.

During the 1945 elections, Churchill claimed of the opposing party, that if they were elected they would impose "some form of Gestapo, no doubt humanely administered in the first instance". An astonished electorate unceremoniously elected Clement Atlee as the new Prime Minister, turning away from Churchill's politics of fear, intimidation, and domination.


Tom

GBMelBlount
05-26-2007, 11:12 PM
Wow, but he rightfully said to undermine your commander in chief in a time of war is treason & it will embolden the enemy. I AGREE, it is as true now as it ever was.

Hammer67
05-26-2007, 11:21 PM
I think even the most staunch supporters of the war have to agree that, at the very least, there wasn't much foresight into the effects on the region. I supported it and I support an agressive foriegn policy. But, at this point, our work should be done.

Why don't they just carve this country into thirds and be done with it?

Preacher
05-27-2007, 01:47 AM
From what I can tell, it is fairly typical of the pro-war contingent to set up as many strawmen arguments as possible.

Alot of it is done by insinuation, a hint here an allusion there.

Im still amazed that genuine American citizens had their patriotism questioned when they dared question the validity of the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing bungled 'restoration of democracy'.

I look at the GW Bush speech where he mentions 'either being for us (presumably America and its allies) or against us' and think of it as empty grandstanding - but it did set the tone for the publics reaction to the 'war on terror'.

Apparently you either accept in an unquestioning fashion or there is a possibilty you are anti-American.

With all due respect LITP.

That is because your not an American and do not understand the mentality.

When our nations goes to war, it is EXPECTED that the war is supported by ALL. Questions are to be asked and answered later. That has been violated. Whether one is for the war or against it doesn't matter, when the first shot is fired, everyone needs to shut up and support the war until it is over.

If AND when there is a democrat in office that leads us in war, REGARDLESS of whether I agree or disagree with it, I will EXPECT my leaders and my fellow citizens to publicly express support. PERIOD.

Livinginthe past
05-27-2007, 05:16 AM
Churchill said it is only natural to question going to war, but once in war, to undermine the efforts of the soldiers & the commander in chief is treasonous. This ex-post facto Anti-war, pull out propaganda is undermining this war & emboldening the enemy. Much of which is for political purposes.

'Pull-out' propganda?

This is where these debates seem to go off the rails - by using the term 'propoganda' and 'treason' you are basically accusing those who are opposed to the continued war in Iraq as being the enemy.

WWII does hold some comparisons to the situation of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the willingness of the good guys (US and UK) to sit back and allow the despot in question to do what he wanted...until it became clear that we were actually under threat ourselves.

Thats when the original alliance decided that 'enough was enough'.

I remember Bush referring to the 'war on terror' potentially lasting 100 years and I think of it more in terms of a reilgious crusade than anything else.

Im looking at the recent attempts by a large estate to crush the resistance of smaller foe (defined as a terrorist) - UK vs IRA, US vs Iraq, Israel vs Hezbollah - and see nothing but failure.

One of these situations has recently taken a turn for the better (the IRA situation) but only because the parties concerned were willing to sit down and talk like rational human beings.

The continuous bloodshed that you, and the rest of the pro-war brigade, are fully compliant in does nothing apart from keep the 'defense' industry in huge profit.

If anyone should be feeling guilt, it shoud be those who put up no resistance when their brothers, sisters, neighbours are drafted into a futile war against an opponent that won't be beaten.

Still, at least you can drape the stars and stripes around your shoulders and know that you stood side by side with the President.

Livinginthe past
05-27-2007, 05:24 AM
With all due respect LITP.

That is because your not an American and do not understand the mentality.

When our nations goes to war, it is EXPECTED that the war is supported by ALL. Questions are to be asked and answered later. That has been violated. Whether one is for the war or against it doesn't matter, when the first shot is fired, everyone needs to shut up and support the war until it is over.

If AND when there is a democrat in office that leads us in war, REGARDLESS of whether I agree or disagree with it, I will EXPECT my leaders and my fellow citizens to publicly express support. PERIOD.

The most frustrating element of American politics, and those who discuss it, is the insistence on breaking everything down to a Republican/Democrat pissing match.

There are some huge topics at hand - and just when the debate looks like it might be productive or get interesting - Clinton makes an entrance and the whole thing goes to hell.

I would describe your attitude to war as 'blind patriotism' - governments make mistakes and need to held accountable at the time, before more damage is done, rather than waiting for 'after'.

People from both 'sides' are still dying.

How long do you plan on waiting for this 'after'? 5 years, 10 years?

Im pretty sure there are various amendments in place that protect people right to not have to 'shut the hell up'.

Of course a debate is alot easier to win if only one side is allowed to talk.

Hammer67
05-27-2007, 09:25 AM
The continuous bloodshed that you, and the rest of the pro-war brigade, are fully compliant in does nothing apart from keep the 'defense' industry in huge profit.

If anyone should be feeling guilt, it shoud be those who put up no resistance when their brothers, sisters, neighbours are drafted into a futile war against an opponent that won't be beaten.

Still, at least you can drape the stars and stripes around your shoulders and know that you stood side by side with the President.


There is no US military draft. And, you last sentence has the same effect as when people on the other side bring up treason and patriotism. You are doing the same thing from another point of view.

Livinginthe past
05-27-2007, 09:33 AM
There is no US military draft. And, you last sentence has the same effect as when people on the other side bring up treason and patriotism. You are doing the same thing from another point of view.

I didn't mean a literal military draft - I realise there isn't one of those in force.

I was referring to people already in the military being drafted into that futile situation.

Hammer67
05-27-2007, 09:35 AM
The most frustrating element of American politics, and those who discuss it, is the insistence on breaking everything down to a Republican/Democrat pissing match.

There are some huge topics at hand - and just when the debate looks like it might be productive or get interesting - Clinton makes an entrance and the whole thing goes to hell.

I would describe your attitude to war as 'blind patriotism' - governments make mistakes and need to held accountable at the time, before more damage is done, rather than waiting for 'after'.

People from both 'sides' are still dying.

How long do you plan on waiting for this 'after'? 5 years, 10 years?

Im pretty sure there are various amendments in place that protect people right to not have to 'shut the hell up'.

Of course a debate is alot easier to win if only one side is allowed to talk.

Now, I agree with your first sentence here, and as I posted elsewhere, George Washington even mentioned the negative effects and bickering of having only two dominant parties in power.

But, I also think it is WAY too early to judge the current events until we have had the ability to see things in hindsight. If history teaches us something, it's that it is awfully hard to judge events while they are happening. There are too many emotions and politics involved.

I think the point that Preacher is trying to make is that there is time for debate and discourse but once the fight begins, it is time to support the men and women that are in harms way (and I mean in terms of morale and support for the cause).

Perhaps this is an American ideal that others may not understand.

Also, the First Amendment does protect dissenting speech but there are limits to how far one can go.

:usa:

Hammer67
05-27-2007, 09:36 AM
I didn't mean a literal military draft - I realise there isn't one of those in force.

