We must bomb Iran

[DJofSD]

Published in the LA Times over the weekend:

Link to the entire article. Free registration required. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,1,787996.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)

Bomb Iran

Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer.

By Joshua Muravchik, JOSHUA MURAVCHIK is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
November 19, 2006

WE MUST bomb Iran.

It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.


The article concludes with:
After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs — the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin — and rejected the idea.

The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II. Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him.

Have we learned anything from history?

[Tom]

Apparently not.

[46zilzal]

kill people. the answer to everything

[JustRalph]

kill people. the answer to everything

Not everything.............but it does solve a whole bunch of bad shit..........

[twindouble]

kill people. the answer to everything

46, contact that nut case in Iran and the Mullah's, I'm sure you can convince them to love and embrace America, after all they are just misunderstood. Right?

[46zilzal]

paranoia

[BlueShoe]

An article that actually advocated dealing forcefully with our foes just couldnt have been published in the LA Times,could it?That paper is just as far to the left as the NY Times or Washington Post.For many,many years have referred to it sarcasticly as the West Coast edition of Pravda.

[bigmack]

46 brings up a top notch point. Afterall, it's right there on the cookie

[twindouble]

paranoia

Now that was Brilliant 46. I can see it now, your next door neighbor tells you he's going cut your freaking kids heads off and blow your house up every day and you'll invite him to dinner to discus it, knowing he's been doing it to others right along. :lol: Yes your real Brilliant. :rolleyes:

[kenwoodallpromos]

Then someone threatens genocide, believe them.

[BlueShoe]

Sooner or later we will have to deal with Iran with force.The problem is,if we dont,the Israelis will,and they will very likely use their own nuclear arms.So,we respond now with conventional weapons,or wait for Israel to go nuclear.The choice seems obvious,does it not?

[Secretariat]

Have we learned anything from history?

Certainly not from the pre-emptive bombing on Iraq. Now Syira is Shia, Iraq is predominantly Shia and iran is Shia. in other words, the Sunni dominated former Iraq provided a wedge between total Shia dominance. Now, we've actually unintentionally (I assume) "emboldened" Iran.

BlueShow. If Israel wants to bomb Iran that is their option, but leave us out of it. They will have to take responsiblity for their own action. We already messed up Iraq for them.

[JustRalph]

Certainly not from the pre-emptive bombing on Iraq.

you cannot compare the two scenarios. We danced at the U.N. for months prior to taking action in Iraq. We basically gave them the time and date of our action. It cannot be compared to a strike in Iran.

First off you don't telegraph your action and you don't go "surgical" you wallop them at 4a.m. on a day that they would never expect an attack.

You take out the infrastructure and all the homes of the government ministers etc. the country wakes up with no government and in stunned amazement as to what happen to their leaders and their country. It rattles cages for years to come. On day three you invite the left over leaders to a sit down in a neutral country. Inform them that they form a democratic government in 90 days or we come in and take over.

now that is what I call a useful scenario for change in the middle east.

[Secretariat]

Jr,

We don't even have Iraq secure. Talking about Iran who has no capabiity of hitting us with a nuclear weapon that they don't have is ridiculous at this point. Why is it that Republicans beleive war without solid intelligence is always the way to go?

[JustRalph]

Jr,

We don't even have Iraq secure. Talking about Iran who has no capabiity of hitting us with a nuclear weapon that they don't have is ridiculous at this point. Why is it that Republicans beleive war without solid intelligence is always the way to go?

Oh, I have solid intel. I have seen that dipshit dictator (who BTW needs killed for his part in the hostage crisis in 79) stand up at the podium and call for our destruction, promise that Israel is going to be obliterated and overall promise to fulfill a prophecy where he and his buddies rule the world. Now, somebody hand him a nuke...........I have seen enough.

[hcap]

Yeehaw is no longer the operative word.

http://www.pentoon.com/images-01/subjects/saddam/wmd-anim.gif

[luv_america]

kill people. the answer to everything

Its been proven time and time again that its better to kill people before they kill you. As much as you think George Bush has called out Iran by calling them part of the Axis of Evil (who disputes that?), he hasn't called for their destruction, the destruction of the West, or the destruction of Israel.

Negotiations will not work with these guys. Big American planes, with big American bombs, and big American bravado (oooooooooooh I know you hate this part) will bring them to the negotiating table, nothing else. History proves that time and time again.

Can anyone name a despot that gave up because of negotiations?

[The Judge]

What countries should have the bomb and which should not. I want names not some lame joke. Name the countries and tell me why is it o.k for them and not others?

[luv_america]

that's easy, there is no moral equivelence between the US and Iran.

Countries which have:
1) accountable governments to their people
2) who don't threaten their neighbors
3) who aren't threating to wipe out a whole civilization, country, religion or type of people
4) who have the military and security expertise to defend nuclear technology and not have it fall into the hands of rouge terrorists
5) and those who haven't already signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

just off the top of my head, I'm sure I can come up with more.

[The Judge]

Name the countries! After all its easy.

[JPinMaryland]

I would start with the US. but I'm not sure they meet the "accountable government" criterion.

[TurfRuler]

First off you don't telegraph your action and you don't go "surgical" you wallop them at 4a.m. on a day that they would never expect an attack.

You take out the infrastructure and all the homes of the government ministers etc. the country wakes up with no government and in stunned amazement as to what happen to their leaders and their country. It rattles cages for years to come. On day three you invite the left over leaders to a sit down in a neutral country. Inform them that they form a democratic government in 90 days or we come in and take over.

now that is what I call a useful scenario for change.....

If it can happen to them, it can happen to us...this kind of thinking can be in the mind of anyone. Anyone sick enough or crazy enough or just plain dumb.

[JustRalph]

that's easy, there is no moral equivelence between the US and Iran.

Countries which have:
1) accountable governments to their people
2) who don't threaten their neighbors
3) who aren't threating to wipe out a whole civilization, country, religion or type of people
4) who have the military and security expertise to defend nuclear technology and not have it fall into the hands of rouge terrorists
5) and those who haven't already signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

just off the top of my head, I'm sure I can come up with more.

I would say that the list above is a good starting point. How about, whomever our government deems should have it. You see, we are the only Super Power in the world and it is time we started acting like it.

[bettheoverlay]

You take out the infrastructure and all the homes of the government ministers etc. the country wakes up with no government and in stunned amazement as to what happen to their leaders and their country. It rattles cages for years to come. On day three you invite the left over leaders to a sit down in a neutral country. Inform them that they form a democratic government in 90 days or we come in and take over.


Such an insightful and realistic view of America's role in the world would sure make the Founding Fathers feel proud. I'm positive this is what they had in mind.

[Suff]

Such an insightful and realistic view of America's role in the world would sure make the Founding Fathers feel proud. I'm positive this is what they had in mind.

Speaking of America's beginning..... Might be worth noting that Iran has not invaded another country in 250 years. A slightly longer time than America has existed.

They don't seem big on invasions and instigation's.........?:

Tons of Propaganda out there......take in information slow and measuredly.

[The Judge]

What if the good old USofA had treated these counties like we want to be treated around the world may be we could now sit down and talk. We are judged by our "actions" not our talk "freedom,democracy,on and on. This is serious stuff (sorry Suff) when you start with the bombs you may stop one thing but you start another.

Can't bomb Korea because of China. Is the US sure that Iran is building a bomb? We know Korea has done so. What do counties around the world think about this idea? Do they think its a good idea or not.

What about oil? Will other counties trust the US how about a declaration of war first. Any chance of that. If not why, not. You mean one man can send this country to war twice I thought it was one per President.

[hcap]

Seems the bush cultists here forgot the plan. The plan was pre-emption. It wasn't the "global caliphate" bullshit back then. That was only a gleam in the eye of the righties collection of discredited justifications.

PRE-Emption ' cause of them nasty WMds was da name of da game

"The invasion of Iraq constituted a radical departure from decades-long American foreign policy doctrine governing what constitutes a justifiable war against another country. To justify the war , the Bush administration issued a National Security Strategy in 2002"

Pre-emption is what led us into the worse foreign policy adventure that I can remember. It has failed. No matter how loudly the neocons are disavowing, it has failed-along with the mindless rhetoric that was packaged with it.

To say that we we should start acting like the only super power to provide a fixer upper for Iran flies in the face of our major fuck-up,the invasion of Iraq occuring AS a result of that very same failed policy. Why should we believe any of those who told us how well it would all turn out

Why should I believe Ralph? Again he claims the "good outcome" with a little bit of shock and awe You take out the infrastructure and all the homes of the government ministers etc. the country wakes up with no government and in stunned amazement as to what happen to their leaders and their country. It rattles cages for years to come. On day three you invite the left over leaders to a sit down in a neutral country. Inform them that they form a democratic government in 90 days or we come in and take over.

now that is what I call a useful scenario for change in the middle east.Why should any of us believe the same ole' shit from the same ole' minds. Yeah maybe a devastating military strike will get rid of some military targets-but this is not a battlefield only game. Oh yeah maybe Ken "cakewalk" Adelman can come up with some talking points just before we pre-empt.

Bill Maher: And finally, new rule in two parts:
(A) You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid; and

(B) If you're someone from one of these think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War and who predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD's would be found, that the looting wasn't problematic, that the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war, you have to stop making predictions.

[Suff]

Seems the bush cultists here forgot the plan. The plan was pre-emption. It wasn't the "global caliphate" bullshit back then. That was only a gleam in the eye of the righties collection of discredited justifications.

PRE-Emption ' cause of them nasty WMds was da name of da game



Why should I bother getting the 25 speech's Bush gave where he told America he was not going to get us into "Nation Building"...?:



He said NO NATION BUILDING!! He said it OVER AND OVER.

[Suff]

by the way

here is a very good interview with Seymour Hersh. It was last night on Amy Goodmans show. I watched the whole thing. I came home with a sandwich and bottle of milk and sat down just as it started.

I hate to use it because I rarely use Liberal sites as sources because they just get smashed as bias'd. But with people using Newsmax, and heritage foundation it has to be done. This is just a simple Q and A. No spin.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/21/1518247&mode=thread&tid=25

In a new article for the New Yorker, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports Vice President Dick Cheney told a White House meeting one month before the mid-term elections that a Democratic victory would have little effect on the administration’s decision to go to war. But plans for a military option were made “far more complicated” by a secret CIA report which has found no conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Hersh joins us from Washington. [rush transcript included]

With the Democrats winning control of Congress is the White House and a lame duck president more or less likely to launch an attack against Iran? That’s the subject of a new article (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061127fa_fact) by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. Hersh writes in the latest issue of the New Yorker magazine, that Vice President Dick Cheney told a White House meeting one month before the mid-term elections that a Democratic victory would have little effect on the administration’s decision to go to war. But the article goes on to report that any plans for a military option were made “far more complicated” by a secret CIA report which has found no conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons

[hcap]

Not only do the bush cultists continue to justify the wrong headed Invasion of Iraq but kinda still think it ain't quite as bad as we all know now.

When I first heard bush was going to Iraq to meet with Maliki, I was concerned for his safety. I know hard to believe-me? Yep true

OK change of plans....

Bush to meet Iraqi Prime MInister -- In Jordan

The meeting between Bush and Maliki in the Jordanian capital Amman, a much safer venue than Baghdad, will follow a weekend visit to Iran by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and this week's landmark visit to Iraq by Syria's foreign minister.

Things have got to be very bad for bush not to have another suprise Thanksgiving trip. Even the green zone is too dangerous
So much for Iraq being as safe as philidelphia as some here have said

[Tom]

Why should I bother getting the 25 speech's Bush gave where he told America he was not going to get us into "Nation Building"...?:



He said NO NATION BUILDING!! He said it OVER AND OVER.

You still living pre-9/11?
Times change.
You don't.

[Tom]

Name the countries! After all its easy.

USA
Great Britain.

End of list.
If it isn't obvious, I can't help you.

[JustRalph]

Suff, Bush has said that he was not going to get involved in nation building until after 9-11, he says it changed his mind. Mine too.

BTW, all you guys who don't like my scenario for Iran, let's just try it my way for once? You see,,,,,,,,,,, we never have done it my way. We always pussyfoot around ........... I am up for a little imperialism........

[hcap]

Your "way" is already in doubt. Your "little" imperialism has already failed.

BTW, is a little imperialism like a little bit pregnant? Does a little screwing around lead to major consequences 9 months later? Your way is gonna kill and maim tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Will their sons, mothers and daughters go quietly, or will they present a problem 9 months from now as Al Qada grows geometricly and more and more moderates hate our guts. Should we take them out as well before their kids avenge their parents deaths?

Instead of your way, let's try what the election has has shown-the existing way is not working.Time for a major change.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK22Aa01.html

"Within two weeks, the administration had spurned an unprecedented offer from Iran to negotiate all outstanding differences between the two nations, including its nuclear program and its support for armed anti-Israel groups, in exchange for security guarantees. The Bush administration also broke off all diplomatic contacts with Tehran, including until-then fruitful talks on stabilizing Afghanistan, after accusing Iran of harboring al-Qaeda militants allegedly linked to a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia. The neo-conservatives were euphoric; their agenda had not only become policy, but their vision of a "new American Century" seemed well on its way to becoming reality. "

[The Judge]

O.K thats fair it answers my question. Check this out Http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List-of-states-with-nuclear-weapons. Plus the other listed topics. It's not a pretty picture or just Google "counties with nuclear weapons".

