The Truth About Democratic Anti-War Views
May 23rd, 2008 at 09:09am Mark Noonan
Senator Lieberman points out the harsh reality of Democratic opposition to the war:
The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy — not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush — activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
The plain fact of the matter is that it wasn’t but a few months after 9/11 before Democrats were seeking ways and means of defeating President Bush and the GOP over the war - it was only a few voices to start with, but by late 2003 it was becoming a crescendo on the Democratic side…for them, Bush was the enemy; and this was so because President Bush stood between them and more power. Some say that if President Bush had done this or that it would all have come out differently - but as regards the Democrats, it didn’t matter what Bush did, they would attack him on it…always, always keep in mind that had we not invaded Iraq - had we, that is, gone along with the French, Russians and Germans in 2003 - then today the very same Democrats who condemn Iraq as a failure would be condemning President Bush for not liberating Iraq. Too often we’ve seen Democrats turn 180 degrees because it is political expedient at the moment - the most recent example of this is Obama’s 2004 harsh words about Iran contrasted to his 2008 “Iran is tiny” rhetoric…in 2004, it was wise to be bellicose towards Iran…in 2008, the kook left is ruling the Democratic roost and thus it is now politically expedient to be as anti-war as possible…even at the cost of personal honor and dignity.
Entry Filed under: Congress, Democrats, President Bush, Republicans
116 Comments Add your own
1. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 am
Blame Bush’s failures on the democrats. Big shocker there…
Mr. Noonan, I remember a couple weeks back a Thread about how terrible it was that McCain was being taken completely out of context in regards to ‘100 years in Iraq’. but you seem to have no problem touting Obama’s ‘Iran is Tiny’ rhetoric.
2. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
The key line in Liebermans statement is:
“When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq..”
Liberals have the attention span of a 3rd grader. They completely lack integrity and determination and are so accustomed to shifting their positions according to which way the wind is blowing, this should not come as a surprise.
How many positions has Hillary taken on this effort?
How many lies, blunders and apologies has Obama advanced this political season?
They really are charlatans and frauds.
3. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
SAR,
Please tell me how Obamas words are taken out of context. And why is EVERY LIBERAL ALWAYS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT?
In Oregon, Obama claimed that Syria and Iran are tiny compared to the Soviet Union (as if size of country has anything to do with it) therefore do not pose a serious threat and two days later in Montana claims Iran to be a grave threat. He’s a complete joke, a charlatan, a fraud.
He attended Trinity for 20 years and regarded Rev. Wright as a mentor. Then one day following the National Press Club appearance, he threw Wright under the bus. What a great guy!!!
His idiocy is only surpassed by his penchant for pandering.
4. Bigfoot | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Too often we’ve seen Democrats turn 180 degrees because it is political expedient at the moment
In 2006, as things in Iraq were getting worse, some Democrats were calling for more troops. Many Dems would later oppose the surge, a plan that included (drum roll, please) more troops.
One of the left-wing criticisms of the war in Iraq was that Iraq had never attacked us. The left had no such complaint against President Clinton’s war on Serbia, which had (another drum roll, please) never attacked us. (Conversely, if the war on Serbia was justified by humanitarian reasons, which pile of dead bodies was larger, Kosovars killed by Milosevic, or Kurds killed by Hussein?) Attacking countries that don’t attack us: OK for Dems, wrong for ‘Pubs.
Another left-wing criticism of the war is that Saddam’s government was not a threat to us. Yet, back in 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in a speech at Ohio State University, said:
“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Notice those last few words, the “threat we face”, which refers to Iraq.
Another criticism of the war in Iraq is the allegation that Saddam and Al Qaeda had little if anything do with each other, before the US invaded. Our invasion is what caused the terrorist presence in Iraq.
Yet, Senator Hillary Clinton said, in a speech to the Senate in 2002:
“In the four years [i.e., back to 1998] since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…”
Note that last sentence, bearing in mind that “He” refers to Saddam Hussein. Linking Saddam to AQ: OK for a Dem, wrong for ‘Pubs.
5. Street Riot | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Deleted - anti-Semitic.
6. Brian (Boston) | May 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
“…then today the very same Democrats who condemn Iraq as a failure would be condemning President Bush for not liberating Iraq. Too often we’ve seen Democrats turn 180 degrees because it is political expedient at the moment…” - Mark Noonan
Pure speculation and there were no calls from Democrats during Clinton’s Presidency from the Democrats to liberate Iraq. It was the Project for a New American Century who wrote an open letter to Clinton to attack Iraq. The signers included Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.
Republicans turn 180 degrees as well. Welcome to politics. McCain said that American forces would be in Iraq for 100 years, now he says we will be out in 2013. Which is it?
7. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US ON 9/11????
Wow, you’ve got to get up pretty early in the morning to match wits with brain power like that.
Did McCain say that American forces would be in for Iraq for 100 years? Under what pretext? Do you remember?
Maybe we could make Iraq the 58th state!
8. OhioOrrin | May 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
reasonable people disagreed re the justification (at the time) 2 invade Iraq. This is the start of the loyal opposition’s objection to the Iraq War. And one may reasonably make the argument that the Iraq invasion has tarnished the GWOT.
worse tho 2 me, Rummy redeployed combat assets 2 Iraq from the CIA in Afghanistan just as bin Laden was trapped in tora bora. The Afghan militia sent-in as replacements were no match for the combat hardened AQ forces & OBL escaped.
Not capturing OBL thusly is, to me, prosecutable criminal negligence on the part of any person involved at the strategic level wherein redeployment was decided. as a minimum, it constitutes gross incompetence & called 4 immediate administrative leave pending an IG investigation.
I chose 2 trust the President. But in hindsight it is obvious the intel was sexed up in support of the neocon’s realpolitik.
colin powell’s shot 2 become the nation’s first black president was destroyed by his association even tho he ulitmately resigned in protest.
Frontline’s 4 hr presentation titled “Bush’s War” was excellent in its’ behind the scenes insights & interviews.
It shoulda been titled “Cheney’s War”
9. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Neocon, how many times does someone have to tell you, Obama said Iran, Lybia, Venezuela, etc. are tiny threats when compared to the threat the USSR posed and yet presidents still met with the USSR.
As I said, out of context, just like McCain’s 100 years in Iraq when comparing it to Germany and Japan.
Both are misrepresentations which was my point. You cry foul over one but claim the other was not. By definition, that is hypocritical.
10. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Bigfoot, though I agree with your assertion about Serbia. You fail to recognize one key thing that did not happen in Iraq. UN SUPPORT. The world was with America in Serbia, as it is with Afghanistan, but stood against it in Iraq. The most widely accepted reason for going into Iraq was WMD’s. As you say they are what posed the greatest security threat. Turns out there were non there. If they had been America would have made everyone else look like fools, sadly that never happened. You blame what followed on dems… come on man wake up.
11. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Obama was not taken out of context and to claim that those countries are less of a threat than the Soviets is just completely naive and ignorant of foreign affairs.
Obama is a fraud and a charlatan.
“Not capturing OBL thusly is, to me, prosecutable criminal negligence on the part of any person involved at the strategic level wherein redeployment was decided. as a minimum, it constitutes gross incompetence & called 4 immediate administrative leave pending an IG investigation.” - Ohio
I agree, let’s put Sandy Berger on the stand.
12. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Neocon, do they possess Nuclear weapons which are pointed at US cities and can wipe us all off the face of the map right now? Did any of these countries place Nuclear weapons 90 miles off the coast in Cuba?
Calling Obama a fraud doesn’t make it so… but if it makes you feel better who am I to judge
13. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Regardless, Obama was speaking to the fact that US presidents, even Republican ones have spoken to our enemies in the past. That is the point he was making. This is why ‘Iran is Tiny’ is taken out of context.
14. Tractatus | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US ON 9/11????
Do you think Iraq did attack us on 9/11?
had we, that is, gone along with the French, Russians and Germans in 2003 - then today the very same Democrats who condemn Iraq as a failure would be condemning President Bush for not liberating Iraq.
I know the truthiness of this statement is far too compelling to you to get you to do anything but wholeheartedly accept it as gospel truth, Noonan, but you are, of course, quite wrong.
15. Mark Noonan | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
SAR,
By saying the threats were tiny compared to the USSR, Obama was denigrating the whole concept of an Iranian threat in order to get himself out from under his mind-bogglingly stupid assertion that he’d meet with the Iranians with no pre-conditions.
You really gotta pay attention if you want to comment on politics.
Meanwhile, the population of Iran is 65 million…just about the popuation of Germany in 1933, as Hitler came to power…”tiny” is not really an apt description of Iran.
16. Mark Noonan | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Tract,
No, I’m not wrong - and you know it.
Time for you take your first step into the real world - admit the dishonesty of liberalism and its leaders.
17. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
SAR,
Every President has always conducted “pre-conditioned” talks with our adversaries. That’s NOT what Obama is preaching.
Iran does not have nukes pointed to us, but is aggressively trying to acquire those nukes so they can. They also don’t harbor the same appreciation of life that most of the civilized world does. What don’t you understand about that?
And how can Obama claim Iran to be a “tiny” threat one day and a “grave” threat the next?
The man is a fraud. He barely qualified to be a Senator let along a President.
18. Tractatus | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
No, I’m not wrong - and you know it.
Did I call it, or did I call it? “It’s true because I want it to be true, and I say it’s true, and that’s that!” Truthiness reigns supreme!
Time for you to take your first step into the real world and admit that your assumptions about huge masses of people are, at best, myopic and are typically quite ignorant. You up to the task, Noonan?
Probably not. In fact, I’d bet money that you’re not.
19. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
yes, I do think Iraq attacked us on 9/11????
What a f*%$cking idiot you are.
Mark,
Our current crop of liberals are about as thick as I have ever seen.
20. Dennis | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Mark, a primary objection to the Iraq war, not just by liberals but many conservatives, was the lack of a just cause. Iraq committed no aggression against the United States. War always takes innocent lives, and the Iraq war consigned untold thousands of civilians to death without adequate justification.
We also did not trust Mr. Bush’s strategic logic or foresight. The balance of power in the Middle East always has been unstable and fragile, and now has been shifted in ways unfavorable to America’s interest and long-term security. Instability has contributed to the oil’s astronomical rise in price, adversely affecting our economy even beyond the substantial war debt we have accrued.
We did not trust Mr. Bush to tell us the whole truth in the lead-up to the war. There remains abundant evidence that the public was intentionally misled by manipulation of media outlets and that the whole process of intelligence gathering and analysis was tainted by tampering and stovepiping by the administration.
America’s founders were crystal clear on the dangers of war to essential liberties. War was to be a last resort when all other avenues of defense had been exhausted, never a preventive measure. We trusted their wisdom where Mr. Bush held it in contempt.
As for the concept of liberating Iraqis from a tyrant, there were other nations worse off and in greater need of liberation. We might have averted the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Darfur by military intervention, we could liberate countless thousands of child soldiers conscripted into military service in Africa but there are limitations on what we may effect by adventurism abroad. It was never in America’s charter to go about the world “seeking monsters to destroy,” as John Quincy Adams put it.
Finally if you weigh all the costs and benefits of the Iraq war, can you show us how America has gained as a result of this war? Economically are we better off? Has it strengthened us strategically? Has it improved our standing with our allies? Has it diminished hostilities against us in the Arab world? Has it brought us cheap oil? Has it enhanced our basic liberties here at home? Just how are we better off now?
21. Tractatus | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
What a f*%$cking idiot you are.
And yet I repeatedly outsmart you. Hmmm….
22. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Dennis,
blah, blah, blah…….
Quite the regurgitation of years old, tired propaganda.
But hey thanks for demonstrating your inability for objective thought.
23. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“And yet I repeatedly outsmart you” - Tractatus
What is it you just said to Mark? If I say it’s so than it must be?
And then you do exactly what you blamed Mark of. You’re a such a tool.
24. Mark Noonan | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Tract,
And yet, later tonight you will ponder this, and know I am right…and then will come your choice.
Choose well - I shall pray for you.
25. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
How many here thought that war was suppose to improve “our standing”, “improve our economy” and “bring us cheap oil”?
I thought war was strictly about defeating the enemy. I guess liberals see it differently. I wonder if war could be used to bring about school choice?
26. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Mark,
Why should we request pre-conditions to meet with Iranians if a comprise could be brokered? Are you really that arrogant that you think Iran needs to offer us something before we can even talk to them. Again, Obama was not ‘denigrating’ Iran’s threat. He was simply stating that we have met with our enemies in the past who at the time had a capability to destroy us. So why should we not show the same respect for countries which are striving for that capability? Why not head them off and come to some diplomatic solution before they attain that capablity and we end up in another arms race or cold war? Or better yet, work to make them our allies. Why do you see that as so impossible? Until you drop the notion that peace can never happen, it will never happen!
Obama understands Iran is a ‘grave threat’ but Iran IS NOT a Super Power like the USSR was. As such, Iran though a ‘Grave Threat’ is still a “tiny threat’ when compared to what the USSR was. Presidents were willing to conduct talks with the USSR but you fault him for wanting to talk to a Country that is not yet a super power and are merely trying to acquire the weapons. Your rationale is truly out to left field.
Why is it, when questioned the first thing you guys do is turn to Hitler? I really don’t understand. Anyway, part of the reason why Hitler rose to power so fast was The Treaty of Versailles which was enacted by the victors, you guessed it America and her allies. Also, Bush’s grandfathers company sold weapons to the Nazi’s. Oh the Humanity…..
27. Tractatus | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
And yet, later tonight you will ponder this, and know I am right…and then will come your choice.
Is this rhetoric supposed to sway me?
Please, Noonan. Your pitiful assumptions mean nothing. They’re what you tell yourself to keep yourself thinking that you’re right in the face of tremendous evidence to the contrary. They’re what you tell yourself to maintain your hatred (that you repeatedly claim you don’t have–the classic lie you tell yourself) of people who not only oppose you, but are correct by opposing you.
Keep inventing your own alterna-truth, Noonan. It’s pretty much all you have. Well, that and projection.
BTW, when you pray for me, you’re really praying for yourself–it has nothing to do with me. You do know that, right? If you don’t…well, that’s pretty sad.
neocon: Just pointing out the obvious to you. If you don’t like it, you should try educating yourself so you can make better arguments. Good luck!
28. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
So the obvious in your little mind is that you’re the smarter one?
LMAO.
SAR,
What compromise do you hope to work out with Iran? Please be specific.
29. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Tractatus now deems himself to be the authroity on prayer. Is there any end to his wisdom?