I was referring to people already in the military being drafted into that futile situation.

And that is definitely an opinion that many of those same folks do not share.

The problem I see is that some people are actually cheering for the US to fail. They are hoping. They hate Bush and want any of his policies to fail. They don't care about the lives of the troops. This, in my opinion, is treasonous. Any rational and sane person has to hope that resolution to this conflict will have a positive future impact in the region. Many people, including myself, feel that religious fundamentalism can not be negotiated with as has been proven time and time again. Agression another option.

Frankly, I would love for the US to re-enact the Monroe Doctrine and just keep to ourselves, but, we all know how that turned out.

Mosca
05-27-2007, 09:38 AM
I disagree wholeheartedly that questioning the direction our president is taking is treasonous, and that it undermines his leadership. If his course is so sure then he should be able to defend it against all opposing views (which he hasn't been able to do), and it should also prove itself through its own success (which it hasn't done).

I could make the counterclaim that to CONTINUE to support a failing strategy out of a misplaced sense of duty is treasonous, through supporting a leader whose interests are counter to those of the country. Of course, my argument would be as full of holes as yours.

Debate and disagreement are the lifeblood of our system regardless of the circumstances. It forces those in power to justify their course, it makes them defend their reasoning, and it prevents us from continuing down the wrong path, should we start down it. I have no doubt that if our president decided to implement a policy of, oh, I don't know; let's say that he decided we should round up every 10th male in Iraq and execute them all, regardless of age, as a way of demonstrating our resolve in quelling this chaos; I have no doubt that such a policy would encourage some healthy dissent among those who are calling for total unity and support.

You think it's pretty far-fetched? I would have thought so too, before the administration endorsed torture. I think it's far-fetched NOW, now that "total support" is at a minimum. But a couple years ago? Yeah, we werent THAT far from "anything goes". Thank goodness for healthy dissent.


Tom

Livinginthe past
05-27-2007, 09:40 AM
And that is definitely an opinion that many of those same folks do not share.

I think we've all seen what happens to military personnel who give voice to concerns they may have about a particular conflict.

And while those guys undoubtedly have better perspective on what is happening in the 'war zone' I don't see why their understanding of the political ramifications should be any better than mine.

Hammer67
05-27-2007, 09:47 AM
All I can say is I disagree wholeheartedly that questioning the direction our president is taking is treasonous, and that it undermines his leadership. If his course is so sure then he should be able to defend it against all opposing views (which he hasn't been able to do), and it should also prove itself through its own success (which it hasn't done).

I could make the counterclaim that to CONTINUE to support a failing strategy out of a misplaced sense of duty is treasonous, through supporting a leader whose interests are counter to those of the country. Of course, my argument is as full of holes as yours.

Debate and disagreement is the lifeblood of our system regardless of the circumstances. It forces those in power to justify their course, it makes them defend their reasoning, and it prevents us from continuing down the wrong path, should we start down it. I have no doubt that if our president decided to implement a policy of, oh, I don't know; let's say that he decided we should round up every 10th male in Iraq and execute them all, regardless of age, as a way of demonstrating our resolve in quelling this chaos; I have no doubt that such a policy would encourage some healthy dissent among those who are calling for total unity and support.

You think it's pretty far-fetched? I would have thought so too, before the administration endorsed torture. I think it's far-fetched NOW, now that "total support" is at a minimum. But a couple years ago? Yeah, we werent THAT far from "anything goes". Thank goodness for healthy dissent.


Tom


I completely agree with what you are saying. I am referring to the "cheerleaders" for failure, as I like to call them. Like I said, we are there, American blood has been spilled. We can only hope that the resolution can lead to a better life for those people.

I do not like the way this war was handled and I don't necessarily have a high opinion of Bush's handling of the aftermath of the initial invasion. There should have been more foresight into the cultural and religious breakup of the country. (Which has only been a country for about a century).

But, I do not hope for failure or wish that we fail. Some of the more vocal opposition comes across this way and at the same time, not very bright.

Livinginthe past
05-27-2007, 10:07 AM
And that is definitely an opinion that many of those same folks do not share.

The problem I see is that some people are actually cheering for the US to fail. They are hoping. They hate Bush and want any of his policies to fail. They don't care about the lives of the troops. This, in my opinion, is treasonous. Any rational and sane person has to hope that resolution to this conflict will have a positive future impact in the region. Many people, including myself, feel that religious fundamentalism can not be negotiated with as has been proven time and time again. Agression another option.

Frankly, I would love for the US to re-enact the Monroe Doctrine and just keep to ourselves, but, we all know how that turned out.

I wonder how many of these people actually exist , though?

Are you sure the 'failure cheerleaders' aren't just another strawman set up by the Govt. in order to polarise opinion?

Put it another way, does anyone on this forum actually know a friend, neighbour...work colleague or casual acqaintance that actively want the situation in Iraq to get worse in order score points off Bush?

I would be very surprised of any of you do.

What I see is that aggressive criticism of America's campaign in Iraq is portrayed as criticsm of the men and women actually epxect to go and and fight this war.

If you disagree with the war that makes you anti-military.

It is in fact the opposite - im not a squeamish guy who believes military conflict is always avoidable but i'd like to think that there is a logical, well thought out plan of action, inclusing contigencies for failure, built into the battle plan.

The most dispiriting thing is watching American (and other allied) soldiers catching fire as sitting ducks in a conflict where no viable plan of action has been set out.

Mosca
05-27-2007, 10:32 AM
I have to agree with LITP that I don't know anyone who is a cheerleader for failure. I think that that contingent is marginal and vanishingly small. If there were 1,000,000 such people it would be 0.3% of the population, and I don't think there are that many. Most war dissenters that I know are interested in changing directions in order to win, not in order to lose.

And btw, I am strongly pro-military. I believe that we are wasting our military assets in this conflict.

Tom

Hammer67
05-27-2007, 10:39 AM
I have to agree with LITP that I don't know anyone who is a cheerleader for failure. I think that that contingent is marginal and vanishingly small. If there were 1,000,000 such people it would be 0.3% of the population, and I don't think there are that many. Most war dissenters that I know are interested in changing directions in order to win, not in order to lose.

And btw, I am strongly pro-military. I believe that we are wasting our military assets in this conflict.

Tom

Clearly you haven't you been on a college campus lately?? :sofunny:

Anyway...I was in a Panera bread getting a coffee with the wife recently and we overheard a table of four 20ish people talking about Bush the arshole and how he hopes this whole debacle fails, war for oil, blah, blah, blah. I almost said something. Almost.

But, the war aside, the economy is in good shape, and we haven't had a terrorist attack in the US in almost 6 years. Those are two positive things, right?!

:cheers:

LambertIsGod58
05-27-2007, 10:43 AM
And this sounds just like what I keep hearing the far right say, that there are those who want us to lose so that someones' nose gets rubbed in their own **it. That is an incredibly strange statement to make. Your hatred for your dissenting brothers and sisters is greater than your love for your country!