[JustRalph]

hcap, like I said before. We haven't tried it my way yet. Go back and read.

[44PACE]

There is no way we will be that stupid again and take another country to war.


If you disagree please enlist in the armed services, they need help. Don't ask someone else to do what you won't do.

[Tom]

You mean stupid enough to sit back and let WWII play out again?

[JPinMaryland]

BTW, all you guys who don't like my scenario for Iran, let's just try it my way for once? You see,,,,,,,,,,, we never have done it my way. We always pussyfoot around ........... I am up for a little imperialism........

They try that, and it will ensure the vilification of Bush and likely his impeachment. Possibly also the destruction of the GOP at least for the short term.

It's not going to happen anytime soon. Although the US might possibly have gotten away with it like 2 or 3 years ago...

[Tom]

It is going to happen eventiually - when WE want to or when THEYwant to.
Unless you are a democrat, it would seem to be obvioust to me when to do it.
Hitler...appeasement.....deja vous....all over again.

[44PACE]

You mean stupid enough to sit back and let WWII play out again?


WW3 has already started.

Here is the problem, this is a no win situation, you can go ahead and attack another country like Iran unless you are prepared to go the entire distance all you will do is create more problems than what already exists. This part of the world is unlike anyother , overthrowing their government will not put an end to the situation like it would if you were talking about North Korea. Their Hatred towards the U.S.A encompases almost their entire population. Remove their elders and the younger generations will step in their place.

Unless you are willing to errase them all you will not win. Our country will never take the role of a Hitler .They will never become a democratic society, They sadly are people that need a dictatorship, this is all they know, they will never trust us becouse they hate our relationship with Isreal.


If you attack Iran then you will have to take on the rest of the Muslim countries like syria, saudia etc etc, .

Forget about it, it is not going to happen. Iran and Iraq will become one country like they used to be. Russia and China will join them when they go to war with Isreal,that will be ww3.

[PaceAdvantage]

They try that, and it will ensure the vilification of Bush and likely his impeachment. Possibly also the destruction of the GOP at least for the short term.

Thinking in political terms is an absolute recipe for disaster (see where it has taken us already). Nobody has the balls to do what is right, because everybody is looking out for themselves in Washington, first and foremost. Yes, even the beloved Democrats.....

Who CARES about the GOP when there are YOUNG MEN and WOMEN fighting and dying on the front lines?!?!??!

[Secretariat]

Thinking in political terms is an absolute recipe for disaster (see where it has taken us already). Nobody has the balls to do what is right, because everybody is looking out for themselves in Washington, first and foremost. Yes, even the beloved Democrats.....

Who CARES about the GOP when there are YOUNG MEN and WOMEN fighting and dying on the front lines?!?!??!

The problem is there are different perceptions of what is "right". To say nobody has the balls to do what is right is incorrect. The problem is that there are many who have the balls to do what is right in their minds, the problem is coming to a consensus on what is right, and what is right changes as conditions change.

Everyone is concerned about the welfare of the troops. Let's get off that BS, and onto the real issue which is reaching consensus among the ever-changing conditions in Iraq. We are trying to manintain the peace in the midst of a religious civil war. I don't beleive the US went into iraq with that intention regardless of your party affiliation. So if we had the "balls to do what is right", my opinion is we'd get our troops out of the wrong war, a religious civil war and back onto getting those leaders reponsible for initiating and actual attack on "our" soil on 911. My guess is you don't agree as we have a different set of balls.

[JPinMaryland]

What exactly is victory supposed to look like in Iraq or Iran? A MacDonalds on every street corner? Religious tolerance? A democractic government? Sexual equality?

You all talk about what we're supposed to do, what exactly is supposed to be the outcome when we do it?

[Tom]

Everyone is concerned about the welfare of the troops. Let's get off that BS,

BS? I think not. There is no doubt in my mind you do not give a crap about our troops, our nation, or our freedom. You have posted far more support for known terrorists, including the mastermind of 9-11 than for our troops. YOU and those who have treason this country are responsible for most of the mess over there today and will be the cause the next major attack on our soil. You are a political day trader who got lucky on a few early investment and now think you area an expert on everything. People like you are the terrorist's best friend. Ignorance kills. The problem this country has is we do not acknowledge who the REAL enemy is.

[DJofSD]

JP, the entire idea of victory that is being used by the media and the left is a canard. They want to use the definition of victory that applies towards a war between nations but what is happening in Iraq is anything but that.

[JPinMaryland]

Well what is your definition?

[Secretariat]

JP, the entire idea of victory that is being used by the media and the left is a canard. They want to use the definition of victory that applies towards a war between nations but what is happening in Iraq is anything but that.

No kidding. Mission Accomplished.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/iraq

Shiites burn 6 Sunni worshippers alive
AP - 56 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive as Iraqi soldiers stood by, and seven Sunni mosques came under attack as Shiites took revenge for the slaughter of at least 215 people in the Sadr City slum. A U.S. helicopter opened fire into the Shiite enclave after militiamen fired on it from the ground, residents said.

[46zilzal]

still, after all that has been exposed, STILL these clowns are trying to make a case for that STUPID unnecessary war.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1562867,00.html

[JustRalph]

you want to go around calling people clowns? I think you miss the point. I am calling for a war nothing like you see in Iraq. One that is much more savage and brutal. One that doesn't care about what the papers write. One that gets the job done. One that actually does shock and awe the enemy and If you can't understand that............you are the clown.

Bush and Cheney have sat on their hands too long and now it is a full blown civil war. Congrats to the U.S. media and they rest of the anti-american pawns who handcuffed our military and our leaders for three staight years. You got what you wanted. Once again the U.S. is exposed as a paper tiger. The problem being the paper is made up of Editorials from pussy publishers and left wing bloggers. You got your election, you got your say for years........and you allowed this to happen.

[lsbets]

you want to go around calling people clowns? I think you miss the point. I am calling for a war nothing like you see in Iraq. One that is much more savage and brutal. One that doesn't care about what the papers write. One that gets the job done. One that actually does shock and awe the enemy and If you can't understand that............you are the clown.

Bush and Cheney have sat on their hands too long and now it is a full blown civil war. Congrats to the U.S. media and they rest of the anti-american pawns who handcuffed our military and our leaders for three staight years. You got what you wanted. Once again the U.S. is exposed as a paper tiger. The problem being the paper is made up of Editorials from pussy publishers and left wing bloggers. You got your election, you got your say for years........and you allowed this to happen.

Dead on Ralph - which is why I say fight it right or leave tomorrow.

[Tom]

The turning point, I think, was in 2004 whe nwe failed to take out Falluja. We knew the leadership of the insurrgency/terroists werre there, we knew it was the center of the kidnapping and beheadings, and we should have relentlessly attacked the city - destroyed every building in it. We shoud have lit 'er up like dresden. THAT is how you fight a war. From the get go, when we were more concerned about hurting a mosque than taking out the snipers inside, I thought we were being stupid. We neve smartened up.
Finish it now - with all out war, or get out now, with all out abandon.
This will almost certainly ensure 9-11 part deux. We will deserve it, and maybe this time it will sink in.

[46zilzal]

handcuffed the military? I am laughing out loud about that fantasy.

[46zilzal]

good books need P.R.

[Steve 'StatMan']

handcuffed the military? I am laughing out loud about that fantasy.

Pick what ever term you want, but I agree with Ralph! And LSBets!

We fought the war in a politically correct style, to not take over and conquer the people of Iraq nor to steal their oil. We didn't go in intending to rule over them, and worked in an attempt to let all Iraqi's have a voice.

Of course, among nobody really wants war, but there are those like yourself where no war is acceptable - so to many of your lifeminded kin, our mere being their in a war/military effort was politically incorrect. Your type could never be won over anyway, so why did we even try holding back to appease your types back here in the U.S.? It just held us back from success.

Coupled with the main flaw that had been merely held in check for years - the brutal hatred of militant Sunnis and Shiites - whose severe violence for the sole purpose of harming other Iraqi's has all but taken away any voice that the overall people of Iraq would have gained. The people together must all choose to live together and rule each other together, or their new democracy will not hold.

Therefore, the politically correct/nice guy approach - trying to bring together all voices in Iraq for the good of Iraq had so far failed, due to so many violent and distructful people who refuse to get along with each other.

With the standing orders, we're not allowed to get deeply involved. Threrefore, unless the root cause of the problem is solved, it will not work.

Can't let either evil faction get control of Iraq and the oil wealth.

Therefore, it may very well time to take the handcuffs off, shove aside the crying Nellies like yourself, 46, and take over complete charge in Iraq, and to paraphrase the joke from a few weeks back, play Cowboys and Iraqi's (and Iranians, and Syrians, and anyone else dying for some whoop-ass). Time to crush them so bad until they isn't anyone wanting to fight anymore. They decried us as imperialists? They haven't even seen us be imperalistic yet.

Iraq could have been peaceful over 2 years ago, if these militant groups would have aggreed to give up arms and work together. I posted that in this forum a long time ago. So, if they don't want to stop fighting each other, then it's time to wipe as many as it takes off the face of the earth until they decide they don't want to fight anymore.

Ugly, yes. Ugly problems take ugly solutions. We gave Sadam the choice, peaceful or ugly. He chose ugly. The factional militias and foreign fighters have had a choice for 2-3 years now. They haven't chosen the peaceful way, and too many of the evil ones have appearently permeated the military and the police over there. So, peaceful solution proven rejected and impossible, it is likely time for the ugly one.

I wish it weren't so, but we can't be willing to let the wrong/worst end results happen in Iraq. Maybe the left-over, peaceful, Iraqi's, will make a great 51st state in the long run.

[luv_america]

46, do you hate the US?

[46zilzal]

here look at this.
http://www.devilducky.com/media/44421/

[JustRalph]

here look at this.
http://www.devilducky.com/media/44421/

why don't you post it in ten more threads............ take your hand off the keyboard and put it back in your pants............

[46zilzal]

to the tune of Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys.


Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran,
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!
Let's take a stand and Bomb Iran!
They're Evil-doers yes it's true, there's nothin' left to do,
But Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!

Went to Iraq, caught lotsa flack,
No turnin' back so while we're there let's just attack,
And Bomb Iran! Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!
They're a threat to me and you, there's nothin' left to do,
But Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!

Troops will have to see, a tour of duty 3,
They may get the shaft and you know we'll have to draft,
To Bomb Iran! Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!
They got the nukes you know it's true, there's nothin' left to do,
But Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!

Bombed Afghanistan, but gave up the Taliban,
Hey at least this rhymes with "stan" and that's enough to make a plan
To Bomb Iran! Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!
You're a commie if you doubt and my time is running out,
To Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!

[Secretariat]

Dead on Ralph - which is why I say fight it right or leave tomorrow.

Then you are advocating for an immediate withdrawal tomorrow? You really do not honestly beleive there is going to be an escalation do you?

[JustRalph]

You really do not honestly beleive there is going to be an escalation do you?

Pelosi and the Gang don't control the military.............you never know.....

[lsbets]

Then you are advocating for an immediate withdrawal tomorrow? You really do not honestly beleive there is going to be an escalation do you?

If we are not going to do what is neccessary to fight this war and win, than yes, I say bring everyone home today. Phased withdrawl is a bullshit idea that will only prolong our soldiers getting killed as we crawl away to defeat. Our national leaders (on both sides) don't have the stomach to allow our military to do what has to be done. Unless they change their minds (which I don't think they will), than we need to say f$#k it, we are a nation of wimps (outside of the military), tell the world we don't have the stomach for war and bring everyone home. The politicians who run our country are more concerned about their political advantages than committing to the action they have sent us off to fight, so it is time to get out. One thing I am very concerned about is a mass exodus of officers and NCOs from our ranks because they are fed up with all the political BS. I know a lot of guys who are resigning their commissions, not because they don't think this war is winnable or worth it, but because of the actions of our political leaders. Captains and Majors who are decorated combat veterans, and sit at the top of the heap. What will be left are the careerist hangers on, the guys you don't want leading an assault on Fallujah, and they will be the generals of tomorrow because the ones who have borne the brunt of the disaster that is our government are getting out. The folks in DC have set us on a course that could ruin our military for a generation - and by folks in DC I mean not only Bush, Frist, and Hastert, but Pelosi, Murtha, Durbin, and Reid. Not one of those people is worthy of the responsibilities they have been given.

[luv_america]

The BIG problem with "cut and run" are the ramifications inside the US after our enemies (yes, we have enemies) recognize as Bin Laden said, we are a nation of cowards. What do we do then if its open game on the US.

As much as you libs don't like war, war has been a deterrent for further hostile activity inside the US. Certainly you cannot provide it otherwise. A terrorist only undertands the barrel of a gun, unless faced with that they will press on with their jihad.

After we leave Iraq, what do we do? Nothing? Wait? What if we get hit again? Do we attack, then cut and run again?

[lsbets]

Luv - i'm trying to figure this out - are you responding to me or Sec?

[luv_america]

Sec. You and I agree.