30. Dennis | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
neocon: “I thought war was strictly about defeating the enemy.”
And Iraq was our enemy?
In 2003 the Iraq war was all about kicking someone’s ass - it didn’t matter whether they were our enemy or not. The general public was sold on the concept. And ever since, the whole game has been to build a justification for having done that.
31. Danish Artist | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The question is “who is more willing to use a nuke against us?”
Iran or USSR.
The USSR was a reasonable opponent. They knew the MAD strategy. They were not willing to die or take that chance.
Iran, on the other hand, may be willing to take that step since their dying in a war will be rewarded. There are those who are willing to die.
Think about it.
32. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
What compromise… I’d strive to limit nuclear capacity to power plants. Maybe dismantle some of our vast arsnel as a temporary compromise. Of course regular inspections on both sides would have to be periodic, enforced, random, and secretive. Aside from that, a better understanding of their culture and less meddling from ours in theirs. Think of it this way, if they hand their hands in half of what we do over there what do you think we would do? First step is understanding WE messed up.
Bush strives for Peace in the Middle East with war in Iraq. Obama wants a different approach, talk first, maybe give a little to achieve some form or stability and go from there. You support Bush, but call Obama a fraud.
“They also don’t harbor the same appreciation of life that most of the civilized world does.”
How do you prove they do not value life? By saying there willing to die for a cause… Also, define civilized.. electricity and plumbing doesn’t make us anymore civilized then they are, it just means we live a more privileged life. FYI
“The USSR was a reasonable opponent. They knew the MAD strategy. They were not willing to die or take that chance.” - DA
Hate to break it to you DA, but MAD was only overted through Kennedy’s diplomatic action during the Cuban Missile crisis. Do you really think Iran does not grasp this concept either? Are you really that Ignorant because they live in the middle east? Sheesh.
33. HeyHey | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“yes, I do think Iraq attacked us on 9/11????”
Wow, neocon. Do you really believe that?
34. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
yes…hey hey, despite the overwhleming evidence that it is not true and despite the fact that it is not relevant……..
You’re as thick as tractatus. You guys would have a good time together.
SAR,
So you want to dismantle our arsenal? Why do we need to compromise with Iran to do that? Why don’t we just do it now?
What is it about their culture you don’t understand?
Do you consider encouraging suicide bombers to be an appreciation for life?
35. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Neo, come on man, you know dismantling is better served as a bargaining chip. Please don’t insult my intelligence. Keep the capablitity of building them if the need arises, but we do not need enough weapons to destroy the planet 5 times over.
How about we address why suicide bombers do what they do instead of trying to beat them to the punch. Everyone appreciates life, it’s just a question of what are you willing to die for… I’m sure you would die for the US if it came down to it. How about we reach a solution where they no longer have to die for their beliefs. The British did it with the IRA for the most part. The same can be achieved in the middle east, but only if we realize our way is not necessarily their way. Lets try and nip some of our hypocrisy in the butt and see how that works. I tell you what, if it doesn’t I’m all for bombing the hell out of them. The state of the country right now is proof positive that our current path is not working.
I answered your questions, how about you address my response without pointed questions. Or better yet, answer some that I have raised.
36. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
SAR,
Do you suppose that Obamas “enlightened” approach towards the ME has ever been employed in the past?
37. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Do you suppose Bush’s war first justification later ever has?
How about gurellia Warfare in a foreign country?
What about occupations throughout history?
38. Pirate's Cove&hellip | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Joe Biden Is Barking Mad Over Democrats Weak Security Stances
Say, Joe, have you looked at all the retreat and defeat your party has put forth? At Dick Durban comparing our troops to Nazi’s, at Ted Kennedy saying our troops at Abu Ghraid were the same as Saddam’s henchmen, at the way liberal groups, w…
39. Joe Biden Is Barking Mad &hellip | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
[…] Moving past the point that we have not been attacked in almost 7 years, and that we are fighting the radical Islamists in a place of our choosing, let’s ask another Joe to answer on how the Democrats have been doing (via Blogs For Victory) […]
40. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Nice dodge SAR. I will take this as a sign that you don’t have the answers to my previous questions.
As far as your questions are concerned:
1. The sentence doesn’t make sense. Ask again.
2. I am opposed to guerilla warfare, hence my support to defeat Al Qaida
3. I am opposed to occupations; hence my support to rid Kuwait of Saddam and my appreciation of the Iraqi government requesting our presence.
Any other questions?
41. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
It is impossible to defeat an enemy in war that is willing to die. Seeing as how the point of war is to kill your enemy. They only way left is to understand your enemy and attempt to shed doubt on their hatred. What happened in the past 8 years is a perfect example of the power of doubt.
After 9/11 everyone was horrified and wanted blood, so we went to war. Then we went unquestioning into Iraq. Not long after when no WMD’s were found doubt started to form. Which leads us to where we are today. The majority of people want out of Iraq, think it was a mistake in the first place and disapprove with GWB entirely. If it can happen here, it can happen there.
42. RogerThat | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
neocan rarely answers questions. He’ll spout some insults and answer questions with questions.
43. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Sorry, I should have clarified. My three questions were in regard to history.
War’s in the past have been waged and then justified later. With unfavorable results.
Every occupation in the History of mankind has failed.
So far, there is no solution to gurellia warfare aside from winning the hearts and minds of the people. Which is a catch-22 considering an invading force is invading. I know you’ll say ‘liberating’ here. We liberated them from Saddam who was by no means a saint, but now we stay, build a massive embassy and install a US friendly government and ‘police’ the streets. Call me crazy but thats not exactly liberating the people, it’s closer to a occupation.
Yes, Obama’s policy regarding the ME has been applied in the past, as have GWB’s. One often comes out of the ashes of the other. However, as you claim we are ‘civilized’. Assuming that we are far more civilized then we were. So maybe it is our time in history for a peaceful solution in the ME. Maybe we still have a couple of centuries to go until we are capable of maintaining such a solution. Unless we try, it will be just a question.
44. JS | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
need to pick up on the truth here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5lHXkrdQ8&eurl&tr=y&auid=3694460
45. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
SAR,
It’s not our decision for a peaceful solution to the ME. It’s theirs. If they laid down their arms today, there’d be no fight.
And we are in Iraq at the current request of the Iraqi government. So maybe you should tell them why you don’t like our presence there. They may disagree with you.
And it is possible to defeat an enemy who wants to die. In fact them dying is the best way to defeat them, and maybe the only way to defeat them.
That was a stupid statement.
46. JS | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“I’ll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we…the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn’t say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn’t true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts…and people ate it up.”
preetty dumb americans out there…eh? voting for the demoncrats, induced by lies and misinformation…scumbag politic’s….they need to be run out of washington on a rail….
47. JS | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
peace in the middle east will on happen after iislam reforms itself and changes…until then…this will continue until they kill every non muslim or they are all dead…to them it is the will of allah….
48. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“And it is possible to defeat an enemy who wants to die. In fact them dying is the best way to defeat them, and maybe the only way to defeat them.”
“That was a stupid statement.”
Refresh my memory, how many high ranking AQ terrorist have we killed only to be replaced by the next one. We captured and killed Saddam and yet Iraqi’s are still oppressed. As I mentioned before, the Iraqi Government is only in place if it supports US interests. Do you honestly think if the government wanted to cut oil from us they would be in power. So of course the government wants us there, it’s a sock puppet and will be until our troops are gone.