EVERY sane American wants to win this thing; what many of us are saying is that what we are doing won't win it. That's all. There is absolutely no forward progress in Iraq, and a lot of backward momentum. Many top people in the military, in the administration, and in the government believe that this is true, and their numbers are growing. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemy; we cannot distinguish him from the people we are there to help, and in fact the enemy IS the same as the people we went there to liberate. And we do not understand why these people do not respond the way we predict they should. The situation will continue to deteriorate until we find a way to make our enemy respond the way we want him to.


Tom

When or where did I say I wanted to lose? The left is constantly calling for us to pull out. All I said is that I hope we do. Do I wish for another 9/11? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Maybe the people of the opinion that we should pull out could try and see the whole picture and what may happen as a result of pulling out. Pulling out to me means that all who have paid the ultimate sacrifice died in vein. I guess that's what you are wishing for...The right thing is not always the easiest thing.:banging:

LambertIsGod58
05-27-2007, 10:44 AM
Clearly you haven't you been on a college campus lately?? :sofunny:

Anyway...I was in a Panera bread getting a coffee with the wife recently and we overheard a table of four 20ish people talking about Bush the arshole and how he hopes this whole debacle fails, war for oil, blah, blah, blah. I almost said something. Almost.

But, the war aside, the economy is in good shape, and we haven't had a terrorist attack in the US in almost 6 years. Those are two positive things, right?!

:cheers:


The voice of reason.....

LambertIsGod58
05-27-2007, 10:47 AM
I disagree wholeheartedly that questioning the direction our president is taking is treasonous, and that it undermines his leadership. If his course is so sure then he should be able to defend it against all opposing views (which he hasn't been able to do), and it should also prove itself through its own success (which it hasn't done).

I could make the counterclaim that to CONTINUE to support a failing strategy out of a misplaced sense of duty is treasonous, through supporting a leader whose interests are counter to those of the country. Of course, my argument would be as full of holes as yours.

Debate and disagreement are the lifeblood of our system regardless of the circumstances. It forces those in power to justify their course, it makes them defend their reasoning, and it prevents us from continuing down the wrong path, should we start down it. I have no doubt that if our president decided to implement a policy of, oh, I don't know; let's say that he decided we should round up every 10th male in Iraq and execute them all, regardless of age, as a way of demonstrating our resolve in quelling this chaos; I have no doubt that such a policy would encourage some healthy dissent among those who are calling for total unity and support.

You think it's pretty far-fetched? I would have thought so too, before the administration endorsed torture. I think it's far-fetched NOW, now that "total support" is at a minimum. But a couple years ago? Yeah, we werent THAT far from "anything goes". Thank goodness for healthy dissent.



Tom

As far as torture is concerned, what do you think is happening to our soldiers in captivity? Two wrongs don't make a right....but it sure as hell makes it even!!

Mosca
05-27-2007, 11:05 AM
LIG58, I know you don't really mean that. But read again what you actually wrote. 1) You hope that we do pull out, and 2) you believe that pulling out will lead to another terrorist attack. And you hope this happens so that it shows those who disagree with you that they are wrong. You might not MEAN that, but it IS what you wrote.

The best thing that could happen, as far as I'm concerned, is that our current strategy works. I don't think that it will, but I would be perfectly happy to be wrong and have my mind changed by victory and peace.

Barring that, the best thing that could happen is that we change our strategy to something else that works and brings victory and peace. I believe that this is more likely than following our current strategy. I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that, nor with saying it or writing it.

Hammer, I agree that most of those who are hoping for defeat are concentrated on college campuses. Thank goodness for that, where the ideas are held out in the open to be considered and ridiculed for what they are, and where the weaker minded among our young will have something to look back on and be embarrassed about.

There's always been a fringe. I remember having college professors (in the early 70s) who were die-hard communists. They were loud, and boistrous, and bellicose in their beliefs... most of us ignored them, and those who didn't were either sucking up for grades or became college professors themselves, with as much influence as their mentors (ie, next to none). Sure, those people are easy targets, but not targets of importance worth bringing attention to.

Tom

Mosca
05-27-2007, 11:22 AM
LIG58,

Would you torture for pleasure, or would you torture for revenge, or would you torture for information?

If you would do it for pleasure, or for revenge, then you are a different man than me.

If you would do it for information, then remember that information given under the auspices of torture is virtually worthless, as the victims will say anything to get you to stop.


Here. I'll give YOU the tongs and the electrodes, and put a random Iraqi in front of you and let YOU decide what to do and why.


Tom

GBMelBlount
05-27-2007, 08:36 PM
'Pull-out' propganda?

This is where these debates seem to go off the rails - by using the term 'propoganda' and 'treason' you are basically accusing those who are opposed to the continued war in Iraq as being the enemy.

WWII does hold some comparisons to the situation of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the willingness of the good guys (US and UK) to sit back and allow the despot in question to do what he wanted...until it became clear that we were actually under threat ourselves.

Thats when the original alliance decided that 'enough was enough'.

I remember Bush referring to the 'war on terror' potentially lasting 100 years and I think of it more in terms of a reilgious crusade than anything else.

Im looking at the recent attempts by a large estate to crush the resistance of smaller foe (defined as a terrorist) - UK vs IRA, US vs Iraq, Israel vs Hezbollah - and see nothing but failure.

One of these situations has recently taken a turn for the better (the IRA situation) but only because the parties concerned were willing to sit down and talk like rational human beings.

The continuous bloodshed that you, and the rest of the pro-war brigade, are fully compliant in does nothing apart from keep the 'defense' industry in huge profit.

If anyone should be feeling guilt, it shoud be those who put up no resistance when their brothers, sisters, neighbours are drafted into a futile war against an opponent that won't be beaten.

Still, at least you can drape the stars and stripes around your shoulders and know that you stood side by side with the President.

"Defined as a terrorist" What the he$$ do you define them as LITP????? F'n freedom fighters? Thank God you didn't run the RAF. WE'd all be speaking German.

Livinginthe past
05-27-2007, 08:51 PM
"Defined as a terrorist" What the he$$ do you define them as LITP????? F'n freedom fighters? Thank God you didn't run the RAF. WE'd all be speaking German.

You plan on killin' all these guys GB?

Seriously, trying to convince them that they are on the wrong side doesn't seem to have been too successful so far.

The one thing i've learnt from the IRA experience is that the more you try and crush these groups the stronger they become - every one you kill has a brother, sister, cousin who is now a ready made candidate for recruitment.

How are Israel coping with the Hezbollah situation - last time I looked it was only the debacle in Iraq that was keeping them from the bottom of the table

But then, its always been simpler to call these people nasty names and feel morally superior - while the process stands at a total impasse.

Quite frankly the comparison some of you guys make betwen Hitler and the Nazi movement and Saddam Hussein is laughable.

Sure they are both evil guys (I don't have to remind you that the US has been funding two groups of people it now defines as terrorists - Al Qaeda and Husseins Iraqi forces) bu the scale on which they can cause damage is massively different.

Being righteously angry without having to think stuff through to the next level must be tremendously satistying.