[Secretariat]

Sec. You and I agree.

luv,

Then since Isbets and you agree you also beleive that the poltical leaders in Washington don't have the stomach for it and also advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

I was in favor of a phased withdrawal, but since Isbets beleives that would put troops in more danger than I'll revisit my thinking on that one, and agree wtih him that an immediate withdrawal may be a better course.

Luv, your contention that somehow this weakens us is the exact opposite effect that I beleive will occur. I beleive it takes a big guy to admit we made mistakes and move on to fighting the leaders of those who attacked us on 911. No one is saying we will not continue to help fund the Iraqis to rebuild their infrastructure, but it is the responsibilty of the Iraqi people to address their current civil war with thier own arms and blood. If their are no WMD's and Hussein is to be executed in January, then that imagined threat to the US is gone. If GW states Mission Accomplished and we've had what almost four years since that time, (this is a little shorter), but was the time we were withdrawing from Japan after devastating the country with nuclear bombs and one of the most devastating firebomb attacks on Tokyo that has ever been done.

My position has changed for those who think it can't. To one of not going into Iraq, to one of getting us out of Iraq with some financial support to help rebuild their infrastructure, and now getting back to chasing Bin Laden and Zawahari and Omar - remember those guys? I don't see this as the slogan "cut and run" but getting back to the real mission of 911, and avenging those killed in those towers on 911. The world was with us in that mission. It cannot understand the Iraq one. No one is saying here just give up the war agaisnt Al Queda, but saying to get past mid-east nation building exercises in Iraq and get on with getting those responsible for 911.

[luv_america]

This is great!!

I beleive it takes a big guy to admit we made mistakes and move on to fighting the leaders of those who attacked us on 911.

How do you think thee moles hiding in caves will take that admission? Maybe they'll say to themselves, "The US means us no harm, lets go on a do a jihad without them, we'll go fight somewhere else."

The major disconnection is that many of us in the US don't take the fact seriously that foreign fighters have successfully inflamed tribal issues in Iraq so that we will cut and run and leave the country to them. The civil war will stop in Iraq almost as soon as we wag our political tails behind our ears and leave like chicken s**ts. Almost certainly the terrorist proxies that are fighting there for Iran and Al Queda will begin to assert their intentions and take over the place.

We can cut and run all we want, but will be back there in no less than 12 months, guaranteed.

This war on terror is not just about Bin Laden and his band of lunatics, its much broader than that. If we only had to worry about Bin Laden this thing would be a whole lot easier. If he isn't already dead, he's certainly holed up in a cave somehwere afraid to show the light of day. He's been neutralized for a long time. Its convinient for you guys who detest war at any cost to want top turn this into a police action to get two guys.

You have to seriously ask yourself, if we got Bin Laden tomorrow and cut his throad with a rusty cerraded knife to death, would it change a thing in the Middle East?

Cut and running prolongs the fight there, and certainly insures more US deaths when we have to go back there to fight the Iranians and jihadists who will be emboldened by US cowardice. This of course assumes that you Israel hating guys will support the defense of Israel whicl almost certainly will be vulnerable.

Look at the big picture. Many will die when we cut and run. Many.

[Tom]

why don't you post it in ten more threads............ take your hand off the keyboard and put it back in your pants............

Then change your name to 47.......:lol:

[JPinMaryland]

More posturing about what people think should be done and yet no one has said what a succesful end result will look like.

[Tom]

The BIG problem with "cut and run" are the ramifications inside the US after our enemies (yes, we have enemies) recognize as Bin Laden said, we are a nation of cowards. What do we do then if its open game on the US.

As much as you libs don't like war, war has been a deterrent for further hostile activity inside the US. Certainly you cannot provide it otherwise. A terrorist only undertands the barrel of a gun, unless faced with that they will press on with their jihad.

After we leave Iraq, what do we do? Nothing? Wait? What if we get hit again? Do we attack, then cut and run again?

Thank Sec and his kind for portraying that coward image.
Your post reminds me of the Indiana Jone movie, where that big muslem guys comes out, two huge swards, and he screams and waves the swords all around. Indy looks at him, rolls his eyes, and pulls out his gun and blasts him back to allah. THAT is how you negotiate with mulsems. :lol:

[46zilzal]

More posturing about what people think should be done and yet no one has said what a succesful end result will look like.
never should have been there in the first place

[PaceAdvantage]

Posts #50 and #62 deserve applause.

[46zilzal]

Posts #50 and #62 deserve applause.
of course they do to your mind's eye. They fit right in with the adminstration's "vision" that God told the rutabaga.

[lsbets]

I say Bush isn't worthy of the responsibility he'sbeen given and you say that fits right in with his vision? :confused:

[Indulto]

to the tune of Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys.

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran,
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb... Let's Bomb Iran!
Let's take a stand and Bomb Iran! ...46,
While I truly admire your creativity, you have forever impacted my ability to enjoy one of my favorite tunes which BTW was not written by the Beach Boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ann)
"Barbara Ann" is a song written by Fred Fassert and performed by The Regents in 1961. The most famous cover version is by the American pop band The Beach Boys. The song was released as a single on December 20, 1965, with the B-side "Girl Don't Tell Me". The song peaked at #2 in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and at #3 in the U.K. The song was also released on the 1965 album Beach Boys' Party!. Brian Wilson and Dean Torrence, who had previously recorded the song as one half of Jan and Dean, are featured on lead vocals. Dean is not credited on the album jacket but "Thanks, Dean" is said by Carl at the end of the track.

[46zilzal]

never said they wrote it. Just had a popular version of it, that's all.

[DJofSD]

Let's see what you can do with this song. (http://www.keno.org/stones_lyrics/street_fighting_man.htm)

Need a little help? Here's some background from Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fighting_Man) And the man who's the inspiration. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ali) Is it relevant to today?

[Secretariat]

"We can cut and run all we want, but will be back there in no less than 12 months, guaranteed. "

And I guarantee we won't be. We'll be on the border of Afghansitan-Pakistan going after the true culprits behind 911, not fighting a civil war with insurgents in Iraq.

I think it's noble to want to fight in Iraq to prop up a a government that apparently is incapable of defending itself, but it's simply not worth the cost.

This war on terror is not just about Bin Laden and his band of lunatics, its much broader than that.

And here is where the big difference lies in our viwepoint. This war on terror is exactly about Bin Laden and the attack on 911. When the term war on terror was adopted, most people beleived it was about vengeance for those who attacked the world trade centers and the pentagon, not a fantasy that terror could be wiped out for all time everywhere.

You have to seriously ask yourself, if we got Bin Laden tomorrow and cut his throad with a rusty cerraded knife to death, would it change a thing in the Middle East?

I have asked that question, and my answer is simple. It would help avenge the deaths of those who perished on 911. It would say to the world that those who attack our soil will be sought out and they will be dealt with. It will show that our resolve is unified when we are dealing with those who attack us on our soil. Will it change the Middle East? Somewhat, but until the Palestininan situation is resolved we aren't even close. If you think fighting perpetually in Iraq is going to change a thing in the Mid-east then you are correct, as terorism thoughtout the region has expanded since our invasion, and Iran has become much more emboldened.

YThis of course assumes that you Israel hating guys will support the defense of Israel whicl almost certainly will be vulnerable.

Look at the big picture. Many will die when we cut and run. Many.

Many have already died and are doing so daily.

I must take issue with this constant whining about Israel hating guys tirade you keep barking about. I do not hate Israel, quite the contrary, however, as the biggest recipient of American Foregin Aid, and as the nubmer two lobby in the US Congress, and the Army with the most sophisticated techology in the mid-east and possible with WMD's, they msut be held accountable for their actions, and the Palestinian situation is a critical situation there. So get off the anti-Semite Israel hating spew when people here simply ask for them to be accountable for their actions. We ask our own government to be accountable, why should we not hold a foregin government accountable as well?

[NoDayJob]

No war was ever complete without total victory, and as General Douglas McArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory." E.G., WWI, Korea, Viet Nam, 1st Gulf War, etc., vs. WWII.

[luv_america]

And here is where the big difference lies in our viwepoint. This war on terror is exactly about Bin Laden and the attack on 911. When the term war on terror was adopted, most people beleived it was about vengeance for those who attacked the world trade centers and the pentagon, not a fantasy that terror could be wiped out for all time everywhere.

So you get Bin Laden and then what happens? Is terrorism over? What happens to Iraq? and Iran? and to global Jihadism? Do we just hope everything turns out OK, or is the plan to get Bin Laden and then se what develops?

Yes, NDJ, no wars ever end until there is a clear victor. History teaches us that over and over. This cut and run thing frightens me to no end. I think it'll be fine for a while to all hell breaks loose worse than we have now. This is the end of Act 1. The curtains close when we leave Iraq.

[Tom]

WWII came because we failed to finish WWI.
The cold war came because we failed to finish WWII.
The Iraq ware came because we didn't finish the Gulf War.
The civil war is happening becaseu we failed to take out Sadr when we had him.
We have got to start killing our eneny when we have the chance.
We have got to unleash hell on earth.

[hcap]

All along from the lead up to the war to the occupation-yes it is an occupation- the proponants of the war, and the very vocal supporters on this board have been dead wrong.

Why should we now accept strategies and tactics from those very same poor real world life and death handicappers?

All the justifications for invading Iraq have proved faulty. Even capturing Hussein accomplished no great advancement towards one of the later glorified and trumpeted justifications-the great "Democracy Project"

The neo-con democratisation project? Francis Fukuyama, ex neocon writes that the

...disgraceful failure of the war party around Cheney and Rumsfeld ‘to think through the requirements of post-conflict security and nation-building’ reveals the emptiness of their feigned interest in the fate of post-Saddam Iraq.

The shortsightness of the understanding the aftermath and thinking in primarily militaristic terms has led us to were we are today. And Ralph, Ls, Tom and the others who chearleadered us into war, want us to use the same "win on the battlefield only" approach. Sorry guys this only will work if we completely and totally destroy our real and perceived enemies, future as well as present.

So I guess when Tom suggests we nuke Fallujah, and everyone of the same mentality chimes in in agreement, maybe you all do accept nuclear anhilation as a foreign policy.

Here's Ralph hcap, like I said before. We haven't tried it my way yet. Go back and read.

.... I am calling for a war nothing like you see in Iraq. One that is much more savage and brutal. One that doesn't care about what the papers write. One that gets the job done.

One that actually does shock and awe the enemy

..BTW, all you guys who don't like my scenario for Iran, let's just try it my way for once? You see,,,,,,,,,,, we never have done it

my way. We always pussyfoot around ........... I am up for a little imperialism........I can go back and quote many others calling for indescriminate killings. No need, you all know who you are.

Meanwhile I and others who have protested the war, the disastrous foreign policy in general and were many times more right in prognosticating the outcomes are still called traitors and supporters of terrorism. Attempts have been made to marginalize our views for the last 3 or four years. When we were in the minority, we were ostracized by the "bushmen". Now we are the in the majority out in there in the American mind, and we are still called traitors.

Back in 03-31-2003,
http://paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5243&page=4&pp=15&highlight=respect

I said thisEveryone on this board knows I think this is is an unjust war and we are igniting a powder keg in the Muslim world. And I guess you also know my feelings about dubya and his "advisors"

I am very concerned that what may seem only a miscalculation now, does not turn out more serious. I am primarily worried about street fighting in Baghdad as I indicated.

...I posted in the democratic power gone mad thread
" Guerilla warfare is "asymetrical" and if he watched Black Hawk Down he picked up some pointers."

.."We learned," Donvan reported, "that just because the townsfolk don't like Saddam, it doesn't mean they like the Americans trying to take him out....They were angry at America, and said US forces had shot at people in the town. They were also angry because they needed food, water and medicine and the aid promised by President Bush had not appeared....They asked us why the United States was taking over Iraq, and whether the Americans would stay in Iraq for ever. They saw the US-led invasion as a takeover, not liberation."

Is this the way all Iraqis feel? Maybe not, but if we are doing house to house fighting in Baghdad, a city of 5 million, and only 1% decide to be guerrillas, 50,000 snipers will be gunning for us.

Eventually we would win, but at what cost?


...I don't want to jinx our effort.

So out of respect for our guys fighting a tough war, I will refrain from posting more of my fears, at least until we get some good news. I still think we face an even rougher "occupation" after the shooting stops. But as I say out of respect for our guys and also respect for every one else on this board who disagrees with me I will wait and see.
I hope I am wrong and maybe every one else is right. Or Left(ty).

