Kelly the Dog Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Stop drinking from VA's tap. That "lahjik" is why the government will continue to do what it's been doing for 2 decades. That popping sound will be your head coming out of your ass. Damn Pete, you're so much smarter than that. Nah, they didn't invade. They simply let Saddam kill hundreds of thousands of people while the French, Germans, and Russians made billions through graft. Sometimes they even went so far as to shake their fists and use a harsh tone at the UN. Way to go team. 486686[/snapback] Don't be sticking up for the morons. You thought it was a bad time and bad way and bad plan, too.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 That's funny. The next person I meet who "understands the region" will be the only one on the planet. 486687[/snapback] My bad. I should have typed "perhaps they should have had any understanding of the region"
EC-Bills Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Yes, Wolfowitz & Cheney were hatching a plot way back in 1992 to someday take back the White House, install an idiot as a puppet President, have three planes smash into US buildings and kill 4,000 people so that they could have the rationale to invade Iraq to save Israel. But in the process, they would need to dupe Congress, and the way to accomplish all that, they would need one willing reporter at the venerable leftist institution of The New York Times to play the patsy. Because G-d knows, people won't be able to make up their minds unless Judy Miller tells them that Saddam is a bad man. Is that a good summary? 486667[/snapback] I don't know about a good summary or not, but I think it would make for one hell of a made-for-tv movie.
Campy Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 No, it's my pent up anger that the protest needs to be staged when there are 2,000 dead servicemen. Not 1, not 10, not 378, but somehow 2,000 is worthy of protest and media attention. I have no problem with protesting the war, but please save the sanctimony that there's some kind of a milestone here that needs a special commemoration. It perverts the sacrifice of the other 1,999. 486673[/snapback] Got it. I was blown away thinking that you, nevermind, you were doing the opposite of what I thought you were doing - sorry 'bout that. And I agree that it seems odd that all of the media outlets consider 2,000 some kind of milestone. It's a lot of young men and women for sure, but losing even one was one too many IMO. Afghanistan is a different issue, but I'm none too happy with losing that many people in Iraq (in fact I personally knew 2 that came home in body bags) in a conflict the US intitiated, and IMO, did so illegally.
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Afghanistan is a different issue, but I'm none too happy with losing that many people in Iraq (in fact I personally knew 2 that came home in body bags) in a conflict the US intitiated, and IMO, did so illegally. That a way to denigrate their sacrifice. SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!
Campy Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 That a way to denigrate their sacrifice.SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! 486801[/snapback] About the last thing I need is some troll admonishing me to "support the troops." Just curious, how many friends of your family did you lose while they served in the Marine Corps? Did those friends of your family also fight alongside of your brother? Ever buried a loved one in a full military honors funeral? Don't even think about lecturing me about sacrifice.
Mickey Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 No, that's the whole issue. A few of those quoted were in a position to actually do something like invade Iraq and they chose not to. It was a war of choice and you can't blame anyone but the guy at the top and his inner circle who made the decision and gave the orders. 486665[/snapback] I wish I had a dime for every post I have read here to the effect that "Thank God" people like Clinton, Gore and Kerry weren't President on 9/11 because they would never have had the stones to invade Afghanistan or Iraq or, in Kerry's case, to stay the course in Iraq. So when it suits the right, democrats never ever would have gone to war but when the war turns out maybe to have been a bad idea, then democrats get hit with these quotes as proof that a democratic President would also have gone to war. We are doves when the occasion is suitable for mocking doves and we are hawks when the occasion is suitable to mock hawks. Of course, the democrat they mock the most is the one who in fact did oppose the war, Dean. Doesn't really matter what position they take or what they do they are democrats and the partisan madness of the right and the faaaaar right is going to mock them regardless. Democrats have much to answer for with regard to this war, no doubt. However, this thing was and is a George W. Bush Production first, last and always. If it works, he will rightly get the credit but if it doesn't, he will rightly carry the blame.
Mickey Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 That's funny. The next person I meet who "understands the region" will be the only one on the planet. 486687[/snapback] Makes Rubic's cube look like tic-tac-toe
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 However, this thing was and is a George W. Bush Production first, last and always. If it works, he will rightly get the credit but if it doesn't, he will rightly carry the blame. 486862[/snapback] As true and honest a statement as any. And the idea that any president would just roll over and let 9/11 go unanswered is simply stupid prattle from the lunatic fringe, representative of the same mindless partisanship on the far right that "Bush caused 9/11!" evidences on the far left.