GBMelBlount
05-27-2007, 11:14 PM
You plan on killin' all these guys GB?

Seriously, trying to convince them that they are on the wrong side doesn't seem to have been too successful so far.

The one thing i've learnt from the IRA experience is that the more you try and crush these groups the stronger they become - every one you kill has a brother, sister, cousin who is now a ready made candidate for recruitment.

How are Israel coping with the Hezbollah situation - last time I looked it was only the debacle in Iraq that was keeping them from the bottom of the table

But then, its always been simpler to call these people nasty names and feel morally superior - while the process stands at a total impasse.

Quite frankly the comparison some of you guys make betwen Hitler and the Nazi movement and Saddam Hussein is laughable.

Sure they are both evil guys (I don't have to remind you that the US has been funding two groups of people it now defines as terrorists - Al Qaeda and Husseins Iraqi forces) bu the scale on which they can cause damage is massively different.

Being righteously angry without having to think stuff through to the next level must be tremendously satistying.

Seriously LITP, what would you in your omnipotence have done. Kissed their ass? The only thing these middle east miscreants respect is force. What are you going to do, talk them to death. This is embarrassing. We ignored them for 30 years then 911. What's next, "dialogue" til they nuke us. Unfortunately, we don't have the margin of error, or the worldwide assistance you were given in WWII.

fansince'76
05-27-2007, 11:28 PM
Please guys, chill out a bit, OK? This is a very emotionally-charged and divisive issue, but let's keep the debating respectful - no personal attacks here that I can see yet, but it's getting awfully close to that stage. Thanks.

Preacher
05-28-2007, 01:21 AM
You plan on killin' all these guys GB?



But then, its always been simpler to call these people nasty names and feel morally superior - while the process stands at a total impasse.



When a person Blindly and wantonly attacks civilians, they are terrorists.

And we ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR to them.

THat doesn't mean we are morally superior to the average muhammed in Iraq or palestine, but we sure are against the terrorists that kill innocents with NO REGARD for thier life.

And before anyone says... Well.. look at iraq...

The very reason we are in this situation is because of our DESIRE NOT TO KILL CIVILIANS. If we did, we would have carpet bombed Bagdad by now.

Livinginthe past
05-28-2007, 06:04 AM
Please guys, chill out a bit, OK? This is a very emotionally-charged and divisive issue, but let's keep the debating respectful - no personal attacks here that I can see yet, but it's getting awfully close to that stage. Thanks.

In case its me and GBMelBlount you are worried about - we are definitly cool. :thumbsup:

Livinginthe past
05-28-2007, 06:24 AM
Seriously LITP, what would you in your omnipotence have done. Kissed their ass? The only thing these middle east miscreants respect is force. What are you going to do, talk them to death. This is embarrassing. We ignored them for 30 years then 911. What's next, "dialogue" til they nuke us. Unfortunately, we don't have the margin of error, or the worldwide assistance you were given in WWII.

What I am saying is that 'being in the right' isn't always as cut and dried as it appears.

If we look at the Iran nuclear situation, it seems we expect them to basically put their hands up and admit that they shouldn't be trusted with that type of weaponry even though its 'okay' for the 'good guys' to have them.

Can you see a problem there?

There is no way that they are going to think to themselves 'hold on, we are kinda reckless and evil at times...maybe we shouldn't have nuclear capability'

Lines are being drawn in the sand, and taking on a small band of guerilla fighters may not be a million miles away from pushing moderate Muslims further and further toward the clutches of fanatics and then into a holy war.

I think Bush and Blair are both foolish and danegrous men - there is an edge of the evangelical to them than can never be condusive to moderate politics.

Anyone who thinks that they are 100% right and that there is no 'flip side' to the argument can be dangerous if they hold great power.

The problem of course, is that America has done anything but ignore the Muslim world in the last 30 years - they pretty much have a finger in every political pie across the world - which I guess isn't surprising given their superpower nature.

The thing is America (through the CIA, or whatever) funded Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran - they sure as hell knew what type of guy he was when they sold him the weaponry.

America also funded the Taliban in Afghanistan in their rebel fight against Russia.

Now these two groups are being hunted for aiming those weapons at America?

Unfortunately, after all the saber-rattling has been done - the pointless skirmishes, the political grandstanding - the two sides will have to sit at the same table and thrash things out.

For example, clearly Iran should have been brought in on any process of forming a new Govt in Iraq - even if just in a consultancy capacity.

To pretend that Iran doesn't already hold a huge influence over that area is ridiculous.

Even if the whole process hadn't been badly botched from day one - the minute US left Iraqi soil there would have been a military coup of some type.

As it is, they are going nowhere - literally. The situation may even be getting worse.

In hindsight, this attempt to plant a seed of democracy in the Middle East seems so foolish that you can barely believe this was the original intent.

I would liken it to trying to set up a communist state within America - the outside forces (the rest of America) simply wouldn't allow it to exist - especially if it came to existence through military force.

Livinginthe past
05-28-2007, 06:25 AM
When a person Blindly and wantonly attacks civilians, they are terrorists.

And we ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR to them.

THat doesn't mean we are morally superior to the average muhammed in Iraq or palestine, but we sure are against the terrorists that kill innocents with NO REGARD for thier life.

And before anyone says... Well.. look at iraq...

The very reason we are in this situation is because of our DESIRE NOT TO KILL CIVILIANS. If we did, we would have carpet bombed Bagdad by now.

Im sorry....what?

You would have carpet bombed Baghdad?

For what reason exactly?

Hammer67
05-28-2007, 11:01 AM
Hammer, I agree that most of those who are hoping for defeat are concentrated on college campuses. Thank goodness for that, where the ideas are held out in the open to be considered and ridiculed for what they are, and where the weaker minded among our young will have something to look back on and be embarrassed about.

There's always been a fringe. I remember having college professors (in the early 70s) who were die-hard communists. They were loud, and boistrous, and bellicose in their beliefs... most of us ignored them, and those who didn't were either sucking up for grades or became college professors themselves, with as much influence as their mentors (ie, next to none). Sure, those people are easy targets, but not targets of importance worth bringing attention to.

Tom

Unfortunately, most of the protests and crap you see on college campuses is BS. I went to PSU from '94 to '98. What you have are too many kids away from home for the first time, with too much time on their hands and not enough responsibility. They think they know everything and how the world works. I call them the "Idealistic Youth" as most haven't had mortgages, kids, full time jobs etc. Plus, most are still under the parents economic umbrella. As for the college professors who still live in the 60's. Those are people who went to college and never left the campus, thus they relive that lifestyle from year to year.

It is amazing how much your outlook on life changes once you hit the real world!

:wink02:

Preacher
05-28-2007, 09:14 PM
Unfortunately, most of the protests and crap you see on college campuses is BS. I went to PSU from '94 to '98. What you have are too many kids away form home for the first time, with too much time on their hands and not enough responsibility. They think they know everything and how the world works. I call them the "Idealistic Youth" as most haven't had mortgages, kids, full time jobs etc. Plus, most are still under the parents economic umbrella. As for the college professors who still live in the 60's. Those are people who went to college and never left the campus, thus they relive that lifestyle from year to year.