But I will continue to watch what's going on. But it won't be Fox or Rush, I'll be following!Recently I quoted from an article by an angry Bob Cesca telling various republicans to Shut the F**k Up.
Ok you don't have to STFU, but at least aknowledge that I and others are not traitors or supporters of terrorism. When I am told I in fact "aided and abetted" the terrorists, after we were right in many ways all along, and youse guys were wrong-STFU-certainly comes to mind. Anger is not always appropriate, but sometimes being called a traitor and worse, does not make me wanta hand out flowers or sing kumbya with those that accuse unjustly.
http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW112206.jpg

[lsbets]

Hcap - you want to tell me to STFU go right ahead - I didn't chealead crap - I went for 13 months. Lived it. Saw firsthand what was happenning, which at the time was nothing near what you believed, but once our military was handcuffed because of political decisions and we were not allowed to do what was needed to finish this thing, the war in some parts of Iraq started turning the way you hoped. Even to this day you have very little understanding of what is happenning there, despite your delusions of grandeur when it comes to knowledge of Iraq. So, if you want to tell me to STFU, go right ahead. I just wish that your kind would have STFU 3 years ago so that Bush wouldn't have been too much of a puss to worry about the political ramifications of fighting a war the right way. I blame Bush for being a wimp and your kind for trumpetting every bullshit report and piece of bad news in the hopes of making him look bad, regardless of the result on our policy and its effect on the guys fighting the war on the ground. So tell me to STFU, I'll tell you to shove that sanctimonious tone of yours where the sun don't shine, and if you don't want to shove it, I'll be more than happy to.

[DJofSD]

after we were right in many ways all along, and youse guys were wrong

And isn't that what it all comes down to?

The endless debate about who's side is right and the thumping of chests? Does it put money in your pocket, food in your children's stomach? I don't think so.

[luv_america]

Wasn't the point all along for CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Michael Moore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, MoveOn,.org, Air America and many, many others to politically oppose a criticize every aspect of this war as to wear down the administrations political will to fight it. Not for a moment do I believe that any of the above wanted us to win the war. Like Sec and others have said on this board about the draft, if we put that in, it impairs our political will to wage war.

Now those who dissent (because its patriotic which is BS), have what you wanted. With all the scandals, Haliburton, Rumsfeld, Abu Grahib, Gitmo, and thousands of mini-scandals, the US Military is reduced to an Oscar Meyer Turkey Weenie (not even beef). Congrats, you won!! You got what you wanted, a civil war, and our will to wage war impaired politically maybe forever.

This may be the last time in my lifetime that I see a President do something like this because he thinks its right, not because the people or the polls tell him to do it. I for one shudder to think about the concequences this all puts on us and our children for the future. But, that all doesn't matter now because the Democrats are running things again.

Tom's post says it all. We'll be back in Iraq, and next time it will be because something more materially significant like the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. I fear that the most. We haven't seen the rest of this enemy from within yet, and the Democrats are their enablers and collaborators.

[Tom]

luv, we can only hopoe who gets on the list of thenext attack. a little of 50% of the next group of victims will be getting what THEY voted for. Don't look to me for sympathy. Whatever the terrorist do to us from now on, it will be only half as bad as it would a have been.

[Secretariat]

We have got to unleash hell on earth.

I couldn't disagree more. We've had enough hell.

[Secretariat]

Like Sec and others have said on this board about the draft, if we put that in, it impairs our political will to wage war.

Let's just add the correct word at the end of that sentence....indiscriminately.

Now those who dissent (because its patriotic which is BS), have what you wanted. With all the scandals, Haliburton, Rumsfeld, Abu Grahib, Gitmo, and thousands of mini-scandals, the US Military is reduced to an Oscar Meyer Turkey Weenie (not even beef). Congrats, you won!! You got what you wanted, a civil war, and our will to wage war impaired politically maybe forever.

Yes, luv...the entire Iraqi Civil War is the fault of us who wanted to finish the job against Bin Laden. Despite the Republican control of the executive and both houses of Congress and a conservative court, somehow the people who wanted to get Bin Laden caused the Iraqi insurgency. Keep telling yourself that.

Tom's post says it all. We'll be back in Iraq, and next time it will be because something more materially significant like the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. I fear that the most. We haven't seen the rest of this enemy from within yet, and the Democrats are their enablers and collaborators.

Can you name one time in the history of America when Iraqis have attacked us on US soil?

See luv, I actually see you as the enabler and emboldener. you've weakened our prestige, our military might and allowed rogues nations like Iran to gain more power while stretching us thin in a flawed and failed Iraqi war that has cost us much blood and money. You, my friend, and your collaborators are the enablers of Iran. I'd much rather be going after Bin Laden in Afghansitan with the world behind us, and having the fear of that ability to strike into the heart of Iranian leaders. Now, we've got a land of Shite from Syria to Iran. Congratualtions may go to you and your collaborators as you say - well done. You've won.

I apologize for using your derisive style of writing. I realize it is offensive to read, but thought you might appreciate a taste of it since you use it all the time.

[hcap]

luv_america Wasn't the point all along for CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Michael Moore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, MoveOn,.org, Air America and many, many others to politically oppose a criticize every aspect of this war as to wear down the administrations political will to fight it. Not for a moment do I believe that any of the above wanted us to win the war. Like Sec and others have said on this board about the draft, if we put that in, it impairs our political will to wage war. Wear down the administrations political will to fight it? Sec just pointed out the repugs controlled all branches of government. After 911 bush's approval ratings approached the 90's. He had a mandate to invade Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden.

All time high in political will and support. Wha' happenned to your man's convincing leadership role during the Iraq war? Could it be maybe he and the republican controled congress commenced failure upon failure shortly thereafter? So blatant that that now 65% of the public disagrees with the Iraq policy and in fact threw out the perpertrators

All of you are rats deserting the ship. Like the neocons who are ultimitely responsible. You all got it wrong. Blame the press? And those who dissented as tying your hands and preventing the real ass whacking that shoulda- coulda been? You had your chance. Nobody tied your hands.

And now your telling us bomb Iran. And you say Now those who dissent (because its patriotic which is BS), have what you wanted.
You have no right to question my patriotism. Keep saying it and I will keep saying STFU!

Ls I just wish that your kind would have STFU 3 years ago so that Bush wouldn't have been too much of a puss to worry about the political ramifications of fighting a war the right way. I blame Bush for being a wimp and your kind for trumpetting every bullshit report and piece of bad news in the hopes of making him look bad, regardless of the result on our policy and its effect on the guys fighting the war on the ground. So tell me to STFU, I'll tell you to shove that sanctimonious tone of yours where the sun don't shine, and if you don't want to shove it, I'll be more than happy to.
You have been wrong along. Grow up and admit it. But I guess as youse rats jump ship you're to busy squeeling 'bout how your chief rat and all rats around him betrayed you and the rest of the innocent rats. You are not innocent. Not you, Ralph, Tom or the others who are squeeling the loudest. Squeeling while playing out your own global delusions of grandeur, hubris and mock indignation. After all how could anyone even question your failed policies?

Don't insult me by telling me bad news is not the overwhelming reality in Iraq.
Heartwarming stories and good deeds by individuals as admirable as they are, do not justify the worst foreign policy adventure in my lifetime. You're the voice of sanctimony. Stop bitching bout how I and others have undermined "the war effort".

You expect me to buy your take on Iran?

"Ok, Ok, I had the winner but the jock stiffed him..." is getting a bit old.
And you want me to put my money on your next pick after 10 or so "stiffing" stories?

Remember WMD's? Ties to Al Quada? Mushroom clouds?
All dead horses and loosers.
Your days as glorified touts have ended.

[PaceAdvantage]

Remember WMD's? Ties to Al Quada? Mushroom clouds?
All dead horses and loosers.
Your days as glorified touts have ended.

Unfortunately, the days of America's destruction as a world power have only just begun, thanks in part to those that think as you do.

I hope that, once again (according to you) I am wrong in my assessment.

[Tom]

Yeah, Sec and hcap have solutions for everything - surrender and become vichy stoolies for the enemy.

[DJofSD]

Their solution of 'cut and run' is only half of a plan.

They're forgetting the second half. It's called BOHICA -- bend over, here it comes again!

[lsbets]

So now Hcap wants to call me a rat. He wants to claim that the reality seen by those who have been on the ground is nothing compared to what he learns from Juan Cole and Cindy Sheehan. Don't insult you? Every word out of your smarmy little mouth is an insult to anyone who does not buy into your delusions about world affairs. I can assure you Hcap you know very little of what is taking place in Iraq beyond what you read in the headlines. You know nothing of the complexities faced by those on the ground every day. There have been those on this board who have e-mailed and PM'd me expressing frustration that I won't discuss the war on this board anymore from the perspective of someone who spent 13 months there and talks to folks there on a daily basis. My response has been the same - I won't do it here because it is not worth it to me to put up with the endless string of insults that follows any attempt at bringing some perspective to what is happening in Iraq. An endless string of insults normally started by you. You are more interested in conformity with your views than learning whatever the truth maybe, which is a hell of a lot more complex than good vs. bad. One question I have for you Hcap - how would those like you take care of yourselves once guys like me decide we won't do it anymore? Cause I'll tell you, I am really leaning in the direction that you ain't worth it, and it saddens me to no end to say that.

[Tom]

ls, I put him on IGGY a long time ago. This troll has zero to offer and the sum total of all his posts since he got can be summed up in two words. Bullshit.

My suggestion,everyone with a brain ignore him and nobody respond to him. And 46, and SEc, and Ljb who collectivley have instituionalized virtual nonsense.

[hcap]

Ls, you are like a rat jumping a sinking ship. Not only you but most of the neocons who have disavowed their plan for re making the ME.
It didn't work.

Not only Iraq, but the entire context in which the invasion was done and JUSTIFIED.

Whatever specific knowledge you have on the ground, on the battlefield, is not knowledge that necessarily explains the failure of larger grandiose plans developed by bush and pals and enabled by the republican controlled congress. You can tell me all you want about failures on the ground, but you can not explain your handcuffing theory. You guys did what you wanted when you wanted. Are you telling me we should have nuked Fallujah? Is that removing the handcuffs.

Well I have a feeling handcuffs will be snapping around some of the liars who led us to war and destroiyed our foreign polcy BTW, I will take Juan Coles take over yours any day. He has been right you have been wrong.

Tom Yeah, Sec and hcap have solutions for everything - surrender and become vichy stoolies for the enemy.Ad Hitleritum

Gee not only is bush the winner of WWII, all terra-lovin hippies are slimy weasly stinkin' french. No one wit a brain wants to be a hippie traitor, let alone french!!

And when we get tired of bush churchill lofty analogies?
How'bout we cut to da chase and do

Ad LindaBlairitum a new logical fallacy.

Definition: The use of the movie The Exorcist, and the actress ( Linda Blair ) who was possesed by the devil.

A shortcut to reason by comparing good vs evil to the perceived "grand struggle", most easily read into any conflict. Especially by those that sit at the first row at the movies and are easily impressed.

[lsbets]

Ah, the ever mature Hcap. "You're a rat, you're a rat". You sound less intelligent without the cartoons. Seriously dude, you don't have a clue about the subtelties and complexities of Iraq. Take Juan, and beg him for help when your fantasies turn to nightmares, cause you won't have mine next time.

[46zilzal]

from TIME magazine:"In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture--who became career members of the military during those rough times--the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again."

[hcap]

Never heard the story bout rats deserting a sinking ship?
Take it as personal as you want. But you have dissavowed big time
Do I have to explain, or should I dig up a cartoon?

You and the other gung hoer folks have abandoned your deer leeduur, saying someone tied him up, and cause of that he couldn't shock and awe with all his might. So tell me should we have nuked Fallujah? Where did we go wrong? Not enough collateral damage? 600,000 innocents destroyed not enough?

Deer leedur has already turned a difficult situation into a nightmare.
Your protection was misplaced. I didn't beg you to fight for me in Iraq.
That was your decision.

Not in my name, and not this war.

[lsbets]

And even in your last post you reveal your complete ignorance about what has happenned during this war - repeating one of the latest in a long line of lies and myths about civilian casualties, a tale only bought by those least capable of thinking and analyzing. Nuke Fallujah? How about go in there and take care of business? I was there when we were told to pull back, nuking wouldn't have been neccessary, just the will to win.

[Tom]

But the nuke would have been a nice touch........:eek:

[46zilzal]

But the nuke would have been a nice touch.......
Killing thousands directly and probably millions with fall out.

what a nice touch.

[hcap]

The Lancet study was accurate.
Do you believe Rummy instead
You are in denial. Next tell me that Iraq is safer than Philadelphia

[lsbets]

The Lancet study was accurate.
Do you believe Rummy instead
You are in denial. Next tell me that Iraq is safer than Philadelphia

Denial? RUmsfeld? Who cares. How about a little bit of scrutiny instead of believing everything you hear because you want it to be true. Let's take a look at the Lancet numbers. I'll make it very basic and simple for you:

600,000 killed

The war has been going on since April of 2003. The report came out in October, correct? So that would be 3 years and 6 months. Please correct me if I am wrong.

600,000/42 months = 14285.714 killed per month

Lets go with 30 day months as a round number for days:

That would be 1260 days

600,000/1260 days = 476.19 killed per day

Here is the CNN snippet about the worst month yet for civilian deaths since the war started:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgent attacks in Iraq killed 3,709 civilians last month, making October the deadliest month since the war began in 2003, according to U.N. figures.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/22/iraq.report/index.html

That is more than 10,000 per month less than the Lancet study.

Now lets look at the daily totals:

Bloodiest day in Iraq since US-led invasion

A series of apparently coordinated car bomb attacks have killed more than 140 people in the Iraqi capital Baghdad in one of the most deadly days since the US-led invasion. More than 200 people have been wounded. The blasts went off in the Shi'ite neighbourhood of Sadr City, devastating a crowded market and several streets.


http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=392410&lng=1

140 on the worst day, not close to the average daily number based on Lancet.