You don’t get it do you, every time a bomb goes off and someone loses a child we create a terrorist. Every time a ‘Christian’ comes in proclaiming Islam is wrong, we create terrorists. You cannot defeat an idea or belief with a bomb or a gun or by telling them there beliefs are ludacris. True Islam is struggling against these fundamentalist, and we in the West are certainly not helping them in any way shape or form. We need to let them be. Let them live their lives how they see fit. Move away from oil. Forget about pushing ‘Christianity’ and ‘Democracy’ down their throats and let them find their own way.
Not to be confused, this ground war is a must, but only in Afghanistan. Though it will inevitably fail unless we realize the true cause of their hatred towards us and do not fail to understand or underestimate our enemy.
49. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“And it is possible to defeat an enemy who wants to die. In fact them dying is the best way to defeat them, and maybe the only way to defeat them.”
Maybe you’ll understand how ridiculous this statement another way. Why are we even fighting them, suicide bombers are just going to blow themselves up. They’ll eventually kill each other off and we will have won. The rest is all just collateral damage.
50. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
“You don’t get it do you, every time a bomb goes off and someone loses a child” - SAR
How many bombs have we set off compared the the number of bombs the terrorists have sent off? And does the same logic work for them.
SAR, you’re an apologist and a moral equivalency kind of person which only extends conflict. You’ll realize that as you mature.
51. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
“Though it will inevitably fail unless we realize the true cause of their hatred towards us….” - SAR
This statement says it ALL.
The ultimate apologist!!!!!!
52. bongoman | May 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
So people fighting an invasion & occupation of their country are terrorists?
Remember that only a tiny portion of violence in Iraq is Al Qaeda related - estimates put AQ fighters at 2% of the Sunni insurgency.
What the hell are we doing there?
53. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
neocon, your branding me “an apologist and a moral equivalency kind of person” is a complete cop out. Faced with logic you can not argue with you resort to petty labeling in an attempt to sway weaker individuals to accept the brand. What you fail to understand is that assertions based from fact and US policy are not apologetic but instead, responsible. Realizing mistakes and working to fix them has nothing to go with a kind of moral equivalence which you would understand had you been paying attention. I have said True Islam is fighting these ‘fundamentalist’. Every time I say ‘Christian’ like so, I mean to refer to ‘fundamentalist’ as both religions have them. One is no more right or moral then the other. Both are ‘fundamentalist’ and use religion to further political and totalitarian goals.
You cannot kill an idea or a belief in war. For ideas and beliefs are not mortal like humans. They can be passed on through way of story and history. Kill a person they die, but the idea they fought for is carried on by there brother in arms who passes it to there children and so on. Much like the Constitution is an idea on how to run a country. One could even argue that GWB has waged a war on that idea in itself, but I’ll leave that for another day. My point, it is impossible to kill an idea or a belief.
The only way to change such ‘fundamentalists’ is to prove their idea or belief wrong or at least flawed so they begin to question. This is where we win. Not man vs man but idea vs idea, belief vs belief… In our case, Freedom vs Intolerance. Which is why FREEDOM (not Christianity (notice the lack of ‘ ‘) because I know thats where some of you will go with this) will inevitably win.
54. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Bongo,
your entire premise is bunk. It is not an occupation. The Iraqi government has requested our continuued presence. (How many times does this have to be pointed out?)
We’re helping the Iraqi gov’t and the ISF secure their country. Just FYI.
Smarter liberals please.
55. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“Faced with logic” - SAR
What logic? Your view of the world is through the liberal paradigm which I disagree with to it’s core. Therefore, your “logic” is laughable to me.
NEXT.
56. bongoman | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Tell that to the Iraqis.
57. Timothy Horrigan | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
The liberals seem to have forgotten that we won the war in Iraq five years ago. They have forgotten that glorious day, May 1, 2003, when our Commander in Chief flew a small jet (much like the experimental jets he flew when fighting on the Mexican front of the Vietnam War) far out into the South Pacific and did a victory dance on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln in a tight-fitting jumpsuit. The liberals have forgotten those immortal words: “Mission Accomplished”.
Now they are trying to stop us from achieving victory in Iran. If we could defeat the former superpower Iraq’s mighty military machine in just a few weeks…. how many weeks could it possibly take to defeat a pipsqueak Iran? The liberals say we should talk to the Iranians… but they forget that the Iranians are not our friends. Also, diplomacy is by its very nature an attempt to arrive at a “win-win” solution… and letting the Iranians win means that we are denying ourselves the chance to defeat them.
58. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
bongo,
What is it about the request of our presence from the Iraqi gov’t that just can’t penetrate your skull.
Tell me about Sadr city.
59. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
“Though it will inevitably fail unless we realize the true cause of their hatred towards us…”
The rest of that paragraph from my post goes as such…
“Not to be confused, this ground war is a must, but only in Afghanistan. Though it will inevitably fail unless we realize the true cause of their hatred towards us and do not fail to understand or underestimate our enemy.”
And you tried to argue context earlier in this thread… sheesh
60. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
#55. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
And that would be Game, Set and Match…
61. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Your premise is crap!! You’re assuming that it’s our fault why they hate us. That’s what I mean by being an apologist.
It’s not our fault. And if you think otherwise, than your weak.
62. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
SAR,
You are a product of a failed educational system. You’re eyes will open up as you mature.
63. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
SAR,
Thank you. I thought my post said it all too. You and bongo and the rest have zero capacity to view anything outside your indoctrinated, liberal paradigm.
It’s sad. But maybe you’ll all be happy living in our 57th state. Whichever one that is.
64. JS | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
you really are way out in left field sar….we didnt kill saddam…the iraqi people tried, convicted, and executed him…..neocon was dead on…petty labeling does not stick to the truth…and neocan told the truth about you….that not labeling…..and the only part more defective in your argument than Saddam is your ignorance of islam and the cause of the terrorism we are fighting….but all in all, you have no foundation….you have to squirrel around the truth and paint pictures containing pure unadulturated rhetoric and lies to come to any conclusion that you are right….and you really are out of context with the topic….sheeesh just doesnt weigh the Demoncrat’s anti war views…..
65. JS | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
sar said “You cannot kill an idea or a belief in war. For ideas and beliefs are not mortal like humans.”
maybe you should tell that to the nazi’s….putz
66. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Neocon, you call me apologetic, I say you suffer from a lack of responsibility complex. Regardless, it’s still a cop out. Prove to me that we have done nothing for them to hate us. Prove to me they started this whole mess were in now! Prove this is not as much an Idea War as it is a ground based one! Here’s a hint, this dates back past the USS Cole and the first WTC bombing. Which is Past Clinton’s administration.
An apologist would argue that we deserve our fate because of what we have done. For example, one would argue; just because we in America do not hold our politicians accountable for their actions does not mean the rest of the world applies the same kindness to us. I do not. I say they are just as bad if not worse for what they have done, BUT it’s time for us to grow up and take responsibility for what we have done and use it to get out of the mess we are in.
What would you do? Ignore US foreign policy since before the Second World War and fight in Iraq until we kill every last terrorist?
I see you’ve used yet another cop out, the good ol failed education system… how ever did you beat such a flawed unilateral system?