It is amazing how much your outlook on life changes once you hit the real world!

:wink02:

What is even more funny....

Is how many of those "protests" come right around the time of mid-terms or finals! Hmmmmm.

Preacher
05-28-2007, 09:20 PM
Im sorry....what?

You would have carpet bombed Baghdad?

For what reason exactly?

LITP... You are usually very good at context. When I looked back at my quote, I realized why you didn't pick up what was being said... I didn't quite complete the thought. Let me change it here... see if this helps.

When a person Blindly and wantonly attacks civilians, they are terrorists.

And we ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR to them.

THat doesn't mean we are morally superior to the average muhammed in Iraq or palestine, but we sure are against the terrorists that kill innocents with NO REGARD for thier life.

And before anyone says we are just like the terrorists killing civilians in iraq, ... Well.. look at iraq...

The very reason we are in this situation is because of our DESIRE NOT TO KILL CIVILIANS. if we could care less about civilians, we would have carpet bombed Bagdad by now.

See LITP... When I put a FULL THOUGHT... it helps you understand! :sofunny:

Sorry about that!

Livinginthe past
05-29-2007, 04:57 AM
LITP... You are usually very good at context. When I looked back at my quote, I realized why you didn't pick up what was being said... I didn't quite complete the thought. Let me change it here... see if this helps.



See LITP... When I put a FULL THOUGHT... it helps you understand! :sofunny:

Sorry about that!

Thats better LOL :wink02:

Makes a little more sense now.

HeyNav
05-30-2007, 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Hammer67


It is amazing how much your outlook on life changes once you hit the real world!


:dang:

The question is: which perspective is most valid, one unburdened by mortgages , children, job, etc or the perspective containing all the pressures of the "real world". Do the responsibilities of adulthood make you wise. Maybe, maybe not. Or does the academic environment provide the freedom for unbiased thought. I suspect the readers age determines which perspective one takes. Changed perspectives from academia to "real world" may only be resultant of a new environment.

I believe some adults are lazy and unwilling to make independent judgements when presented with pertinent data, will not challenge anything they hear or read. Only regurgitate what is heard earlier from their favorite talking head or have read that fits into "their preconceived conclusions. A reasoned person recognizes and filter out the obviously biased information in favor of the believable, the truthful, the reliable.

Everyone should have a questioning attitude of all information from every news source and make independent judgements. Attempt to leave bias' behind. If left leaning, listen to the right. If right leaning, listen to the left. The truth easily separates from the chaff and you'll be able to make well reasoned conclusions to support independent persuasive arguments without lazily borrowing the usual and boring talking points.

"Sober" thoughts after reading this thread. :cheers: Prost.

Livinginthe past
05-31-2007, 06:18 AM
Originally Posted by Hammer67


It is amazing how much your outlook on life changes once you hit the real world!


:dang:

The question is: which perspective is most valid, one unburdened by mortgages , children, job, etc or the perspective containing all the pressures of the "real world". Do the responsibilities of adulthood make you wise. Maybe, maybe not. Or does the academic environment provide the freedom for unbiased thought. I suspect the readers age determines which perspective one takes. Changed perspectives from academia to "real world" may only be resultant of a new environment.

I believe some adults are lazy and unwilling to make independent judgements when presented with pertinent data, will not challenge anything they hear or read. Only regurgitate what is heard earlier from their favorite talking head or have read that fits into "their preconceived conclusions. A reasoned person recognizes and filter out the obviously biased information in favor of the believable, the truthful, the reliable.

Everyone should have a questioning attitude of all information from every news source and make independent judgements. Attempt to leave bias' behind. If left leaning, listen to the right. If right leaning, listen to the left. The truth easily separates from the chaff and you'll be able to make well reasoned conclusions to support independent persuasive arguments without lazily borrowing the usual and boring talking points.

"Sober" thoughts after reading this thread. :cheers: Prost.

Nice post, man.

Welcome to the forum :cheers: Prost!

revefsreleets
05-31-2007, 07:15 PM
There is one problem with the whole idea that students have an unbiased view due to their intellectual "freedom", namely that college students are terribly gullible due to their open-mindedness, and they are largely only exposed to one side of the argument when in school. I didn't just make this up, either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

Young minds soak up what their professors tell them, and there is just no way that these very liberal professors are not (intentionally or not) indoctrinating their students with a very leftist agenda. This, in turn, infects the "filter" through which these kids later cull their information through. Wiser men have spoken on these issues.

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. - Winston Churchill

A liberal is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air. - Winston Churchill

Mosca
05-31-2007, 07:57 PM
Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. - Winston Churchill

A liberal is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air. - Winston Churchill

Since you missed it the first time around (a couple pages earlier in this thread),

Even during his own time Churchill was thought of as sort of a blowhard; he was voted out of office by landslides not once, but twice. He happened to be the right man at the right time when England was facing a lonely defensive struggle and there was no doubt that to question Britan's resolve would end in defeat. Sort of like the Giuliani of 1940.

Otherwise he opposed public education and health care, advocated using poison gas against the Kurds as early as 1922 (how about that one, huh? Saddam finally got to fulfill Churchill's desire), backed Mussolini as a bulwark against Communism (he called Mussolini the "Roman genius… the greatest lawgiver among men.") He "masterminded" the ill fated Gallipoli campaign in WW1. He deployed military force against striking workers in Wales. He oversaw Britan's disastrous return to the Gold Standard in the mid-20s, which led to deflation, unemployment, and the General Strike of 1926, where he again advocated the use of machine guns against striking miners. He also denigrated Mahatma Ghandi as "a half-naked fakir" and founded the India Defence League, dedicated to the preservation of British power in India.

During the 1945 elections, Churchill claimed of the opposing party, that if they were elected they would impose "some form of Gestapo, no doubt humanely administered in the first instance". An astonished electorate unceremoniously elected Clement Atlee as the new Prime Minister, turning away from Churchill's politics of fear, intimidation, and domination.



So, lots of nice sound bites from Churchill, but I'm not sure I'd see him as a font of wisdom.


Tom



Tom

Atlanta Dan
05-31-2007, 08:17 PM
Since you missed it the first time around (a couple pages earlier in this thread),

Even during his own time Churchill was thought of as sort of a blowhard; he was voted out of office by landslides not once, but twice. He happened to be the right man at the right time when England was facing a lonely defensive struggle and there was no doubt that to question Britan's resolve would end in defeat. Sort of like the Giuliani of 1940.

Otherwise he opposed public education and health care, advocated using poison gas against the Kurds as early as 1922 (how about that one, huh? Saddam finally got to fulfill Churchill's desire), backed Mussolini as a bulwark against Communism (he called Mussolini the "Roman genius… the greatest lawgiver among men.") He "masterminded" the ill fated Gallipoli campaign in WW1. He deployed military force against striking workers in Wales. He oversaw Britan's disastrous return to the Gold Standard in the mid-20s, which led to deflation, unemployment, and the General Strike of 1926, where he again advocated the use of machine guns against striking miners. He also denigrated Mahatma Ghandi as "a half-naked fakir" and founded the India Defence League, dedicated to the preservation of British power in India.