Does Lancet also do studies on record sized perch?

[46zilzal]

REPORTED

[Tom]

The power of math! :lol:

Hcap should try flash cards. 5 + 4 = 17 :jump:

Hcap, you post such ridiculous bull, don't you have any shame man? You enjoy exposing yourself to the world as a fool week after week?

Here's a thought - maybe YOU should STFU - you continue to bad mouth our troops, our contry, by spreading lies - outright lies, you are the lowest of the low here.

[Tom]

REPORTED

c-

Where's the noun? I assume this was used as a verb, or was it an adverb?
Who reported what?
Or are you trying to catch me in total posts by posting one wrod at a time?:lol:

[46zilzal]

REPORTED DEATHS does not necessarily mean ACTUAL numbers of deaths....particularly in the chaos of a war zone.

[JustRalph]

REPORTED DEATHS does not necessarily mean ACTUAL numbers of deaths....particularly in the chaos of a war zone.

where I come from that's called a lie. It is in the DNA of the left. Exaggerate to make their point. Status quo

[Tom]

Can you believe this outright bullshit they are calling facts? :lol::lol:

Reported is a word he must use on his patients' charts frequentyl! :eek:

[PaceAdvantage]

REPORTED DEATHS does not necessarily mean ACTUAL numbers of deaths....particularly in the chaos of a war zone.

So you have, in your possession, data which is more accurate than that which is reported? You have ACTUAL numbers at your disposal? Where did you get them from?

How do you know they are accurate?

[PaceAdvantage]

Isn't it sad that the 2000 election is the cause for all of this undermining by the left? They made it their life's goal from 2000-on to screw this President, whom they considered "unelected."

They highlighted every single negative instance (no matter how insignificant) with the full force of a blinding media spotlight.

It's all led up to this point, and we're once again staring down the very real prospects of another embarrassing (and very DANGEROUS) Vietnam-type withdrawal.

Makes me want to throw up....I can only imagine how lsbets feels when he reads this bullshit.

The left is right about one thing. War should most definitely be a TOTAL LAST RESORT, if only because the US isn't allowed to fight one anymore.

[44PACE]

Whatever is meant to happen will happen. The future has already been written, we just have not read the script.

[hcap]

Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts....

"Our estimate of 600,000 Iraqi deaths is far greater than most attempts to measure mortality in Iraq. Last December, President Bush stated that 30,000 "more or less" had died. The president's estimate roughly matched the estimates of Iraq Body Count, which derives its total by monitoring newspaper reports of violent deaths. Today, IBC estimates there have been 45,000 to 50,000 violent deaths. The Brookings Institution has a somewhat higher estimate, suggesting the number of deaths to be about 65,000. Both systems rely on information that can either be observed in press reports or from Iraqi governmental institutions. Our basic approach of interviewing randomly picked clusters of households is the standard way of measuring mortality in times of war. It was how U.S. government researchers estimated death rates during the war in Kosovo and recently in Afghanistan, and it is how the United Nations estimates death rates in dozens of nations annually."


Cluster analysis is a statistical correct approach. Whether 392,979, minumum or maximum 942,636, died the numbers are not the REPORTED numbers-for good resons.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/44459/

"The study uses a "cluster sampling" methodology that is commonly used in health and mortality research, especially in places hit by war or other humanitarian disasters such as floods or earthquakes. The methodology is somewhat less precise — but more cost-effective and practical — than simple random sampling, in which individual members of the population being studied are selected and interviewed at random. Rather than individuals, researchers interview randomly-selected clusters of individuals and use standard statistical techniques to reach conclusions about the entire population. As Daniel Engber explains in Slate magazine, "It's the same basic method used for political polls in America, which estimate the attitudes of millions of people by surveying 1,000 adults.

...A survey of this type, in which researchers go out and methodically sample the population being studied, is called "active surveillance" as opposed to "passive surveillance," which relies on information collected by external sources such as government or news reports. Passive surveillance generally tends to produce unrealistically low estimates, because they miss cases in which someone has died but the death has simply gone reported. Consider, for example, the difference between the results that you would get if you attempted to estimate the health impact of tobacco smoking using passive rather than active surveillance. Epidemiologists have repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated that tobacco smoking causes several hundred thousand deaths per year in the United States, but individual cases of smoking-related death are rarely reported as such in newspapers, so you would get a much lower number if you attempted to compile statistics based on newspaper reports alone."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1013/p01s04-woiq.html

"But why are the number of Iraqi deaths so difficult to pin down? The short answer is that much of the country is too dangerous for researchers or government officials to travel in search of accurate statistics. The best tally would come from counting every death certificate issued in the country in the three years before and three years since the invasion. But there is no central reporting mechanism for this in the country.

So instead, the researchers, backed up by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, relied on the same polling methodology that is used to measure voter preferences or what their favorite TV shows are.

"I loved when President Bush said 'their methodology has been pretty well discredited,' " says Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report. "That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it."

...The survey relied on face to face questions carried out by Iraqi researchers with members of 2,000 Iraqi families, geographically distributed to best reflect Iraq's demographics. The authors extrapolated from this number that the mortality rate per 1,000 Iraqis was 5.5 in the years immediately before the invasion, and has averaged 13.3 since. That yielded the number of 601,000 murdered and an additional 54,000 who have died of natural causes, likely due to the declining quality of healthcare."

[JustRalph]

clear as mud............. :lol:

[hcap]

Ls, Ralph, Tom and others use the argument that victory on the battlefield is applicable to victory of ideas.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/11/00_gard-johns_there-are-risks-if-the-us-withdraws.htm
"The war against extremists cannot be won primarily through the use of force—it is foremost a war of ideas. We are losing that war and our Iraqi policy is one of the contributors to that condition."If only we un-handcuffed the military and regained the "will to win" our main goal of transforming the ME and teaching the Muslems a lesson will result in winning the larger war, and making us safer.

Insisting on using reported deaths only to count the number of innocent deaths-an extremely circumscribed pool of data- leads to wrong conclusions, as does using the battlefield only to examine the larger issues. Winning or losing in Fallujah or Baghdad is only battlefield tactics-not overall strategy. If you really think victory consists of counting the number of "bad guys" we kill, then by all means nuking both is the way to go

The military is a sledgehammer-the best in the world. But to crude to be used without discrimination and understanding. That was the mistake bush made. Compounded and devalued using it for pre-emption and unjustified reasons.
That undermines the larger battle trying to win hearts and minds.
( If you don't accept that in fact IS the struggle, we are probably to far apart to even have a rational discussion.)

Scaring, shocking and awing the Iranians will only temporarily remove a threat. Long term will require a diiferent angle. Of course if we totally nuke 'em we will extend temporary to bigger temporary by maybe 5-10 years, but the term blowback comes to mind. Cosmic blowback this time

Hey let's all get past morality or compassion and waste not some megatonage just going to waste in some silo in Indiana.

[46zilzal]

Vietnam/Iraq : the hallmark of stupidity is to do the same thing OVER and OVER and expect a different result.

[46zilzal]

Two follies compared.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0419-11.htm

"Both wars quickly became guerilla wars. In Vietnam, the battlegrounds were jungles, rice paddies, and small rural hamlets. It was the antithesis of the set-piece battle style of warfare the U.S. military had been built and trained for. In Iraq the battlegrounds are city blocks with houses, apartments, stores and schools. In both settings, the enemy controls the timing, scale, and place of engagements.

They shoot opportunistically and quickly melt away into their surroundings. Combatants are indistinguishable from civilians with the result that eight civilians are killed for every combatant. This understandably alienates the civilian population from its “liberators” while increasing its support for the resistance—an inescapable and fateful cycle. In Vietnam, this process became mockingly known as “winning the hearts and minds of the people.” It hasn’t been graced with a name yet in Iraq.

Both wars used the palpable fiction of “democracy” to pacify the American public into quiescence. In Vietnam, “democracy” took the form of a clique of wealthy, urban, Catholic dictators running a country of poor, rural, Buddhist peasants. After the US had its puppet, Diem, assassinated in 1963, it took two years and seven different governments before a suitably brutal but still obeisant figurehead could be found.

[JPinMaryland]

Here is a question for those of you who feel that people opposed to the war are traitors etc:

Is there any limit to the amount of lives lost, dollars spent, or time expended on this war that you would feel would make the whole effort not worth it?

Or is that there is absolutely no limit to the amount of lives, dollars, etc. So long as Iraq is a problem, it should be a bottomless well of resources to be expended on.

[46zilzal]

c-

Where's the noun? I assume this was used as a verb, or was it an adverb?

Nope it is a past participle, also known as the perfect participle, which for most regular verbs ends in "-ed"

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinMaryland:

I will answer you with a question.

How much is it worth in human life, money, and any costs to prevent another terrorist attack, against innocent civilians on U.S. soil as deadly as the 9/11 attack?

Answer the above question and you will have the answer to your question.

[46zilzal]

only problem is that all the terrorits were Saudi's and Egyptians........


Get that governmental fish hook out of your mouth and think for yourself.

Clowns from Afghanistan camps plan and attack so the rutabaga sends the majority of troops to the other side of the Middle East......what a stooge!

[Indulto]

Here is a question for those of you who feel that people opposed to the war are traitors etc:

Is there any limit to the amount of lives lost, dollars spent, or time expended on this war that you would feel would make the whole effort not worth it?

Or is that there is absolutely no limit to the amount of lives, dollars, etc. So long as Iraq is a problem, it should be a bottomless well of resources to be expended on.JPinMaryland:

I will answer you with a question.

How much is it worth in human life, money, and any costs to prevent another terrorist attack, against innocent civilians on U.S. soil as deadly as the 9/11 attack?

Answer the above question and you will have the answer to your question.SMTW,
Good question. Here's another:

How much is it worth in human life, money, and any costs to prevent more urban terrorist [gang] attacks, against innocent civilians on U.S. soil as deadly as those still repeatedly occurring in Los Angeles?

[JPinMaryland]

So I take it you have no numerical value to the question I posed as you cannot predict the scale or timeliness of another terrorist attack? Thus you would treat Iraq as a bottomless well in which no amount of bloodshed woudl be too much??

[Tom]

So I take it you have no numerical value to the question I posed as you cannot predict the scale or timeliness of another terrorist attack? Thus you would treat Iraq as a bottomless well in which no amount of bloodshed woudl be too much??

You phrased the question in a totally biased manner, making it impossible to anwser. It was "Do you still beat your wife" question.

Can you replace Iraq in your queston with WWII?

[PaceAdvantage]

Here is a question for those of you who feel that people opposed to the war are traitors etc:

For the record, I have never once stated that someone opposed to the war is a traitor, or less of an American than someone who does not oppose the war.

Opposing the war is a completely different animal, versus praying for American casualties and a loss of the war in order to prove a point that "Bush Sucks."

[hcap]

Show Me the WireHow much is it worth in human life, money, and any costs to prevent another terrorist attack, against innocent civilians on U.S. soil as deadly as the 9/11 attackWhat about the innocent Iraqis? At what point do the number of innocent Iraqis equal the 3000 at the WTC? Particularily in regard to what 46 said-that all the terrorists on the flights were NOT iraqis.
As far as the exact number of Iraqis who have died, please take a look at this comprehensive review of the Lancet study.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/mortality/441#faq1628

"The MIT/Bloomberg study was subjected to significant scrutiny before publication, with peer review by four independent experts. In addition, much of the media coverage has sought the opinion on scientific experts who have reviewed the study and its methodology. The assessment by scientific experts is nearly uniformly that the study used an accepted methodology and robust procedures, and that its findings and conclusions therefore are likely to be reliable."


Bottom line at least 400,000 dead

[lsbets]

400,000/42 months = 9523.80 per month

Doesn't come close to any other numbers out there.

Sad that you are so hopeful that more civilians have died instead of less. That just to prove a point you hope there are more civilian casualties than there actually are. Sad.

[hcap]

WHY DON'T YOU READ THE DETAILS?

REPORTED DEATHS IN A WAR ZONE ARE NOT ACCURATE.

STATISTICAL SAMPLING AS DONE BY THE LANCET/HOPKINS IS THE RECOGNIZED TECHNIQUE.

Don't accuse me of what you are guilty of. You are the one desperatly trying to make a DYING point, and you are full of shit. You have no right to question my regard for innocent life.

Your unfullfilled dream goes down in the history books as failure, and according to the babbling on your side, maybe the loss of WWIII.
Or is it WWIIIII???

[lsbets]

I have every right to question everthing I want to, that's one of the wonderful parts of being an American, we have those rights, so shove that righteous indignation up your ass and snap out of your agenda driven view of the world and stop cheering for reports of higher deaths, it's sick.

[46zilzal]

I don't think any of the people OPPOSING this unnecessary and stupid war CHEER when we hear about the deaths. We just point out the waste of life. The TRUE waste of humanity this baloney has caused and continues unabated with the leaders JUST AS BLIND to the incorrect road as Johnson and Nixon were in Vietnam.

[JPinMaryland]

Here's another question:

How many deaths is it worth to GUARANTEEE that another 911 will not occur?