Alaska Darin Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Don't be sticking up for the morons. You thought it was a bad time and bad way and bad plan, too. 486711[/snapback] You're right - but continuing to whine about it is causing alot more problems than it's solving. A tremendous waste of energy.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 You're right - but continuing to whine about it is causing alot more problems than it's solving. A tremendous waste of energy. 487048[/snapback] Addressing those issues you can impact, instead of those that are written into the history books? What a fascinating and novel concept...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 You're right - but continuing to whine about it is causing alot more problems than it's solving. A tremendous waste of energy. 487048[/snapback] In many or most instances, I would agree. However, this time, IMO, is the right time to complain and keep complaining about it. Because it is my own, personal, non-talking points, often stated opinion that this administration duped the majority of the country into this war by over-exaggerating the imminent threat. Not of the Middle East but of Saddam. And if they were less disingenuous, the overall population would not have been so gun-ho, and we might not have done it this way, this time, this stupid. And this is the time and a place for that to be disclosed in a legal and fair-minded way (due to the apparent non-political history of Fitzgerald).
Mickey Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Addressing those issues you can impact, instead of those that are written into the history books? What a fascinating and novel concept... 487060[/snapback] It is relevant in grading the performance of our leaders even if we can't turn back the clock and fix it. I think it also has an effect on how much we might be inclined to support or even believe those same leaders now when it comes to present and future actions. If the history shows Cheney to be a mega liar when it comes to Iraq, we might not be so interested in listening to him the next time he is on Meet the Press. It sure doesn't answer the question of what the best course is in Iraq at this point.
chicot Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 You're right - but continuing to whine about it is causing alot more problems than it's solving. A tremendous waste of energy. 487048[/snapback] What about the concept of personal responsibility? If Joe Bloggs makes a rooster-up at work, can he now escape all criticism by saying "Oh well, it's done now. Whining about it won't solve anything"? This war and, more especially, the shambolic post-war "planning" have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and billions of dollars wasted. Should those responsible for that be immune from criticism, lest people be accused of "whining"?
Alaska Darin Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 What about the concept of personal responsibility? If Joe Bloggs makes a rooster-up at work, can he now escape all criticism by saying "Oh well, it's done now. Whining about it won't solve anything"? This war and, more especially, the shambolic post-war "planning" have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and billions of dollars wasted. Should those responsible for that be immune from criticism, lest people be accused of "whining"? 487146[/snapback] It's supposedly why we have elections. That's the problem with the liberal mindset. Always living in the past with little understanding of history and virtually zero vision of the future. Not sure what a "rooster up" is but there's obviously a pretty vast difference between the English spoken in the Isle and that over here.
Mickey Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 It's supposedly why we have elections. That's the problem with the liberal mindset. Always living in the past with little understanding of history and virtually zero vision of the future. Not sure what a "rooster up" is but there's obviously a pretty vast difference between the English spoken in the Isle and that over here. 487158[/snapback] You must have just fallen off the turnip lorry.
IowaBill Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 It's supposedly why we have elections. That's the problem with the liberal mindset. Always living in the past with little understanding of history and virtually zero vision of the future. Not sure what a "rooster up" is but there's obviously a pretty vast difference between the English spoken in the Isle and that over here. 487158[/snapback] The idea of living in the past being in exclusively in the domain of liberals is probably nothe case. Many times, self proclaimed, right wing conservatives have responded to points about GWB and his ilk made by self proclaimed, left wing liberals, with "oh yeah, well about the time Clinton.........". Clearly those statements have not been made by you. It wouldn't be difficult, however to find them by some of the right wingers here. "rooster up" is a mistake (especially when with someone other than your wife)
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 It is relevant in grading the performance of our leaders even if we can't turn back the clock and fix it. I think it also has an effect on how much we might be inclined to support or even believe those same leaders now when it comes to present and future actions. If the history shows Cheney to be a mega liar when it comes to Iraq, we might not be so interested in listening to him the next time he is on Meet the Press. 487112[/snapback] And what part of that wasn't covered by "written into the history books"?
Mickey Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 And what part of that wasn't covered by "written into the history books"? 487176[/snapback] Okay, okay, don't get your rooster up. Chickens need their sleep.
chicot Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 It's supposedly why we have elections. That's the problem with the liberal mindset. Always living in the past with little understanding of history and virtually zero vision of the future. Not sure what a "rooster up" is but there's obviously a pretty vast difference between the English spoken in the Isle and that over here. 487158[/snapback] "rooster-up" = mistake, blunder, error etc.... (get your minds out of the gutter )
Recommended Posts