During the 1945 elections, Churchill claimed of the opposing party, that if they were elected they would impose "some form of Gestapo, no doubt humanely administered in the first instance". An astonished electorate unceremoniously elected Clement Atlee as the new Prime Minister, turning away from Churchill's politics of fear, intimidation, and domination.



So, lots of nice sound bites from Churchill, but I'm not sure I'd see him as a font of wisdom.


Tom



Tom

He is not a saint (but was a functioning alcoholic) and indicative of his pale patriarchy times (read Lincoln's statements on equality of the races if you want to see how the greatest President ever did not share current conventional views on the subject) but Churchill was the (in a positive sense) Man of the 20th Century who saved the West - he was wrong on a lot but he got it right before almost every politician on the one issue where it was literally fatal to be wrong - Hitler was a mortal threat to Western civilization. If Britain had not held the fort in 1940-41 until the Soviets and USA entered the fray it all probably would have been blown away. That excuses everything else.

Tom - I find your posts very insightful and believe we agree on a lot, but IMHO comparing him to Rudy (who had a great 9-11 rather than a great war) is ludicrous.

HeyNav
05-31-2007, 10:34 PM
There is one problem with the whole idea that students have an unbiased view due to their intellectual "freedom", namely that college students are terribly gullible due to their open-mindedness, and they are largely only exposed to one side of the argument when in school. I didn't just make this up, either.

see link on orginal post

Young minds soak up what their professors tell them, and there is just no way that these very liberal professors are not (intentionally or not) indoctrinating their students with a very leftist agenda. This, in turn, infects the "filter" through which these kids later cull their information through. Wiser men have spoken on these issues.

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. - Winston Churchill

A liberal is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air. - Winston Churchill


1. Fact? Washington Post has no bias.

2. Typical University Mission Statement: research, artistic, and scholarly activities that advance learning through the extension of the frontiers of knowledge and creative endeavor;

3. You would hire?
A. : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
or
B. : one who adheres to traditional methods or views

4. It is?
A. Liberal Conspiracy : "they are largely only exposed to one side of the argument when in school."
or
B. Universities are filled with most appropriate hires: "and they are largely only exposed to one side of the argument when in school" :dang:

I did just make this up, too. Opinions are always valid, this is mine. Your's different? We can agree to disagree.:cheers:

Mosca
06-01-2007, 10:58 AM
Tom - I find your posts very insightful and believe we agree on a lot, but IMHO comparing him to Rudy (who had a great 9-11 rather than a great war) is ludicrous.

I was wondering if anyone was going to comment on that. Nice catch. I was making an analogy about someone who was only good at one thing, but it was something he was great at.

Yes, Churchill was a much greater man that Giuliani, no question about it. Churchill also understood his own mystique and used it to his advantage, playing Roosevelt and the US like a Stradivarius (I mean that positively).

My post is meant to underline the disconnect between what Churchill meant when he said those things and what people are using them to mean today, and to show that a Churchillian world would not be a pleasant one. I don't want to belittle what the man did, but I do want to underline that what he did is not extrapolatable to other situations.

Tom

Mosca
06-01-2007, 11:39 AM
When I was a college student, I was freed in the sense that I didn't really have a personal agenda. That meant I was free and open to ideas and ways of seeing the world that were foreign to me; my grasp of them was totally dependent on how well someone could explain them to me, and how well I could understand the explanations.

Understanding them didn't mean adopting them; it just meant that I could see where someone else was coming from. I had quite a few "AHA" moments, and I cherish those.

Now that I'm an old fart, I DO have an agenda. I have a vested interest in the world progressing in a certain way. It doesn't validate or invalidate anything I did in the past; all it means is that from all the things I learned, I've chosen the ones that satisfy me the most; either the ones that benefit me directly, or the trade-offs that I accept, where the long-term compromise is better than any immediate benefit I would get.

College kids aren't dumb. They sometimes say things aloud as a way of testing them out. Their beliefs change rapidly and frequently. A kid will go on a peace march to impress a girl he wants to date. This exposure to ideas is essential to creating useful intellectual diversity, to creating new ideas that benefit us all.

No generation had more stridently leftist and outright Red teachers than mine; I went to college in the '70s, and my professors were the first generation of adult neo-hippies and ex-Weathermen to be tenured. But where are all the 50 year old communists? We're all working in business, it seems. Ideas get tested in the real world, to live or die.

The gift a college gives a student is a lively mind, not a set one. The simple fact that radical ideologies get rejected is proof that they are doing a good job at it. But don't fault anyone for setting them out there for consideration.


Tom

HeyNav
06-01-2007, 04:59 PM
When I was a college student, I was freed in the sense that I didn't really have a personal agenda. That meant I was free and open to ideas and ways of seeing the world that were foreign to me; my grasp of them was totally dependent on how well someone could explain them to me, and how well I could understand the explanations.

Understanding them didn't mean adopting them; it just meant that I could see where someone else was coming from. I had quite a few "AHA" moments, and I cherish those.

Now that I'm an old fart, I DO have an agenda. I have a vested interest in the world progressing in a certain way. It doesn't validate or invalidate anything I did in the past; all it means is that from all the things I learned, I've chosen the ones that satisfy me the most; either the ones that benefit me directly, or the trade-offs that I accept, where the long-term compromise is better than any immediate benefit I would get.

College kids aren't dumb. They sometimes say things aloud as a way of testing them out. Their beliefs change rapidly and frequently. A kid will go on a peace march to impress a girl he wants to date. This exposure to ideas is essential to creating useful intellectual diversity, to creating new ideas that benefit us all.

No generation had more stridently leftist and outright Red teachers than mine; I went to college in the '70s, and my professors were the first generation of adult neo-hippies and ex-Weathermen to be tenured. But where are all the 50 year old communists? We're all working in business, it seems. Ideas get tested in the real world, to live or die.

The gift a college gives a student is a lively mind, not a set one. The simple fact that radical ideologies get rejected is proof that they are doing a good job at it. But don't fault anyone for setting them out there for consideration.


Tom
Your last statement has the ring of truth! I couldn't agree with you more. Some people are convinced decisions made, while young and impressionable are irreversible.

A lot of hyperventilation from all those extremely concerned about political leanings of college professors. They are perfect examples of people following in line with the talking points. No real truth only false truth using factual statistics. It is TRUE, there are more professors who identify as liberal then as consevative. To draw a seemly logical but an untrue conclusion .

Accepted logic states that if A = B and B = C (the susceptable or those easily lead accept a false) conclusion is A =C.

(More liberal professors = exposure to liberal ideas = liberal brain washing) "Sir, have you no honor"

revefsreleets
06-01-2007, 09:55 PM
Interesting. Ad Hominem attack? Perhaps. "Falling in line" and "hyperventilating" and "Brain washing"? Wow.