Maybe that is a better way of putting it.

So far no one has attempted to put a numerical value to the other question...

At the same time, does anyone have a vision of what victory would look like in Iraq? So while you are asking for more killing of peoples, both civilians and militia, but US and Iraq, Muslim,Christian, etc. do you have any visoin of what you will have accomplished there?

[hcap]

lsbets I have every right to question everthing I want to, that's one of the wonderful parts of being an American, we have those rights, so shove that righteous indignation up your ass and snap out of your agenda driven view of the world and stop cheering for reports of higher deaths, it's sick.Yeah question all you want. Accusations of motive is beyond that.
I think your accusations are based on your agenda driven view. Or do you believe you and the administration you have supported-have no agenda???? From the very start, the dissenters were shoved aside, told that they supported, aided and abetted the terrorists.

I got news for you pal, we all have agendas. Some agendas tend to agree more with reality than others. The reality is your agenda has failed. It was obvious to many of us from the very beginning that you and your guys have been sent on a fools errand. Not your intention, your motives, or best wishes excuse the poor judgement of those that sent you.

In all the arguments we have had, I have never questioned your motives. I thought you were honorable. Thought you honestly believed what you were doing was right. Yet you cannot extend that same trust to me or others who have dissagreed.

You post heartwarming stories of individuals being human. In spite of the chaos all around them, those individuals are in fact the only saving grace of this war.

That however does not justify the larger issue of war.

Read the Lancet/Hopkins links I posted. Stop questioning my motives and let some reality creep in. I assure you I take no pleasure in death.

[Tom]

What is your fixation with numbers of dead people, JP? You can't guarentee another 9-11 will never happen, so your question is moot.

Vcvtory in Iraq?

ALL of Iraq to be as safe as MOST of Iraq is right now, with an elected government functioning, the terrors bands and insurrgents being supported by Iran and Syria, defeated, killed, rotting in the files, turninf into more oil for future generations.

At how many deaths should we have stopped WWII and allowed Hitler or Japn to finish thier atomic weapons - WMD?

You do understand that we had a large amount of luck on our side back then, don't you? Both Axis powers were close to having deliverable nukes that they were fully planning on using on us. Hitler was diligently working on plans to launch air attacks on NYC - crashnig planes into our skyscrappers.
Hmmm, wondered where the muslems got that idea. Why of course, from the longtime friends, the nazis.

Right ow, Sdar has an army far larger than the Iraqi police force - someting like 60-80,000 to 10,000. Why? Becasue we did ot fight this war like it should have been fought - we allowed the libs to stop us from doing what was needed. I am nowhere near as nice as PA - I call every POS lib who did that a traitor and I think many should be hung or shot - several of them, you know from here. Opposing the war and sabatoging it are two different things.

[Tom]

The dems keep talking about re-deploying our troops. Maby they are right - redeploy in IRAN! That would certainly decrease violence in Iraq. Iran is orchestrating this whole thing to keep us bogged down and force us to make concessions.

[DJofSD]

Maybe they are right - redeploy in IRAN!

Is that before or after the carpet bombing? (And what is the thread topic again?)

[46zilzal]

you really want a world war? bomb them and you will have a big one that will NOT have a simple outcome.

[JustRalph]

you really want a world war? bomb them and you will have a big one that will NOT have a simple outcome.

yeah and canada will still sit on her ass and watch............ :lol:

[46zilzal]

yeah and canada will still sit on her ass and watch............
Hate to tell you but the troops here will do what the GOVERNMENT tells them, not you nor I.

[46zilzal]

yeah and canada will still sit on her ass and watch............
ALSO
Two Canadian soldiers reported dead in Afghanistan

November 27, 2006 - 7:20 am


Toronto - A NATO spokesman is confirming the deaths of two Canadian soldiers to CBC Newsworld, although nothing official is coming from the military.

The incident occurred on the outskirts of Kandahar city when a Canadian convoy was targeted by a suicide car bomber.

Been there from the start of that conflict

[skate]

we have talked ourselves into weariness.

here we are (on this board) crying about how long we have been involved in the Iraq war, and give no meaning to the fact that we lost so few lives, thanks to Rummy.


our side lost 115,000 in WWI
" " 300,000 in WWII
we lost 500,000 during "our" civil war

we lost 3000 from the world trade center
and now 1/2 of the USA gives up, flat out....run baby run.

we have insured, NO future president from either party, will use military power, short of a nuke attack on our soil.......

[Indulto]

... we have insured, NO future president from either party, will use military power, short of a nuke attack on our soil.......Isn't it Congress who has the authority to declare war?

It's no longer a question of whether the draft will be re-instated, only when. We can't fight them there if we're not ready to fight them here.

It's also up to Congress, in conjunction with the President and the Military, to determine not only if we will still have to fight them here whether or not we keep fighting them there, but also who else we'd have to fight here if we did.

Why do those who want us to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons believe that other nuclear powers would not be inclined to similarly protect themselves against us, or that we and our allies would not suffer the effects of radiation?

[Tom]

Congress can declare war, but the president is the one who send troops. If he doesn't want too, he could refuse to send troops wehre congress declares a war!

[Indulto]

Congress can declare war, but the president is the one who send troops. If he doesn't want too, he could refuse to send troops wehre congress declares a war!And then be impeached AND convicted.

[46zilzal]

If the clown escapes the next two years

[Indulto]

If the clown escapes the next two yearsI was referring to a hypothetical office holder, not a particular individual.

Are you addicted to keeping the heat on your beloved rutabaga? Are you also determined to discourage Dems and divert them from ever turning things around? Proper oversight is only a month away. Some Reps already got the message. Why not worry about payback AFTER the troops are redeployed.

Besides, what makes you think he wouldn't just resign for a Darthbed pardon? ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

we lost 3000 from the world trade center
and now 1/2 of the USA gives up, flat out....run baby run.

we have insured, NO future president from either party, will use military power, short of a nuke attack on our soil.......

Talk about giving Osama all the credit in the world....didn't bin Laden say as much a few years ago?

"The US is simply a paper tiger and can't stand much in the way of wartime casualties." I think that's pretty much what he said.

He's got our number alright....thanks to the pussifying of America by a select group of folks we all know and love. :rolleyes:

Man, I wish this shit didn't carry such ominous repercussions. Heaven help us.

[JustRalph]

Talk about giving Osama all the credit in the world....didn't bin Laden say as much a few years ago?

"The US is simply a paper tiger and can't stand much in the way of wartime casualties." I think that's pretty much what he said.

He's got our number alright....thanks to the pussifying of America by a select group of folks we all know and love. :rolleyes:

Man, I wish this shit didn't carry such ominous repercussions. Heaven help us.

It is absolutely mind boggling isn't it? We lose 3k troops and America rolls over and takes it in the rear. Thanks to the media and their party.

[Indulto]

Isn't it sad that the 2000 election is the cause for all of this undermining by the left? They made it their life's goal from 2000-on to screw this President, whom they considered "unelected."

They highlighted every single negative instance (no matter how insignificant) with the full force of a blinding media spotlight.

It's all led up to this point, and we're once again staring down the very real prospects of another embarrassing (and very DANGEROUS) Vietnam-type withdrawal.

Makes me want to throw up....I can only imagine how lsbets feels when he reads this bullshit.

The left is right about one thing. War should most definitely be a TOTAL LAST RESORT, if only because the US isn't allowed to fight one anymore. Here is a question for those of you who feel that people opposed to the war are traitors etc:For the record, I have never once stated that someone opposed to the war is a traitor, or less of an American than someone who does not oppose the war.

Opposing the war is a completely different animal, versus praying for American casualties and a loss of the war in order to prove a point that "Bush Sucks."Talk about giving Osama all the credit in the world....didn't bin Laden say as much a few years ago?

"The US is simply a paper tiger and can't stand much in the way of wartime casualties." I think that's pretty much what he said.

He's got our number alright....thanks to the pussifying of America by a select group of folks we all know and love. PA,
lsbets may well deserve to be able to use the term “pussy” here in this context, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think you do. You may not have specifically called any individual here who opposed the war a “traitor,” but your sentiments in just these three posts doesn't leave much to the imagination.

I assume you can point us to a post where someone 'prayed for American casualties and a loss of the war in order to prove a point that "Bush Sucks."'

Obviously some of you Rep and/or Conservative posters believe that Dem/Libs undermined the military effort in Iraq, while some of us Dem and/or Liberal posters believe that 1) the President overreached his authority, 2) his administration blundered repeatedly, and 3) the entire Rep-controlled government violated carefully defined and evolved policies, principles, and hard-won personal freedoms. I strongly agree with whoever here recently pointed out the absurdity of claiming the left could possibly undermine a right-wing government in complete control.

The election results would appear to temporarily support the Dem/Lib position, but the change in control has apparently also changed the melody on both sides of the posting isle. Now that the versa is vice, some on the left alarmingly appear to be assuming the abominable arrogance they abhorred, while some on the right preserve the pretentious portrayal of themselves as patriots while practicing the pathetic perversion of painting their opponents as traitors and cowards.

The bad blood erupting among some of the posters I most respect on each side is disturbing and hard to watch. Courage is both physical and intellectual, and there are heroes of both types (I specifically refer to hcap, Suff, and Sec as the latter). In our history the willingness to actually risk one’s life in defense of this country is admired and rewarded, but so is the willingness to speak out against what violates our cherished ideals and laws.

Is it now -- or will it be -- accurate to paraphrase you as follows: Isn't it sad that the 2006 election is the cause for all of this undermining by the right?

[hcap]

Indulto,Obviously some of you Rep and/or Conservative posters believe that Dem/Libs undermined the military effort in Iraq, while some of us Dem and/or Liberal posters believe that...

1) the President overreached his authority,

2) his administration blundered repeatedly, and

3) the entire Rep-controlled government violated carefully defined and evolved policies, principles, and hard-won personal freedoms. I strongly agree with whoever here recently pointed out the absurdity of claiming the left could possibly undermine a right-wing government in complete control.

...In our history the willingness to actually risk one’s life in defense of this country is admired and rewarded, but so is the willingness to speak out against what violates our cherished ideals and laws.
Thank you

[rastajenk]

Then you must find it distressing that on college campuses everywhere free speech is considered more a privilege than a right.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/29/cstillwell.DTL

[46zilzal]

Then you must find it distressing that on college campuses everywhere free speech is considered more a privilege than a right.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/29/cstillwell.DTL
nothings changed. When George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi Pary came to campus, people listened and heckled him. No different today no matter the point of view.

[Indulto]

Then you must find it distressing that on college campuses everywhere free speech is considered more a privilege than a right.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/29/cstillwell.DTL
Given how hard it has become to afford a college education, each institution has to be more proactive in ensuring that none of its students are prevented from hearing any speaker; that being a component of the educational process.

IMO protesting students should always be allowed to demonstrate, but students who abuse the rights of other students need to be persuaded to desist in some fashion appropriate to the circumstances.

It's the first I've heard of alleged rejection of Muslim reform speakers and I would like to see some corroboration of that.

[JPinMaryland]

You do understand that we had a large amount of luck on our side back then, don't you? Both Axis powers were close to having deliverable nukes that they were fully planning on using on us. Hitler was diligently working on plans to launch air attacks on NYC - crashnig planes into our skyscrappers.
Hmmm, wondered where the muslems got that idea....

.


I'd like to see a source for this bit of history...

[46zilzal]

I'd like to see a source for this bit of history...
took the words right out of my mouth

[JPinMaryland]

The two recent works on this subject say that the Nazis were nowhere close to anything like this. They had not reckoned on the amount of fissionable material needed to carry out sustained fission...

It does make for an humorous story about Mo Berg tailing Heisenberg in Switz in case H. should reveal the secret. Did you hear about that? H. actually says he did recall meeting Berg in the parking lot after his presentation but that Berg came across as a doofus who didnt know the first thing about radioactivity....

[Tom]

Man, I wish this shit didn't carry such ominous repercussions. Heaven help us.

And the lib/dems have also seen to it that, just when we needed Heaven's help the most, we have pissed them off, too by attacking the religious right and Chriostmas celebrations! Our butts are out there, uncovered!:lol:

[46zilzal]

but NO comment on those Nazi assertions huh?

[Tom]

I'd like to see a source for this bit of history...

Go to the National Geographics channel - thye have aired several documentaries about this. Hitler has special submarines that carried three folded up attadck planes, specifically built to attack NYC - the center of American decadence and economics. His plan was to plant terror in our hearts.
Nazis and muslems has sooooo much in common - I think the nazi movement is just being carried on by the new little goose-steppers.

Meanwhile, out at sea, we intercepted a shipment of enriched bomb material being delivered to Japan after Germany fell. Lucky us. There was also a real spy stoet attack by Brittish on a heavy water tankers shipment heading towards Germany. They got it.

[hcap]

Yep, Tom is absolutly correct.
Look closly at this enlarged photo. In Mussolinis' top left pocket, 4 grams of plutonium ready to be handed over to Hitler. Look carefully you will be able to see the outline of a suspicious leaf-like object. And if you look real close it GLOWS!!.
Remember reeeaaalll close.



http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/00000167.jpg


Oh yeah the folded up planes are in Hitlers' pocket

[46zilzal]

NOW I understand where they were hidden.