Before I forget, a quick Google search on ‘apologetic and moral Equivalence’ brings up nothing but a slue of Right Wing Conservative blogs. Interesting….
and JS, please man, that is just flat out weak. We, The USA, land of the FREE along with our allies, who all fought for FREEDOM against an INTOLERANT and TOTALITARIAN enemy (Hitler) WON the War. The IDEA of FREEDOM is what the countless millions died for. Also, the IDEA of Nazism is still around today. The IDEA is not dead, it was just proven to be flawed to such an extent it became outlawed and socially unacceptable. In terms of ground based warfare you cannot compare WWII to Iraq, but in terms of Ideology, it’s still FREEDOM vs. INTOLERANCE.
As I’ve said before, you wingers always jump to Hitler, as if it’s your ace in the hole or something. It’s truly laughable.
67. What? | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Neocon writes:
As far as your questions are concerned:
2. I am opposed to guerilla warfare, hence my support to defeat Al Qaida
3. I am opposed to occupations; hence my support to rid Kuwait of Saddam and my appreciation of the Iraqi government requesting our presence.
You are aware the colonies practiced guerilla warfare in the Revolution, right? Also, resistance organizations used guerilla tactics against the Nazis in WWII.
I think what you mean is that you are opposed to terrorism.
As for your occupation comment, the Iraqi government’s desire for our presence is not really what matters. The current government will always want us there because we provide the security forces that allow it to exist.
The relevant question is whether the public wants us in Iraq. I have not seen the recent statisitcs, however, I remember reading there was a split a few years ago.
You also wrote this:
“Your premise is crap!! You’re assuming that it’s our fault why they hate us. That’s what I mean by being an apologist.
It’s not our fault. And if you think otherwise, than your weak.”
So why, in your opinion, do they hate us?
68. phnx | May 23rd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
“Though it will inevitably fail unless we realize the true cause of their hatred towards us and do not fail to understand or underestimate our enemy.”
SAR
They hate us because we are not Muslims. They have already said this. You liberals just don’t want to take them at their word. Obama and ther rest of you leftists believe that “some ingenious argument will persuade them” to drop their hatred and live in peace.
You are all dangerously naive.
69. Some Assembly Required | May 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Phnx, it’s far more complicated then that. The fundamentalists hate us because we are not Muslims, sure, then thats not the only reason either. Just look at Iraq, because we went in over there a million refugees were created. For Groups such as AQ this is prime recruiting grounds to instill their twisted versions of Islam onto people who have been displaced by a foreign country. Unless you understand something like that your doomed to repeat such mistakes and replenish your enemies strength.
Also, a failure to understand Iraq’s culture has lead to the civil war.
We also underestimated their resourcefulness.
In any event, the war has been a complete strategic nightmare.
70. phnx | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Also, a failure to understand Iraq’s culture has lead to the civil war.
What civil war? NOt even NBC is saying that anymore…but nice try.
71. Harry, Barak, Does This A&hellip | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
[…] The Truth About Democratic Anti-War Views […]
72. Street Riot | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Deleted - complains about comment policy.
73. What? | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Phnx writes,
“They hate us because we are not Muslims.”
So why aren’t they calling for the destruction of China, Japan, Mexico and Canada? You have some holes to fill in.
But for argument sake, let’s assume your assertion is true: They hate us because we are not Muslim.
Your solution, continuous war and ultimately genocide, is just as hopeless as some “ingenious argument.”
To defeat the enemy, we would have to kill all or most of the people who you would consider terrorists. This task would require a war that would spread from North Africa, to Europe, to Central and South East Asia.
Even if we were able to fight such a conflict (an unlikely outcome considering our current inability to secure Iraq and Afghanistan), we would only justify and ultimately promote the cause of those who claim we are the “Great Satan.”
Your approach is also in opposition to the Bush approach. The whole point of going into Iraq (after WMDs didn’t appear) was not to fight Al Queda (which wasn’t in Iraq and still isn’t) but to create a stable democratic government that would be a template for other Middle Eastern nations to follow. This has not happened. Instead of becoming friendly democracies, nations like Iran and Syria have become more radical.
Bush was right in one respect. Ending terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of nations that act as terrorist breeding grounds. War, however, does little to accomplish this goal.
Our goal should be to encourage countries to fight our battles for us. Our means should be economic incentives and investment. In otherwords, trying to win the hearts and minds, and wallets of those who want to harm us. This may not be possible after the Iraq War.
74. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
What?
Are you comparing our revolutionary founding fathers to islamic extremists?????
The reason we are in this current geo-political conundrum is because we have too many people like SAR, bongo and What? who will go to any length to excuse, apologize and condone abhorent and criminal behaviour on the part of those they deem to be victims. Irrespective of the facts.
Couple that with an educational system that teaches a revised world history and then graduates these programmed pseudo-intellectuals and you will soon have a growing populace of Chamberlains.
SAR, and the other lemmings are our current day Neville Chamberlains, and too stupid too realize it.
75. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
“Our goal should be to encourage countries to fight our battles for us.” - What?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberals don’t want to do anything themselves. They want the government to pay for the healthcare, they want the rich to pay their taxes, and now they want other countries to fight their battles.
PRICELESS!!!!!
Thanks dipshit.
76. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
And I see they’re still playing the “civil war” card.
Seriously this debate is a comedy. What? continues to regurgitate years old talking points. Evidently this is what passes for intellectual in liberal circles.
The #73 post is the same one that was wriiten 3 years ago.
Any original thought fellas? Oh and tell me about Sadr City and how he kicked ISF’s ass. That one is one of my favorites.
Hey is “tiny” Iran a threat today or not. I can’t remember if that is odd or even days.
77. phnx | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
“…nations like Iran and Syria have become more radical.” What?
What? indeed. You must be joking, how is it possible for them to become more radical? They have been funding Hamas, and Hezbullah long before Bush even took office.
78. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
What? even denies Al Qaedas current presence in Iraq.
“The whole point of going into Iraq (after WMDs didn’t appear) was not to fight Al Queda (which wasn’t in Iraq and still isn’t)……” - What?
I wonder who ties his shoes in the morning?
79. JS | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
sar said” We, The USA, land of the FREE along with our allies, who all fought for FREEDOM against an INTOLERANT and TOTALITARIAN enemy (Hitler) WON the War. The IDEA of FREEDOM is what the countless millions died for. ”
sar also said;“You cannot kill an idea or a belief in war. For ideas and beliefs are not mortal like humans.”
you really are a screw ball arent you sar?
you make an absolute statement and then back up the statement with a lie…face it…the belief of the aryian race and white supremacy is a lie…its not a belief…its the fodder of fools who are weak minded and immature…like yourself…and once again…you came with a half witted mind like a butter knife to a gun fight…grasping at straws again….how pitiful…falls right back to my initial assessment about you….just another stooge…wake up foo!!
80. What? | May 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Hmm, so much irony, Neocon.
You support the Bush administration but you openly laugh at the goal it has set. The Administration’s goal is to have the Iraqis fight terrorists, not us. Do you even know what your president supports?
The larger goal of the Iraq War was to promote democracies in surrounding countries which would in turn fight our enemies. As Mark would say: think about what you write before you post.
Our strategy failed because we chose to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
We came off as the bad (incompetent) guys and have destabalized the region and left a power vaccuum which Iran will fill.
Iran and Syria have always been rogue states, but only since Bush took office have they increased their attacks on Isreal. Also with Saddam no longer able to keep Iran in check, Iran is a more powerful enemy than it was eight years ago.