Nice spin, but let's be fair. College campuses always have been and always will be hotbeds of liberal thought. The logic equation is nice, but, I, too, took Logic in college, and can also walk the walk. You twisted my logic to fit your own point of view, using loaded words like "brain washing" when they never existed in my original thought. Are you actually asserting that college professors have no sway over their charges? That college students aren't susceptible? That profs opinions don't bleed into their lectures? I could go on and on, but why? It's pretty obvious that you are the one who is truly "falling in line".

I'm truly sad and sorry to see Winston Churchill impeached and discredited. But it makes sense in a really twisted way. We should clearly judge Churchill by his few mistakes and not his overwhelmingly powerful resume of successes, because that's the liberal way, or...um...hey, wait!

Preacher
06-02-2007, 03:59 AM
Interesting. Ad Hominem attack? Perhaps. "Falling in line" and "hyperventilating" and "Brain washing"? Wow.


Nice spin, but let's be fair. College campuses always have been and always will be hotbeds of liberal thought. The logic equation is nice, but, I, too, took Logic in college, and can also walk the walk. You twisted my logic to fit your own point of view, using loaded words like "brain washing" when they never existed in my original thought. Are you actually asserting that college professors have no sway over their charges? That college students aren't susceptible? That profs opinions don't bleed into their lectures? I could go on and on, but why? It's pretty obvious that you are the one who is truly "falling in line".

I'm truly sad and sorry to see Winston Churchill impeached and discredited. But it makes sense in a really twisted way. We should clearly judge Churchill by his few mistakes and not his overwhelmingly powerful resume of successes, because that's the liberal way, or...um...hey, wait!

I was once told... and the older I grow, the more true it becomes...

A kid gets sent to college to learn all this stuff, then on the way home during break, dad tells him how the world REALLy works.

Mosca
06-02-2007, 09:43 AM
I'm truly sad and sorry to see Winston Churchill impeached and discredited. But it makes sense in a really twisted way. We should clearly judge Churchill by his few mistakes and not his overwhelmingly powerful resume of successes, because that's the liberal way, or...um...hey, wait!

Churchill is impeached by his own history, not by any spin. Go look it up. I did. His was a career of many big mistakes, many minor mistakes, many minor victories, and one huge victory. The mistakes don't discredit the victories, the victories doesn't erase the mistakes. Both are true. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, and everything to do with seeing the entire picture.

I wasn't the one who trotted Churchill out as a beacon of sanity in this discussion. If someone wants to do that, he had better know who it is he is bringing out. Everything I wrote is 100% on the record, not some swift-boat hearsay nonsense. When someone brings out a man to quote, he is saying, "I stand with this man." All I'm answering is, OK. You are standing by the man who advocated gassing the Kurds, who sent troops against his own countrymen, and would have machine gunned striking workers if the government had let him.



Tom

Hammer67
06-03-2007, 10:25 AM
1. Fact? Washington Post has no bias.

2. Typical University Mission Statement: research, artistic, and scholarly activities that advance learning through the extension of the frontiers of knowledge and creative endeavor;

3. You would hire?
A. : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
or
B. : one who adheres to traditional methods or views

4. It is?
A. Liberal Conspiracy : "they are largely only exposed to one side of the argument when in school."
or
B. Universities are filled with most appropriate hires: "and they are largely only exposed to one side of the argument when in school" :dang:

I did just make this up, too. Opinions are always valid, this is mine. Your's different? We can agree to disagree.:cheers:

My point, which I cling to, having attended a major University within the last decade, is that college students, as a whole, do not have much life experience and tend hold an idealistic view. It's not that they are wrong or right, it's that they often do not have enough life experience to judge blind idealism vs. reality. I had many professors that openly shared liberal viewpoints and opinions through their lectures. Not that they were bad or wrong, but you have a lot of young people who are away from the parental nest for the first time and are very impressionable. They are quick to take up any cause that's presented to them. Trust me, I was one of those people to a certain extent. Add to that the fact that there is not much responsibility outside of classwork. It's hard to have a realistic impression of how the world works.

I have the ability to judge and be open minded and I am no longer in college. In fact, I am even more so now. Now I actually pay into the system via taxes and I can look at an issue (welfare, war, etc.) and make a better educated assessment of whether it is realistic or just idealistic. When I was a younger pup in school, I didn't have that perspective.

Are there liberal conspiracies on campuses? I don't know about all that. Is there a more liberal culture present? Absolutely. And an audience to soak up information and ideas like a sponge.

:coffee:

Hammer67
06-03-2007, 10:31 AM
College kids aren't dumb. They sometimes say things aloud as a way of testing them out. Their beliefs change rapidly and frequently. A kid will go on a peace march to impress a girl he wants to date. This exposure to ideas is essential to creating useful intellectual diversity, to creating new ideas that benefit us all.

No generation had more stridently leftist and outright Red teachers than mine; I went to college in the '70s, and my professors were the first generation of adult neo-hippies and ex-Weathermen to be tenured. But where are all the 50 year old communists? We're all working in business, it seems. Ideas get tested in the real world, to live or die.

The gift a college gives a student is a lively mind, not a set one. The simple fact that radical ideologies get rejected is proof that they are doing a good job at it. But don't fault anyone for setting them out there for consideration.


Tom

Exactly. Good point. I remember going to a rally because of a girl. What guy didn't??!!:wink02:

I wouldn't say college kids are dumb, quite the opposite, actually. They are almost like puppies let out of a crate after being couped up all night...they run around with all kinds of energy wanting to get into everything. :sofunny:

I love my college days...I look back fondly on them. And I am glad I was exposed to what I was. But looking back, I am now better prepared to look at a situation objectively.

GBMelBlount
06-04-2007, 01:02 AM
[QUOTE=Mosca;252778]

Churchill....His was a career of ....one huge victory.

Everything I wrote is 100% on the record, not some swift-boat hearsay nonsense.

...Spoken like a true bi-partisan Tom, isn't that what you proclaim yourself to be in your "Clintonian" speak on this thread?


When someone brings out a man to quote, he is saying, "I stand with this man."


I never said "I stand by this man." I paraphrased a statement. To make such a broadbrush statement is complete arrogance. I may not agree with everything Churchill believed, but he saved us in WWII, and I agree with many of his statements. Also, I believe two of the reasons we haven't been nailed since 911 is because we have great intelligence (greatly compromised by media leaks) and we brought the fight to the jihadists, so less of them are over here with nukes. How many attacks have there been by jihadists on US soil since 911? Therefore, I am so thankful we have been safe and I am so thankful for our sacrifices (see my avatar and then look at y****.) Some apparently think 3,000 deaths is a travesty. Compare this to any other war. You aren't going to talk Jihadists to death. LMAO. Their goal from infancy is to annihilate us, do the MATH. It sounds to me like someone on this thread has a preconceived goal.... I read this entire thread. I'm going to go out on a limb and say someone is very good at english..not MATH.

Mosca
06-04-2007, 12:41 PM
[QUOTE=Mosca;252778]

Churchill....His was a career of ....one huge victory.