[PaceAdvantage]

I strongly agree with whoever here recently pointed out the absurdity of claiming the left could possibly undermine a right-wing government in complete control.

What? Huh? Where do you come up with this stuff? Last I checked (and no matter how much HCAP, SUFF, LIGHT and 46 may protest otherwise) this is NOT a totalitarian nation, despite YOUR attempt to paint a picture of virtual dictatorship in your quote above.

It's still a democracy and there's still a FREE (yet misguided) PRESS out there (again, no matter how much HCAP, SUFF, LIGHT and 46 may protest otherwise).

It's not absurd at all. It's part of the truth of why we are where we are.

[46zilzal]

protest about the press? B.S.

disagree often

[JustRalph]

protest about the press? B.S.

disagree often

your short snide comments add very little to the discussion. Indicative of your personality I am sure. and you wonder why others don't answer your inquiries? You are slipping back to trolldom

[46zilzal]

attacking your hero got you down?

[PaceAdvantage]

attacking your hero got you down?

More shallow troll-speak. You can criticize and attack Bush all damn day for all I care (it's what you DO anyway). No sweat off my back.

[46zilzal]

THE RUTBAGA: a true idiot who continues to express it on a daily basis Only problem is that he has wasted so many lives with his "vision."

[Indulto]

... this is NOT a totalitarian nation, despite YOUR attempt to paint a picture of virtual dictatorship in your quote above.

It's still a democracy and there's still a FREE (yet misguided) PRESS out there ...

... It's not absurd at all. It's part of the truth of why we are where we are.The bolded words are yours, not mine. Let's consider some facts.

The voters in our democracy elected a conservative Republican majority in both houses of the legislative branch of our government. They also elected a conservative Republican administration in the executive branch based on a critical ruling by a conservative majority in the judicial branch. That court was subsequently enhanced by that administration following confirmation by a conservative Republican Senate.

The Military was placed under the authority and leadership of conservative Republicans. Support for deployment of the Military, including a mercenary force, was contracted out to supplier corporations owned by conservative Republicans and funded without oversight by a conservative Republican Congress.

Any inaccuracies so far?

Could it be clearer that this was a right-wing government that considered itself to be in complete control and not subject to oversight or opposition? Was it undermined? Certainly! But NOT by its political opposition or the press.

Their designs were doomed by disregard for principle, defiance of reality, dismissal of opposition, dependence on corruption, and displays of incompetence; all of which diverted resources, dissolved support, disillusioned disciples, discouraged allegiances, developed enemies, and delivered destruction.

What they definitely didn’t do was either defeat real terrorism or deter its spread. Worse, they sacrificed the bodies of our most able-bodied young adults, weakened the volunteer army concept by wasting the willingness of well-trained warriors to serve, offended most of the rest of the world, and fanned further fanatic recruitment.

Now YOU hold the left responsible for fulfilling Bin Ladin’s prophecies. Wake up, man. “The Emperor has no clothes.” Bin Laden has the ultimate WMD. It’s called the Bush Administration and OBL is their puppeteer. Ever wonder what might have happened if Al Qaeda had never taken credit for 9/11?

Victory in Iraq? Can’t describe it? Then please define defeat. Also please state why whatever you come up with is better later than sooner? Meanwhile 3500 of our troops are about to be transferred from other parts of Iraq to Baghdad to accomplish what, exactly?

I’ll never understand how you, JR, and Tom can so willingly advocate risking the lives and limbs of U.S. soldiers to save Iraqis who refuse to save themselves and then, when challenged by liberals here, have the nerve to call us unpatriotic for saying it makes no sense.

It’s the fear of having another Viet Nam that is now causing another Viet Nam.

[hcap]

Indulto,

They'd rather blame Cindy Sheehan and MM. Or the rest of us that disagreed from jump. So we are all traitors and root for the enemy, and root for more civilian deaths soooooo we can cast an evil spell on the reputation and good name of the wondrous neocons. Our used-to-be-saviours.

Let's all stick some more pins in our collection of "neocon voodoo dolls".
And remember-Aim for below the belt.!!!!


Meanwhile they won't admit their COSMIC OOPS.
And are bailing out on their deer leeeduur.

Go figure. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

I’ll never understand how you, JR, and Tom can so willingly advocate risking the lives and limbs of U.S. soldiers to save Iraqis who refuse to save themselves and then, when challenged by liberals here, have the nerve to call us unpatriotic for saying it makes no sense.

The reason you back such an agenda is that it is better for our interests in the long run. You can quibble about Iraqi's who won't save themselves and such, but it doesn't matter if the ultimate goal would serve us in the future.

The U.S. Media and the Left have accomplished exactly what Bin Laden predicted. The left has fulfilled the prophecy projected upon us by OBL and others. We have rolled over and are on our way to another waste of life. All because those antiwar types that were in college in the 60's and 70's now control the majority of the media. They are anti war at any cost and they have now succeeded in forcing their views upon America. We have lost 3k soldiers and we don't have the balls to go in and do what is right. We lay down and crawl away. I am so glad that our forefathers didn't do that. I am so glad that we didn't do that in WWII. But it is happening for the 2nd time in 40 years now.

If you take this policy of all talk, no action, to its logical conclusion you should be very worried about your children and grandchildren. You guys scream about the deficit we leave our children like it will kill them. The deficit is baby shit compared to losing the country.

You can all buy them books on how to speak Chinese or maybe Arabic depending on which way you see it going. That way they can speak to their "block captains" in the native tongue. These assholes all will have Nukes if we sit around and sing songs about being antiwar and try to negotiate with murderous bastards. The minute one of these wingnuts lobs a Nuke into Israel or maybe that Chinese Submarine pops up off the east coast and tosses a Nuke into NY City, whichever, who the hell gets to fight back then? Nobody. Because we won't be prepared. And we will have not pursued a foreign policy of strength. You think Katrina was bad. Wait until some idiot terrorist goes to see Allah on the back of a Nuke while standing at the Washington Monument. Maybe just a dirty bomb would work, who knows. What a friggin wake up call. I don't hope it will happen but it will sure as hell change things. You bastards will be screaming like babies, just like after 9-11.

I don't have any children. I don't give a shit. But for you guys who do have children and grandchildren.....what the hell are you thinking? Look them in the eye and tell me you can count on the good will of people like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung IL. Rely on a country like China to treat us right. Come on? These cultures have been in place for hundreds of years longer than ours and they know how to plan for the future. Bush tried to take a country and plant the seed of Democracy in the middle east and the Media and the Left undermined the effort at every turn. Now that the snow job is complete..........we once again slink away while the intelligentsia discuss and write books about how Bush's legacy will be failure and such. When in reality the country was swindled out of an opportunity beyond all belief. All in the name of politics and the anti war crowds ambitions to make the world a better place by trying to "get along" and negotiate with the rest of the world. I have a newsflash for you. There are bad people in the world and it is up to the good guys to rein them in. We used to be the good guys. Now we are the ambivalent super power. The product of the baby boomer anti war crowd who actually thinks that Crosby Stills Nash and Young are foreign policy experts. Drug addicted musicians and free love didn't accomplish anything. Except for a defeat in Vietnam and now a defeat in Iraq. The only difference is that the music comes in the form of newspaper editorials and cable TV now days. Not to mention the blogsphere. So keep singing that siren song of the sixties and seventies. Rename the bands, call them MSNBC, CNN or KOS. It doesn't matter. The song and the result is the same.

The right is just as much to blame. But that is another topic.

[PaceAdvantage]

We used to be the good guys. Now we are the ambivalent super power. The product of the baby boomer anti war crowd who actually thinks that Crosby Stills Nash and Young are foreign policy experts. Drug addicted musicians and free love didn't accomplish anything. Except for a defeat in Vietnam and now a defeat in Iraq. The only difference is that the music comes in the form of newspaper editorials and cable TV now days. Not to mention the blogsphere. So keep singing that siren song of the sixties and seventies. Rename the bands, call them MSNBC, CNN or KOS. It doesn't matter. The song and the result is the same.

The right is just as much to blame. But that is another topic.


Definitely could NOT have said it better myself. There you go Induto. What he said.....

BTW, that bolded line is classic Ralph.....just classic.....

[JPinMaryland]

Take a piece of crap, wrap it in the american flag, play patriotic music and salute it.

There you have what passes for meaningful debate.

[46zilzal]

Take a piece of crap, wrap it in the american flag, play patriotic music and salute it.

There you have what passes for meaningful debate.
that is a good one

[46zilzal]

great J.R., I heard the same fascist ramblings during Vietnam with slogans like "Peace from War." Sure your name is Norris Panell?? You sound just like him.

meanwhile:http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/30/bush.trip.ap/index.html

If the rutabaga comes out with "Yur doin a great job" again I will laugh out loud as it was the same line about that idiot who was the head of FEMA.

I believe Iraq had a lot to do with the election, but I believe there was other factors, as well.
-White House, Nov. 8, 2006

[JustRalph]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=249695708673664


I heard Bill O'Reilly talking about this article on his radio show about 12:30p today. I am going to have to get after these guys for royalties..... :lol:

Interesting yet short article.

A Prophecy Fulfilled
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

~snippet~
Posted 11/29/2006

Journalism:
The fact that many news outlets are now declaring Iraq to be in a civil war is hardly surprising. The mainstream media have practically been begging for it to happen for more than a year.

Almost as soon as Saddam Hussein was toppled in April 2003, the press, which by and large viewed the war as a mistake from the outset, began to issue dire warnings that the country was on the precipice of civil war. And reporters filed countless articles that framed the ensuing conflict in this light. Here are just a few examples:

• In March 2004, an Associated Press story about coverage of the war noted that many reporters have been suggesting that "Iraq is already descending into chaos and civil war."

• In January 2005, Agence France Presse filed a dispatch with the headline: "Iraq In Danger Of Sliding Into Civil War."

~end Snippet~ see the link for the rest.

[46zilzal]

too bad all of these people saw the inevitable a long time ago and NO one in power listened. prophetic

[JPinMaryland]

I forget where the thread is but I asked what the def'n of civil war is and it argued that it has to do with: is government functioning? is the army responsive to gov't? and something else.

This was also quoted on some other show so I think I got the gist of it.

For one thing I cant think of any civil wars were gov't wasnt functioning: The Eng. Civil war, the 30 years War, the American rev.; the Amer. civil war; The French revolution, Vietnam conflict, The RUssian revolution I think...

I cant think of any but maybe there are some. Can anyone come up with any?

2. Army responsive to gov't. This seems to be a matter of degree, after all the IRaq army seems to respond, but on the other hand people dressed as military or people who are military are kidnapping and executing people. This hardly seems to be responding to govt.

THe other pt. is that they have some 300,000 Iraqi soldiers and they cant get a handle on this thing. Are they outnumbered or are they really not responding? They said some units are sunni and some shia so they cant be shuttled about just anywhere.

Gee that's odd. There's a religious civil war and you got units on different religions. YOu sure this what is meant by "responding to government?"

[Secretariat]

TThe U.S. Media and the Left have accomplished exactly what Bin Laden predicted. The left has fulfilled the prophecy projected upon us by OBL and others. We have rolled over and are on our way to another waste of life. All because those antiwar types that were in college in the 60's and 70's now control the majority of the media.

Ahh, let me get this straight. Major corporations such as GE which has huge defense contracts, and conservative family entertainment like Disney, and Clear Channel and FOX and Rupert Murdoch own the news stations (not Michael Moore). And somehow this conservative owned media is reponsbile for swaying the mass amount of Americans to bleive what "Bin Laden predicted?" THe same mass media that did not allow the Dixie Chicks to even run a trailer for their own documentary. A move by the way that was applauded by the conservatives on this board as NBC should have the right to make their own determination on what they decide to show. Now, GE decided NOT to show the Dixie Chick ad, and Disney decided to run a fictional Path to 911. But this was applauded by the conservatives on this board. Now, somehow this media is biased by college loons from the 60's? (Btw..Cheny and Wolfowitz and Rove were in college in the 60's with draft deferments. Let's not forget that.)

But back to the point. It is unbeleivable that you give the US people so little credit JR to beleive that GE with it's defense contracts, and Disney with it's conservative family approach and Rupert Murdoch (well, the NY Post - says it all) could so convince people to vote out the current pro-Iraq bums.

Maybe, it's not the media, or the people, but could it possibly be that maybe, just maybe, the media might be reporting some of the truth here, and maybe people are tried of watching killing and maiming in a war that was based on a flawed reason to go into that same war that was never true in the first place?

As conservative John Stoessel says, "gimme a break."

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
Originally Posted by JustRalph
We used to be the good guys. Now we are the ambivalent super power. The product of the baby boomer anti war crowd who actually thinks that Crosby Stills Nash and Young are foreign policy experts. Drug addicted musicians and free love didn't accomplish anything. Except for a defeat in Vietnam and now a defeat in Iraq. The only difference is that the music comes in the form of newspaper editorials and cable TV now days. Not to mention the blogsphere. So keep singing that siren song of the sixties and seventies. Rename the bands, call them MSNBC, CNN or KOS. It doesn't matter. The song and the result is the same.