By laughing at the idea you are also laughing at the very strategy we used to win the Cold War. We chose to invest in other countries to prevent them from sliding into Communism.
We have been using this same strategy in Pakistan to encourage fighting against extremist there.
The insugency in Iraq is not the Al Queda that committed 9/11. They call themselves Al Queda as a show of solidarity. The terrorists we fight in Iraq did not exist prior to our invasion. Our invasion created them.
How do you think the colonists won the Revolutionary War? Do you think they always lined up on the field of battle and fought the British, a better trained, better equiped army? If you think this, I want you to take your copy of Mel Gibson’s The Patriot and burn it. You have watched it far too much.
I was not comparing the colonial army to terrorists. I was saying you claimed you were against guerilla tactics, something this country and our allies have employed since our nation’s birth.
Also, your understanding of Neville Chamberlain is so off base. Sadly, the right’s effort to paint Chamberlain as an appeaser is working.
The question is: What else could have Neville Chamberlain done?
At the time, Germany had the most powerful army in Europe. No other country in Europe would have challenged it.The United States was practicing isolationism and many Americans were pro-Germany. The British Army was trying to keep the Empire together and the British public had no desire to go to war.
Chamberlain had no choice given all these factors. Any threat he made could not have been backed up with force.
What is so sad and telling about you is you can’t even make an argument on the war, a war your current presidential candidate has openly admitted was poorly waged.
All you have are cheap insults to make yourself feel better.
81. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 4:11 am
55. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
So this means faced with your country being saved from defeat by Liberalsim you would rather be deatroyed by a leaver who shared your conservative “values.”
Do We need to say what that makes you?
82. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Yes because to every man loyal to George III every rebellious American colonist was a terrorist and a traitor. See Nathan Hale.
76. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Here’s a new idea about terrorism for you neocon. What if the next major al Qaeda attack has been going on since the summer of 2007? Now We know there have been no bombings, no gassings and no mayhem and fear like was seen on 9/11 so what could We possibly mean?
Go and look at a chart of the oil futures price for a December 2016 contract of Light Sweet Crude. That rising price that far out is called contango. Google the word and learn of it and its mirror image backwardation. In this question is the seed of wisdom if a commodity is in contango and the under lying value of the currency it is traded in $ is dissolved by switching to a stronger currency € then what happens to the economy of the $ printing nation?
Five cities each with four men trading not as a cell but as capitalists doing what capitalists do making money. None of them need leave the Muslim world but with the power of computers they can set up Buenos Aires, Auckland, Johannesburg, Mumbai and Ho Chi Minh City and make their trades via EFT via banks friendly to them Like BNP Paribas and Credit Agricole or Wachovia.
And of course a man like you who cannot understand the nature of such things would be quick to point out that two of those financial houses are “french” and thus they must be weak or in “cahoots” with some brown enemy of your country. Yet these men could easily have driven the price of crude up to where it is without fear of being stopped because fundamental forces in the market accept € 85 crude and burp and ask for another. We see the brilliance in the scheme and yet you cannot see the endgame. Twenty men, the leverage of € 200 MM [which in the current mid cap markets can be as much as 15:1 which gives our “cells” € 30 MMM in investment paper to play with ] ten good laptops with WiFi cards, a modest apartment, no cover story needed other than that you are a day trader from Dubai or Sharjah or Abu Dhabi and a good restaurant list to order take out from that serves lamb and chicken tajines.
By now the profit from such an endeavor has paid for itself ten fold and increased the borrowing power of the cells by 25%. They need to burn off some of the profit so they might make a bad corn put here a lousy oats call there and then the markets can see these guys are not geniuses they are working some Brownian math derivative program that is not fool proof like many others sitting in apartments in big cities all over Terra.
By the time the new President is finishing his first state of the union address the US economy if this scenario were true would be in free fall and you will no longer be a conservative because your survival instincts will have kicked in. Gasoline will be well over $10 per gallon and that December 2016 future will be close to $ 210 for a barrel, or what financial counter terrorism experts call the “critical mass point for stable American economic survivability.” At $ 5 per gallon for crude and rising the average America who earns less than $100 000 per year who is paying a mortgage cannot afford to purchase gasoline and food and pay on his home. This is the point at which Americans cease to worry about vacations and Holiday Shopping at the end of the year and start to make hard choices between being hungry and being homeless. If this oil space is being manipulated by al Qaeda or some other group that thinks America’s time should come to an end that point is a mere 19 months away from right now.
America could well right now be the frog that is very satisfied with the war water it floats in not realizing that the pot sits on a low flame and in two minutes just when it become too late the water will boil.
83. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 9:00 am
What?,
You’re a great example of the axiom: garbage in, garbage out.
Pain,
Try spell check and better sentence composition in your post #81. As it stands, it’s completely non-sensical.
And loved your racist reference in post #82. Why are liberals so obsessed with skin color?
Secondly, your entire premise in post #82 is false, and that is we are entirely dependent on the ME for oil. Canada is our largest supplier of oil and we have enough domestic reserves to sustain ourselves for quite sometime until our alternative energies are available.
So I can only assume that you support our continued dependence on ME oil, oppose domestic exploration and yearn for the day that your above, mental-masturbation of a scenario comes to light. What a leader you are! I can’t wait until we have people with your vision and leadership running this country, NOT!
Liberals are the biggest bunch of whiny losers this planet has ever known.
84. Tractatus | May 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Poor neocon–so angry at people for being educated, for being smarter than him, and for having a better handle on Iraq than him that all he can do is lash out in an intellectually blunt fury.
Really, neocon, why do you hold such disdain for education? Is it because you never received one?
Incidentally, you should look up the word “appease.” It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. Again, if you weren’t so hostile toward learning, you wouldn’t make such mistakes. You might even be able to make a salient point, too.
85. Some Assembly Required | May 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
#74. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Calling us the problem is a little ridiculous. We’ve stayed the course in Iraq and where has it gotten us? We had AQ completely demoralized in Afghanistan until the Iraq fiasco.
Have you ever asked yourself why 3 year old talking points are still being used? Why republicans still squirm for any possible answer they can think of when they’re brought up again and again? It’s because they do not get answered. And the answers would cause you to admit you’re wrong and take responsibility for what has been done.
To top the cake now you claim history books have got it all wrong. All sources on the internet aside from fox have got it wrong to I guess. Your rampid projection is remarkable to say the least.
What? has put you in a place that you cannot defend from so you resort to partisan tactics. I believe you are what is known as the ’status quo’. Something, in case you hadn’t noticed, is dying bread in this election.
We immature, undereducated kooks don’t mind though. In fact we welcome you to have a cup of non fat latte with us and discuss how to move forward. Shoot, were even fairly mild mannered considering most of us can leave our emotions out of political discussions. Who knows, you might like the change. You’ll lead a lot less stressful life which is good for high blood pressure anyway.
Oh and Neocon, since you avoided this from my previous post a couple times I’ll post again…
“Regardless, it’s still a cop out. Prove to me that we have done nothing for them to hate us. Prove to me they started this whole mess were in now! Prove this is not as much an Idea War as it is a ground based one! Here’s a hint, this dates back past the USS Cole and the first WTC bombing. Which is Past Clinton’s administration.”
Come to think of it, prove that without using some lavish conspiracy theory about history.
Still waiting….
Didn’t think so…
JS, If your going to respond to my posts, at least keep them in context. I mean all you have to do is scroll up to see you’re an idiot who copied a portion of the post just prove your point.