Everything I wrote is 100% on the record, not some swift-boat hearsay nonsense.

...Spoken like a true bi-partisan Tom, isn't that what you proclaim yourself to be in your "Clintonian" speak on this thread?


When someone brings out a man to quote, he is saying, "I stand with this man."


I never said "I stand by this man." I paraphrased a statement. To make such a broadbrush statement is complete arrogance. I may not agree with everything Churchill believed, but he saved us in WWII, and I agree with many of his statements. Also, I believe two of the reasons we haven't been nailed since 911 is because we have great intelligence (greatly compromised by media leaks) and we brought the fight to the jihadists, so less of them are over here with nukes. How many attacks have there been by jihadists on US soil since 911? Therefore, I am so thankful we have been safe and I am so thankful for our sacrifices (see my avatar and then look at y****.) Some apparently think 3,000 deaths is a travesty. Compare this to any other war. You aren't going to talk Jihadists to death. LMAO. Their goal from infancy is to annihilate us, do the MATH. It sounds to me like someone on this thread has a preconceived goal.... I read this entire thread. I'm going to go out on a limb and say someone is very good at english..not MATH.

"Swift-boating" has entered the vernacular. The only way it has any partisan connotation is through the way that it entered.

I think you stood by what you knew of Churchill, and you didn't know everything about him other than his leadership in WW2 (which I agree is admirable). That fits with what you've said. Of course I didn't mean that you also agreed with gassing the Kurds, etc; what I meant was that many nice sound bites come from people with surprising politics. By extension, sound bites cannot stand for complex ideas.

No, we aren't going to talk jihadists to death. But we aren't going to kill them all, either, and for every one we kill we create more. We have created "freedom fighters" out of ordinary citizens. THAT is pretty crazy, since we went over there to give them the freedom that they now believe they are fighting for. NOW what? Kill the citizens?

The only point I have is that what we are doing in Iraq is not working. Beyond that I have no idea what WILL work. Math has nothing to do with it. I do agree that striking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has disrupted chances of attack. I do not agree that attacking Iraq has made us safer, and I believe that it has made us less safe. Sure there haven't been any more attacks. Would there have been the same results if we'd not invaded Iraq? My belief is, yes. Afghanistan and Iraq are not part and parcel of each other.

Clintonian? Maybe somewhat, yes. I don't think that's an insult at all. I'm not bipartisan, but I believe that there is no solution that is not bipartisan. I believe that Democratic support for the invasion of Iraq was support given out of that bipartisan belief, and it is a shame that our president has squandered and wasted that support (along with the support of much of his own party).

Not interested in an avatar war, thank you. I'm not sure what the "****" is that has been edited out. Some people are demonstrative in their fervor and others are not. I put mine up during a time when religious iconography was a hot topic here, and I've been too lazy to change it because I don't care all that much. But unpatriotic or not supportive because I don't have the proper avatar? Gee, I dunno. Follow that thought out a little bit. Should everyone without a yellow ribbon on their car be similarly branded and excoriated? Again, these are my friends and neighbors and relatives fighting, not some faceless soldiers. In the end, everyones' plans include them coming home.


Tom

revefsreleets
06-04-2007, 08:35 PM
Churchill is impeached by his own history, not by any spin. Go look it up. I did. His was a career of many big mistakes, many minor mistakes, many minor victories, and one huge victory. The mistakes don't discredit the victories, the victories doesn't erase the mistakes. Both are true. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, and everything to do with seeing the entire picture.

I wasn't the one who trotted Churchill out as a beacon of sanity in this discussion. If someone wants to do that, he had better know who it is he is bringing out. Everything I wrote is 100% on the record, not some swift-boat hearsay nonsense. When someone brings out a man to quote, he is saying, "I stand with this man." All I'm answering is, OK. You are standing by the man who advocated gassing the Kurds, who sent troops against his own countrymen, and would have machine gunned striking workers if the government had let him.



Tom

Boy, this got all discombobulated. I didn't know people would be so touchy on this subject, but since it's been brought up, I should respond, especially for any people who might just go along for the ride without any facts being represented.

As for Churchill, I DID "look it up", mostly a long time ago, but some refreshing just now. I think he was pretty much a successful guy. He won a Nobel Prize for literature. He was knighted. He was pretty talented, was even a pretty decent painter. He was a champion fencer. He was almost without question the greatest orator of the 20th Century.

His political career was pretty impressive. He reformed the English prison system. He modernized the English Navy before WW1. He returned GB to the gold standard in 1925. He came to power for having great foresight, along the way urging rearmament and refuting Chamberlain's policy of constant capitulation (which mirrors some things we see today, incidentally). He was instrumental in the Lend/Lease program. I could go on and on and on.

Addressing the gassing and labor uprisings, unfortunately, the World was a far different and harsher place in the early 20th century. Gassing people was perfectly acceptable as there was no prohibition against it at the time, and there were tons of violent disputes between the government and labor in a lot of different Countries around that time. He was a creature of his era, no doubt, but using that against him is a bit revisionist. Fortunately and correctly, history ultimately speaks very highly of Winston Churchill, so it was perfectly appropriate to quote him.

And Conservative versus Liberal DOES matter. Churchill was initially an avowed liberal, and became a staunch conservative. His greatest achievements occurred while he was the latter, which probably grates a bit, I suppose.

Mosca
06-04-2007, 09:08 PM
Thank goodness someone looked it up and gave a rebuttal.

Churchill himself referred to his returning England to the Gold Standard as the biggest mistake of his life; it almost destroyed England (deflation and unemployment) and it led to the Great Strikes, which in turn led to the proposal to machine gun striking workers. Keynes wrote a pamphlet (Mr Churchill's Economics) claiming it would lead to world-wide depression (it didn't, that came later).

I'm not touchy on it, I'm enjoying the challenge and throwing challenges back. I appreciate well won points. I am surprised it took this long for someone to defend Churchill. Of course I cherry-picked his career. If the man was only what I wrote he would be excoriated by history as a charlatan!

Still, what I wrote was true as well. No one is all good, or all bad. Especially politicians.

And I'm REALLY surprised LITP didn't chime in.

Point to revefsreleets!


Tom

revefsreleets
06-04-2007, 09:18 PM
Thanks, I guess. I'm a proponent of the whole World returning to the gold standard (although it's far too late for that now), so I counted that as a positive.

Didn't Abe Lincoln institute fiat greenbacks in lieu of gold in the Civil War? He broke a bunch of "rules" to win, and the Union prevailed. Funny that nobody ever talks about that now...

Mosca
06-04-2007, 09:28 PM
When I was picking my Churchill points I was wondering if anyone was going to challenge them. The whole story is right out there in the open. It's HISTORY, ferchrissakes.

Check out my pictures in the other thread, the Reading WW2 days. I've been a student of that stuff since I was a kid in the '60s.

Tom

SteelShooter
06-04-2007, 10:15 PM
No comment, except for:

"Fight them over there.........or fight them here."