The right is just as much to blame. But that is another topicDefinitely could NOT have said it better myself. There you go Induto. What he said..... PA,
Should I credit you with “working smarter, not harder” or “leaving the tough jobs to others.” Whatever, you’re hardly working and neither is JR’s logic.Originally Posted by JustRalph
The reason you back such an agenda is that it is better for our interests in the long run. You can quibble about Iraqi's who won't save themselves and such, but it doesn't matter if the ultimate goal would serve us in the future.

The U.S. Media and the Left have accomplished exactly what Bin Laden predicted. The left has fulfilled the prophecy projected upon us by OBL and others. We have rolled over and are on our way to another waste of life. All because those antiwar types that were in college in the 60's and 70's now control the majority of the media. They are anti war at any cost and they have now succeeded in forcing their views upon America. We have lost 3k soldiers and we don't have the balls to go in and do what is right. We lay down and crawl away. I am so glad that our forefathers didn't do that. I am so glad that we didn't do that in WWII. But it is happening for the 2nd time in 40 years now.

If you take this policy of all talk, no action, to its logical conclusion you should be very worried about your children and grandchildren. You guys scream about the deficit we leave our children like it will kill them. The deficit is baby shit compared to losing the country.

You can all buy them books on how to speak Chinese or maybe Arabic depending on which way you see it going. That way they can speak to their "block captains" in the native tongue. These assholes all will have Nukes if we sit around and sing songs about being antiwar and try to negotiate with murderous bastards. The minute one of these wingnuts lobs a Nuke into Israel or maybe that Chinese Submarine pops up off the east coast and tosses a Nuke into NY City, whichever, who the hell gets to fight back then? Nobody. Because we won't be prepared. And we will have not pursued a foreign policy of strength. You think Katrina was bad. Wait until some idiot terrorist goes to see Allah on the back of a Nuke while standing at the Washington Monument. Maybe just a dirty bomb would work, who knows. What a friggin wake up call. I don't hope it will happen but it will sure as hell change things. You bastards will be screaming like babies, just like after 9-11.

I don't have any children. I don't give a shit. But for you guys who do have children and grandchildren.....what the hell are you thinking? Look them in the eye and tell me you can count on the good will of people like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung IL. Rely on a country like China to treat us right. Come on? These cultures have been in place for hundreds of years longer than ours and they know how to plan for the future. Bush tried to take a country and plant the seed of Democracy in the middle east and the Media and the Left undermined the effort at every turn. Now that the snow job is complete..........we once again slink away while the intelligentsia discuss and write books about how Bush's legacy will be failure and such. When in reality the country was swindled out of an opportunity beyond all belief. All in the name of politics and the anti war crowds ambitions to make the world a better place by trying to "get along" and negotiate with the rest of the world. I have a newsflash for you. There are bad people in the world and it is up to the good guys to rein them in. We used to be the good guys. Now we are the ambivalent super power. The product of the baby boomer anti war crowd who actually thinks that Crosby Stills Nash and Young are foreign policy experts. Drug addicted musicians and free love didn't accomplish anything. Except for a defeat in Vietnam and now a defeat in Iraq. The only difference is that the music comes in the form of newspaper editorials and cable TV now days. Not to mention the blogsphere. So keep singing that siren song of the sixties and seventies. Rename the bands, call them MSNBC, CNN or KOS. It doesn't matter. The song and the result is the same. Where to begin?

“There you go again.” Everybody who opposes ANY war is ANTI-war. Not only that, every single one of them must be a pot-smoking, guitar-strumming, draft-dodging, long-haired hippie with a big mouth and no balls. Did I miss any other shortcomings among the freelovers? Guess what, JR, when I needed help, I called a cop. I suppose I’m just lucky that in every encounter I’ve had with a policeman I’ve felt “Protected and Served.”

There are indeed bad people in the world as there always have been. We will have wars on this planet until people can freely move off it to escape to extra-terrestrial suburbia. Stuck here for another generation, I’m already worried for my offspring as well as those of others. They have to stay alive and healthy to ever experience all that life has to offer. I refuse to waste their opportunity to do so on a fool’s mission. You want to “plant seeds of democracy,” then try raising a family that understands the value and responsibility of freedom. And you better start understanding that not everybody WANTS freedom as WE define it. We are in danger BIG TIME of becoming BAD GUYS that other people look at the way we do Iran.

I couldn’t agree more that “the country was swindled out of an opportunity beyond all belief.” There is a name for those swindlers,”NEOCONS.” They took us out of Afghanistan and into Iraq at the moment of our greatest stature among -- and support from -- the rest of the world. Instead of having our best in office at the moment of our greatest opportunity, we had the worst. And its our own fault because we no longer educate our citizenry nor require their involvement. Ancient Rome revisited?

This is not the Middle Ages. Peasants still work the fields, but now they have cell phones and televisions, just like our prisoners. Understanding the atom and developing nuclear weapons is now the province of many and probably some who we know nothing about yet. We will always need a well-trained, well-equipped military force, but our greatest strength must be our ability to negotiate with and engage in trade with as many other inhabitants on the planet as we can so that we all get along, at least until more space can separate us. We're not just losing a war, we're losing the one thing that made us great -- TOLERANCE.

[skate]

I forget where the thread is but I asked what the def'n of civil war is and it argued that it has to do with: is government functioning? is the army responsive to gov't? and something else.

This was also quoted on some other show so I think I got the gist of it.

For one thing I cant think of any civil wars were gov't wasnt functioning: The Eng. Civil war, the 30 years War, the American rev.; the Amer. civil war; The French revolution, Vietnam conflict, The RUssian revolution I think...

I cant think of any but maybe there are some. Can anyone come up with any?

2. Army responsive to gov't. This seems to be a matter of degree, after all the IRaq army seems to respond, but on the other hand people dressed as military or people who are military are kidnapping and executing people. This hardly seems to be responding to govt.

THe other pt. is that they have some 300,000 Iraqi soldiers and they cant get a handle on this thing. Are they outnumbered or are they really not responding? They said some units are sunni and some shia so they cant be shuttled about just anywhere.

Gee that's odd. There's a religious civil war and you got units on different religions. YOu sure this what is meant by "responding to government?"


well, i really can not help with your question. but let me add that the civil war here in the USA, had lots of terms; such as , between the states and southern Independence. the civil war term could be inexact .
confusion comes into play because it was not a class struggle, but rather a sectional struggle. according to some.

so you are on your own, sorry.

but what did catch my eye was your quote "they can't get a handle on IT".
i believe this will pass, shortly. lots of non truths are starting to appear.

we are getting false information from the media. whatever the media drums up, they also magnify.

not saying, everything is fine ,but it is not fine anyplace else either.

[JPinMaryland]

well instead of saying "Cant get a handle on it" it might be better to say that while the admin. is claiming that the Iraq army is responding to it leadership, how come many military guys keep saying that they need more guys, better leadeship, more training, etc?

I mean listening to military on capitol hill last month, everyone was saying that the Iraqi army needs more of everything. No one is satisified with it.

[JPinMaryland]

We have rolled over and are on our way to another waste of life. All because those antiwar types that were in college in the 60's and 70's now control the majority of the media. They are anti war at any cost and they have now succeeded in forcing their views upon America. .

Maybe Right Wing whack jobs should have studied harder in Communications Class back then?

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe Right Wing whack jobs should have studied harder in Communications Class back then?

Who you calling a right wing whack job? Be civil at least, won't you?

[JPinMaryland]

NO one in particular, guy was upset that the right wing had lost control of the media. I guess the left wingers of 70s did better in grad school. Maybe it was all the pot and the sits ins. Reasonable?

[skate]

well instead of saying "Cant get a handle on it" it might be better to say that while the admin. is claiming that the Iraq army is responding to it leadership, how come many military guys keep saying that they need more guys, better leadeship, more training, etc?

I mean listening to military on capitol hill last month, everyone was saying that the Iraqi army needs more of everything. No one is satisified with it.

more guns, better everythings, etc. its seems like a CALL for Money. no?

and then we gots all the other guys saying, "you spend too much, you spend too much", why not just make a record out of "you spend too much...? and then youy'd all be happy for everafter, thank god.

"you spend too much"... could pull in the money you need and maybe not.

oh yeh, how bout the comparison between what you say "everyone was saying" huh? and just about every other business i've ever heard.

seems like . ive never ever heard anyone say "ohmy goodness folks, i've got plenty of everything."
cept, uncle George and oh yes, Chain Saw Chainey, did you see his tax returns?

[hcap]

Somebodys gotta take the fall....


http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW112906.jpg

Am I alone in MY COMPETENCE?? :lol: :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

God, could the political posts around here GET any more BORING and REPETITIVE?

How many times are you going to post the same thing 1000 different ways?

[hcap]

PaceAdvantageOriginally Posted by JustRalph
We used to be the good guys. Now we are the ambivalent super power. The product of the baby boomer anti war crowd who actually thinks that Crosby Stills Nash and Young are foreign policy experts. Drug addicted musicians and free love didn't accomplish anything. Except for a defeat in Vietnam and now a defeat in Iraq. The only difference is that the music comes in the form of newspaper editorials and cable TV now days. Not to mention the blogsphere. So keep singing that siren song of the sixties and seventies. Rename the bands, call them MSNBC, CNN or KOS. It doesn't matter. The song and the result is the same.

The right is just as much to blame. But that is another topic.
Definitely could NOT have said it better myself. There you go Induto. What he said.....

BTW, that bolded line is classic Ralph.....just classic.....
.................................................. .................................................. ....

AND THEN YOU SAY I'M REPETITIVE?
God, could the political posts around here GET any more BORING and REPETITIVE?

How many times are you going to post the same thing 1000 different ways?How many times do we have to hear variations on "classic Ralph" or even worse "classic Tom" calling for nuking everyone other then himself? You don't seem to mind their extremely REPETITIVE rhetoric because you agree with most of it.

But you left out the end of the "classic Ralph" post.
He saidThe right is just as much to blame. But that is another topic.My cartoon addressed Ralph blaming everyone but himself.
Am I alone in MY COMPETENCE?? Besides my tactic in calling out the hypocritical cry babies is relatively new. Began when the neocons disavowed and was reinforced by the results of the election and the building recognition by everyone of the obvious fiasco that is Iraq.

Also how many threads are we going have to endure on the evilness of Islam?
And the George W Churchill adhitlerisms?
And you say I'm repetitive. Puuleeaasse!

[DJofSD]

What I want to know is there permission to reproduce the entire cartoon? I see a copyright on the damn thing. Why is copying the entire cartoon not treated the same has a complete reposting of an article from a news source?

[PaceAdvantage]

Also how many threads are we going have to endure on the evilness of Islam?
And the George W Churchill adhitlerisms?
And you say I'm repetitive. Puuleeaasse!

Trust me....you're WAY MORE repetitive than all those that you accuse combined! After all, they are (95% of the time) RESPONDING to one of your repetitive points. You may have trouble finding even ONE thread STARTED by Tom which says "nuke 'em all!" You might find one, I'm not denying that, but I'd be shocked if there was more than one or two at most.

There's a difference in what you do, and what they do. It's why I've said all along that off-topic is DOMINATED by the left wing. Anyone who states otherwise obviously doesn't know how to count threads. (not posts mind you....threads)

[JustRalph]

boy, you go away for a day or so and you get hammered. Wow, where to start..........never mind............not worth it. You guys know where I stand.

[Indulto]

boy, you go away for a day or so and you get hammered. Wow, where to start..........never mind............not worth it. You guys know where I stand.Hey Bogeyman, would Sir Humphrey throw in the towel? Besides, do you really want to deprive PA of another attaboy opportunity? ;)

[Tom]

What I want to know is there permission to reproduce the entire cartoon? I see a copyright on the damn thing. Why is copying the entire cartoon not treated the same has a complete reposting of an article from a news source?

Good point. Let's report him and hoope he gets hit with a law suit. Then he will really have someting to whine about!:lol:

[JPinMaryland]

There probably is copyright involved in the use of the cartoon. IT would definitely qualify as a creative work. Not sure I see I see a copyright notice but I dont think it's required anymore..


Fortunately we can still use the term: Neo Conservative Whack Job, royalty free.

[skate]

boy, you go away for a day or so and you get hammered. Wow, where to start..........never mind............not worth it. You guys know where I stand.

oh, you think its that easy?

you'll be back

[DJofSD]

you'll be back

Who is he, Arnold jr?

[46zilzal]

There's a difference in what you do, and what they do. It's why I've said all along that off-topic is DOMINATED by the left wing. Anyone who states otherwise obviously doesn't know how to count threads. (not posts mind you....threads)
yes when you view things through these

[PaceAdvantage]

yes when you view things through these

I'm the rubber and you're the glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you!

[46zilzal]

I'm the rubber and you're the glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you!
my! I haven't heard that in a long time.

[PaceAdvantage]

my! I haven't heard that in a long time.

Just stooping to your level to illustrate how silly your posts have become. Rose-colored glasses?!?!?!?!?!?!? :lol:

[JustRalph]

oh, you think its that easy?

you'll be back

Some days, I just don't have the taste for it. It's a cold Saturday boring as hell........and I just don't have the energy. It happens...........