Pain, spot on as per usual. Sadly, neocon will be one of those people wallowing in denial and self pity. “How could this happen to me… I’m an American!”
86. JS | May 24th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
oh, you mean the one that claims america killed saddam?
like i said, you are in the circle of the three stooges…you really dont have much going beyond that point….
87. JS | May 24th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
educated idiots does not change the fact that they are idiots…conspiracy theories dont run the nation…just the minds of the educated idiots….pain….you really are good at fiction writting….maybe you should visit a related board or blog that deals with those issues….people have lost thier arse before on speculating currency….and they will again…but there is no mold…no guarantee that speculation does anything but fill the need to gamble on the future….hence…its really nothing more than a liberal gig…and is based in fantasy and lies….
88. Some Assembly Required | May 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Okay JS, heres how you took me out of context
You copied this from my post to prove your point…
“We, The USA, land of the FREE along with our allies, who all fought for FREEDOM against an INTOLERANT and TOTALITARIAN enemy (Hitler) WON the War. The IDEA of FREEDOM is what the countless millions died for.”
Then you copied this from a previous post in an another attempt to further prove you point…
sar also said;“You cannot kill an idea or a belief in war. For ideas and beliefs are not mortal like humans.”
The next sentence from the very same post you referenced above is as follows”
“Also, the IDEA of Nazism is still around today. The IDEA is not dead, it was just proven to be flawed to such an extent it became outlawed and socially unacceptable. In terms of ground based warfare you cannot compare WWII to Iraq, but in terms of Ideology, it’s still FREEDOM vs. INTOLERANCE.”
I think I’ve said enough here. Que the person insults.
As for Saddam, our purpose of going into Iraq was WMD’s and to get Saddam. What Exactly do you think we were gonna do when we captured him? As I said before, Weak.
JS, you do it again. Oil Futures are, (are you sitting down for this?) SPECULATION. Oil Futures are the bulk of the reason why Oil is at $135 a barrel right now. Sheesh.
89. What? | May 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Neocon,
Seeing as you cannot refute any argument I make I will graciously accept your defeat.
Also, Mark, Neocon is using some pretty strong profanity. Please delete his comments.
90. phnx | May 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
What so dem politicians really think about Iraq?
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/05/democratic-congressman-admits-that.html
Seems that according to Rep Kanjorski (D-PA) they will say anything, even stretch the truth (Dem speak for LIE) in order to get the gullible public to vote for them.
How does this make you leftist lemmings feel, knowing that your party conspired to lie to get your money and support?
91. JS | May 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
wow sar…are you that clueless to think you can play a technical bs line and get away with using a lie as an established fact, or do you not get the reality of the issue because you have your head inserted so deeply into your liberal derrier that reality really doesnt register…
why do you think you are a stooge? because you look like larry? wake up….hitlers arian dream is defeated, dead, and only a handful of disillusioned drug addicts grasp at using it as an ‘idea”….then again, using your logic….a person can eat a steak, take a dump, and have a perfectly fine t bone ready to recycle….no thanks…your logic is deft as your excuses…
92. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
JS | May 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
So you honestly feel that ideas can be killed?
That their measure in history can be destroyed by invading armies and unconditional surrenders. Clearly you have not had enough ideas in your life young man and sadly too few struggles against equal opponents.
But yet you believe a Religion can be immortal and can salve all wounds and a nation-state can be sustained perpetually because you happened to be born there but an idea a thing known in the minds of men can be erased like a chalkboard in a classroom.
We find this disturbing to Our very Core.
93. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Hi Children,
I laughed my ass off at the rebuttals. You guys are just too thick for words. I loved how SAR claimed victory based on a completely false premise, absolutely hysterical.
Tractatus seems to think I’m angry which is even more amusing than SAR’s observation. You guys hardly bring up any anger in me, quite the opposite. I love reading your posts. They are dripping with ignorance and naivety and especially get a kick out of how proud of yourselve you are. I tell you it makes my day.
And then Pain points out my profanity?? Where?
After declaring victory, hahahhaahahhahah.
Please, please keep posting, all of you. I work a stressful job and need the comedy relief.
Incidentally, you’ve all obviously missed the fact that I don’t debate you. I mock and ridicule you. And you haven’t really cauught onto that.
Thanks so much, I needed the laugh.
94. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“We find this disturbing to Our very Core” - Pain
Would that be a metaphysical core? Or something tangible?
And how disturbing? Strap bombs on your children and blow up innocent people in cafes disturbing? Or gays not being allowed to marry disturbing?
95. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
“The larger goal of the Iraq War was to promote democracies in surrounding countries which would in turn fight our enemies” - What?
um…..no it wasn’t.
“We came off as the bad (incompetent) guys and have destabalized the region and left a power vaccuum which Iran will fill.” - What?
um……no it hasn’t and no they wont.
“We chose to invest in other countries to prevent them from sliding into Communism.” - What?
um….no we didn’t. We outspent the Soviet Union. And i thought you said it was because of Reagans diplomacy in an earlier post.
“They call themselves Al Queda as a show of solidarity. The terrorists we fight in Iraq did not exist prior to our invasion. Our invasion created them.” - What?
And that’s the whole point of the war. To create a battleground to fight them there. Try and keep up.
And which subsidiary of Al Qaeda did they come from. Was it the Omaha branch, or the one in Peoria.
What? if you ever say anything factual, I might debate you. Otherwise I will continue to mock and ridicule you.
96. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
94. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
1. A most physical Core.
2. Neither. For in the context of the oppressed both are valid and in the context of the oppressor both are invald.
Considering that the American colonists had to use similar tactics to win their freedom from an oppressive British Monarchy.
You appear to Us as one of those kinds of human animals that would not be satisfied if all of your ideological wet dreams actually came true. Because then you would have control and you would not know what to do with it. This is why Leadership should be left to the capable, the Brave and the Reasonable.
All the insults and laughter in the world cannot change the worst thing in your life.
97. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
So profound Pain. So if the core is physical, what is it comprised of? Tissue? Cartledge? And does sperm flow through it?
What was so oppressive about the British Monarchy? And how does that oppression compare to Islam?
The only wet dream I have is for you.
98. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
97. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
We thank you for recognizing Our profundity.
And yes the core is physical and to see an example your computer is to Us as an amoeba is to a Human Being. Both are living but the Man is more advanced. Both organic and inorganic. No cartilage, but yet many wonderful manifestations of the organic including the procreative power to join two ova and procreate, thereby eliminating the need for you.
Though We deeply appreciate your physical affection for Us.
The British Monarchy was most oppressive to the American colonists during the times leading up to the Declaration of Independence equally the distribution of rewards post colonialism in the Middle East has been most oppressive toward Islam.
99. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Thanks Pain.
Next year though take sentence structure as a class. You need it.
And then re-take elementary reading. A refresher course will do you good.
And if post colonialism has been so oppressive, why did Arafat die with billions of dollars in a bank in France? And why did Saddam have eight mansions? Why do the clerics in Iran drive limousines?
Can I be oppressed?
100. JS | May 24th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
92. Pain
ya, i guess you are about as ignorant as i though you wuz…its true pain….you come off with this high and mightly lie about ideas that cannot die when invasions occur…so i guess history just doesnt meas shiite to you then….because there are hundreds of nations that disappeared…religions based on human sacrifice are gone…powerful religions with millions of followers….poof…no idea….none worth speaking of eh? and really…aryan supremacy…the motivation of the nazi…died….with hitler….goering…himler…do the german people still swear allegiance to the nazi’s….wake up fool, you dont have a clue…your bush shill is about as valid as the man on the moon….and just as ignorant.
101. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
99. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Because absolute power absolutely corrupts.
102. Tractatus | May 24th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
especially get a kick out of how proud of yourselve you are.
I’m not proud of myself for outsmarting you, neocon; in fact, I’d be rather embarrassed if I didn’t. After all, you set the bar so low.
103. What? | May 24th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Neocon,
So you openly admit you don’t debate and then you try and refute what I say by simply saying it is not true. Pretty weak, friend.
You do realize I take great pleasure in your insulting posts. Every post where you act like an ass and say nothing reaffirms my belief you are a helpless immature dolt wedded to a world view that even your have not quite thought through.
I sometimes feel guilty for visiting this site. It is the same way I feel when I watch VH1 or Jerry Springer. The question that drives me (and I am sure other people who visit) to read these post is: “What will these people possibly say next?”
Neocon, you aren’t my favorite. I think Former Marine holds that title. Jeremiah is up there, too. I will say that you have risen in the ranks steadly recently. So please, insult me. I am looking forward to it.
Also, your insult did not bother me. I am just illustrating how Mark selectively enforces his comments policy.
104. JS | May 25th, 2008 at 12:22 am
why do you bother with these stooges neo…they go to thier conspiracy sites and pick up a pile of poop and drag it over here…and argue that its not poop because its brown…ya…its true that not every thing brown is poop….but arguing about the obvious doesnt change the fact that it is poop, and it is brown….and the stooges who drag it on cant even figure it out…
105. What? | May 25th, 2008 at 2:01 am
js,
You are now my favorite. Good work.
106. Some Assembly Required | May 25th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Neocon, JS, and others, Please come up with a reasonable arguement to what myself, What? and Pain have portrayed. We all welcome it. Unlike yourselves we can learn from a good argument. You may score valid points that we may take into consideration instead of calling it Wrong. Are you taking notes?
Specifically, JS, I normally do not partake in name calling, but you are an Idiot. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
We educated see the problem and work to fix it. Those who disagree with us we listen to. Why? Because they can provide incite into areas which cannot because of how connected we are to them. You know, walk away and take a fresh look.
If you dont believe this, it will soon become apparent. You see, where we have gone a more ‘Religious’ route, the rest of the world has become more innovative and intelligent. We wage a war on science, they progress it.
ANWAR means nothing if an alternative fuel source is developed. Or an alternative to the Combustion engine. What is so hard to understand about that?
And Neocon, I’m still waiting for your evidence… P.S., every time you dismiss it, further proves my point….
107. Faceplant | May 25th, 2008 at 7:20 am
“By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy — not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush — activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.”
According to the latest Quinnipac University poll 70% of Americans want AT LEAST a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq. Joe Leiberman (and all the rest of the neocons) like to pretend they are centrist. But they clearly are COMPLETELY out of touch with the VAST majority of Americans. I still find it amazing that anyone takes your party seriously anymore.
108. Faceplant | May 25th, 2008 at 7:25 am
“Obama was not taken out of context and to claim that those countries are less of a threat than the Soviets is just completely naive and ignorant of foreign affairs.”
Stop digging. Holy crap, it never amazes me how completely paranoid you people are. Iran and Syria are superpowers in posession of thousands of nuclear warheads? Anyone who thinks Iran or Syria is a rival power to the US is easily the stupidest person I have ever met. And that isn’t sarcarsm. How does ANYONE take you guys seriously?
109. Faceplant | May 25th, 2008 at 7:36 am
“Iran does not have nukes pointed to us, but is aggressively trying to acquire those nukes so they can.”
So you better not pay any attention to the findings of that ultra liberal wacko group known as… the United States Goverment?
“A major U.S. intelligence review has concluded that Iran stopped work on a suspected nuclear weapons program more than four years ago, a stark reversal of previous intelligence assessments that Iran was actively moving toward a bomb.”
You and your party have been wrong about pretty much everything when it came to Iraq. Give me one good reason why we should pay any attention at all to what you, or your supporters, have to say.
110. Faceplant | May 25th, 2008 at 7:45 am
“And if post colonialism has been so oppressive, why did Arafat die with billions of dollars in a bank in France? And why did Saddam have eight mansions? Why do the clerics in Iran drive limousines?”
Why does John McCain own 8 houses!?
Seriously, why don’t you try looking at how the average citizen lives in those contries, not how the elite live.
111. neocon | May 25th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“Neocon, JS, and others, Please come up with a reasonable arguement to what myself, What? and Pain have portrayed.” - SAR
The reason being SAR is that we disagree completely with your entire premise. Therefore any conclusion you derive to debate is non sequitur, and impossible to debate.
- I don’t believe we do need to understand why Muslims hate us. I believe it is their turn to understand why we don’t like them.
- Diplomacy during the cold war was conducted completely different than you all portray, and with a completely different enemy.
- America is not the root of all evil. Period. Nor is America responsible for the worlds ills, as you all suggest.
Therefore to debate your insanity, is too accept your premise as fact. Impossible. Now do you understand that SAR????
Faceplant,
Seriously, why don’t you compare how the average citizen in America lives as opposed to how the average citizen the ME live. Then look at the wealth accumulated by their leaders. Does that cause you reason to pause?
112. Pain | May 25th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
111. neocon | May 25th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“The reason being SAR is that we disagree completely with your entire premise. Therefore any conclusion you derive to debate is non sequitur, and impossible to debate.”
Or to translate from Newspeak,
“As a conservative I don’t like what you do but since I realize most people want a liberal government and their civil liberties and that this is my agreement with conservatism’s narrow view of individual freedoms that can only exist if they are Biblically allowable, or patriotically traditional, I must attack the liberal source. By personally insulting my opponent and forcing them into appearing weak, or even feminine, I can successfully dodge being exposed as a theocrat, a bigot, a homophobe or an anti-capitalist or even all the above. When you seek to control the lives of others because of your own insecurities this is the only card in the deck you have to play.”
113. Some Assembly Required | May 25th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
You disagree with a premise based in fact. Then use that as a rebuttal. You fellas are becoming ever more transparent by the day. And you claim we are disconnected from reality. Furthermore, non of us have said America is evil. We are simply stating she is not perfect. A concept you bible toting people should be very familiar with. Care to try again?
One more thing, Total Capitalism is Nation less and without morals. The best system is one which combines Conservative and Liberal values in one working model. One of the reasons why were starting to crumble is because we’ve gone to far one way and people such as yourself think liberalism needs to be abolished. Why can’t you understand it’s on the opposite side of the equation. Eliminating one will inevitably eliminate the other in time.
114. apartments omaha&hellip | July 26th, 2008 at 9:01 am
apartments omaha
A Trackback is one of three types of Linkbacks, methods for Web authors to request notification when somebody links to one of their documents.
115. Stop US Wars » Blog&hellip | July 27th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
[…] Medeshi wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe plain fact of the matter is that it wasn’t but a few months after 9/11 before Democrats were seeking ways and means of defeating President Bush and the GOP over the war - it was only a few voices to start with, but by late 2003 it … […]
116. Jack&hellip | August 21st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Mold Inspectors
Hmm, care to share some more?
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed