Dems forget that good offense is best defense
I am gravely concerned that the actions of the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House and Senate are going to result in serious consequences for our country. Playing the word games, pontificating and blustering can only result in giving aid and comfort to our enemy, the Islamic fascists, and affecting the morale of our brave men and women who are fighting this war.
Make no mistake — we are in a war for the survival of Western civilization and if we do not prevail, I’m afraid that the consequences will be horrendous.
Have they given any thought to the possibility that the enemy might obtain nukes? If we cut and run like we did in Vietnam, are they prepared to deal with carnage and bloodshed that is sure to occur in Iraq?
I’m just an old Korean War veteran, but even I understand that the best defense is a strong offense. In my opinion, we are keeping our enemy off balance by taking them on in their backyard. If we don’t, I’m afraid we will end up like Israel trying to defend many thousand soft targets here at home.
Please, America, stand up for our troops and the mission that they are trying to accomplish. Do not be swayed by the rhetoric emanating from the Democratic leadership.
Everitt W. Simpson, Golden
First let me thank you for your service to this nation, and I too am a veteran of war (the First Gulf War). Now let me ask you about turning your eye towards the Neo-Con word games, pontificating, and blustering that at this time as resulted in the deaths of 3355 American Soldier, Marines, Sailor, and Airman. A war based on word games of the Bush administrations falsely linking the 9-11 attacks with Iraq. How the Bush administration pompously claimed knowledge of “weapons of mass destruction” and “nuclear capacity” despite reports from various experts, agency, and intelligence contradicting such claims. Of course if you wish to talk about blustering the list is long and historic when speaking of how this war as been, and is being handled. From the initial invasion with no exit strategy, the infamous “Mission accomplished”, the prisoner scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and finally the disgraceful using of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch as propaganda to support an ill conceived policy. Neo-Cons need not cast any stones from within their glass house.
The war we have now been cast into by THIS ADMINISTRATION is us vs. the world. Their neglect of human rights as defined in the Geneva Convention as lead to the USA being seen as cowardly, torturing, bullies by the rest of the world. The comfort to the enemy of which you seek is fully being realized by our current actions. On the world stage the hatred of the USA as given our enemies all that they need both financially and in personnel. THERE WAS NO AL-QAEDA in Iraq until we got there and since the beginning of the war it as become fertile ground for al- Qaeda recruiting and training. Likewise we brought the opium trade back to Afghanistan (now the worlds number one producer), and that is already increasing drug related violence and death here in America.
I served this land, this is the land of the BRAVE, not the fearful who wage war because we are scared. We are noble because we do what is right, not because we turn a blind eye to evil deeds done in the name of our protection. If you truly wish to defeat terrorist do not be swayed by rhetoric that makes you live in fear. To defeat the terrorist we must return to being the United States of America, live by our principles, our honor, and be BRAVE enough to stand by these values.
Posted by Brad McCauley on May 3, 2007 01:56 AMBrad:
Now that you have typed your talking points out so nice and neatly....how about giving some real world 'ideas' for what you think should happen.
We already know that you want to cut and run and wash the blood from your hands of the resulting killing fest that will follow such a ill advised plan. Tell us ...oh great one...what is your plan? Your party's plan? Yeah...I thought so.
so brad from one Vet to another you[Nam 67-69 chopper pilot] should understand that this is the Land of the Free because of the Brave. Its a shame all you repeat is what cnn msnbc and the liberals tell you.
Here is my fear that the next time these American hating cowards decide to set off a human bomb it will be on our land again. Please tell us of all the tortue you mention.
are we the ones who use women and children with bombs strapped to their bodies to kill people? Do we live in caves like rats over there? how many of the captured have we beheaded?
Now I do know that in gitmo they are held in very nice accomodations, much cleaner than the cave they came from, get 3 meals aday, have all of the things they need for their religion. maybe that is the tortue you speak of.
Hey dont forget that hillary is talking she might have to go to Iran with the military.
Now that would be interesting to see who she would get to lead that one, jon kerry, hanoi jane or the french.
It is unfortunate that those who support this massive government expenditure have to continually use sports metaphors to justify the occupation. "The best defense is offense" slogan seeks to turn war into a game where our side will win if we can only kill enough people. It completely ignores the consequences of expending our resources on an occupation that fuels hatred for the US.
Mr. Simpson repeats the simplistic notions that killing more people in Iraq will somehow make us safer. He also ignores the claims that there is no military solution in Iraq. Senator Webb from Virginia a combat veteran who received the Navy Cross said: "The United States military is not going to change the societal makeup of Iraq."
www.webb.senate.gov
All the sports metaphors in the world aren't going to change the situation between the Shia and the Sunni. The ignorant Bush boot lickers still cling to the belief that if we just kill a few more brown skins then we will "win". The boot lickers never discuss how we can achieve a lasting peace. Their NASCAR win/lose mentality isn't capable of considering reconciliation between cultures and the steps required to achieve diplomatic and political solutions.
Posted by Wes on May 3, 2007 06:42 AMGlenn Greenwald has a great post up today regarding the rule of law:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/02/mansfield/index.html?source=rss
(click through the ad)
He gives great insite into where these Authoritarian Bush Cultists are coming from...
Posted by Charles B on May 3, 2007 07:31 AMMr Anonymous (5:22)
Re; "what is your plan..Your party's plan?"
No actually, pal, what is YOUR party's plan? If I remember correctly, Bush and his brave neocon buddies inserted us into this civil war and we have yet to hear how we are going to get out.
And ridiculous platitudes like "stay the course" and "we'll step down when they step up" are getting tired. And as for the "surge" - big difference that's made - the daily body toll is at its highest level ever. Bush is planning to string this out and then walk away from this mess and leave someone else to clean it up - like he's done his whole life.
So - this administration's "PLAN?" ... yeah, I thought so. And if you're going to post on this site at least give yourself a name - "Clueless" has a nice ring to it.
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 07:41 AMWES
Where do you think "sports" got the metaphor from?
Well, at least we haven't got to the point of hearing, "Win one for the Gipper", yet; though all the blather about those "good old Reagan years" coming out of the Ruling-Class Party lately sort of makes one wonder "when?", and not "IF" that, too, will happen.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 08:03 AMWell, at least we haven't got to the point of hearing, "Win one for the Gipper", yet; though all the blather about those "good old Reagan years" coming out of the Ruling-Class Party lately sort of makes one wonder "when?", and not "IF" that, too, will happen.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 08:04 AMWhat does it matter if the there is a civil war in Iraq or if the Shia and the Sunni hate each other? What's the point of constantly bringing up "civil war in Iraq" as if somehow that negates any other resolution other than retreating from Iraq?
The goal is stabilize Iraq. Politically, they have formed a new government with elections. Militarily, they are developing a trained army while US forces are attempting to provide security.
The fact that Sunnis are killing Shia and Shia are killing Sunnis does not and should not change our goal.
Unless, what some people are suggesting is that we should let Sunnis and Shia murder each other until a clear winner emerges. Is that what some folks are suggesting?
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 08:04 AMAlas, Republicans forget that an incompentent offense is the worst defense.
The majority of Americans haven't, despite the pathetic bluster on this blog.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 08:05 AMBy definition, a "good offense" has to be aimed at the right folks.
Attacking Sweden wouldn't have been a very good defense against Hitler, no matter how well we did it or how effectively we reshaped the government of Sweden.
What we need is to get out of this pointless, misdirected quagmire in Iraq and focus our attentions on Al-Qaeda and bin Laden (remember him?) . The more energy and time we spend in the middle of Iraq's civil war, the less energy and time we have to stop our REAL enemies before they (God forbid) develop nuclear weapons.
Goldurn thet thar sticky mouse key. Sorry fer the double-up thar.
Waal now, John II, seems ta me as if yore asayin' thet it's up ta Americans ta solve nigh onta' 1200 yars o' fightin twixt a pair o' furrin religious sects. Don't spose ya got some idees bout how ta do thet, do ya?
Thet thar word, "stabilize" shore air impressive. Course, it don't mean much, 'thout some plan fer adoin' tha job; an a plan fer adoin' ain't sumpin much ta be found in all tha fine talk 'bout what's sposed ta be done.
But then, as usual, talk 'bout "sposed ta do" is more yore forte - as them thar high falutin Rulin-Class Party folks has it - than plans fer "how to get sumpin done" anyhow. Come down ta a plan, all you do is criticize, an tell folks how it ain't agonna work ta begin with, cause you know all about how it's wrong from the git-go.
Do you really believe thet thar tarnation foolishness tha Rulin-Class Party puts out: "They (Iraq) are developing a trained army while US forces are attempting to provide security"?
Are ya really suggestin' that we - or airybody else in the Western world - can stop the two cults from akillin each other? Or thet thar ever will be a " clear winner" in that war? Or is thet thar last question of yorn jest more of the usual hot air an smoke screen ya use ta make folks think yer aputtin' up a sensible idee?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 08:44 AMJohn II: 'Unless, what some people are suggesting is that we should let Sunnis and Shia murder each other until a clear winner emerges. Is that what some folks are suggesting?"
No, John. What some people are saying is that we are not in a position to keep them from attacking each other; haven't you been keeping up with the news? General Patraeus and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have both made it clear that success of the surge is in no way guaranteed. They recognize the need for a Plan B, which which Gates has indicated would be a withdrawal of our troops to the periphery around Iraq.
In other words, the people at the top recognize that indeed we may not be able to keep the two sides from attacking each other.
They likewise recognize that it may take a U.S. withdrawal to stimulate the sides into making peace. That may turn out to be the best way to quell the sectarian violence.
Posted by Truth on May 3, 2007 09:07 AMbradley,Because of ignorance like your's ther will be a draft again.Because if the dems. get into the White House or keep control of congress no person in there right mind would join the armed forces.Plus everybody will rightfully see this country as week,meaning attacks on the main land again.You have shown you don't have the intelligence not to comsume the liberal propanganda.Al Qaeda was in Iraq and dealt with Irag before we went in .Fact.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 09:08 AMIs Keith from another planet?
Posted by on May 3, 2007 09:17 AMI love the way the new far-left majority in the Congress worries about Hallibuton and then stuffs $20,000,000,000 of pork to their cronies into the bill to support our troops. Harry Reid: free speech my patoot.. you are a traitor.
Posted by Buff Driver on May 3, 2007 09:24 AMFrom Mars,That global warming you humans cause up here is going to my head.Meatball.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 09:27 AMKeith, stop with the meth already - and I've told you, you're not smart enough to post and watch Hee-Haw at the same time!
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 09:29 AM"And if you're going to post on this site at least give yourself a name - "Clueless" has a nice ring to it."
Do you really think what you've been writing is of such thoughtful quality that id demands a name? Clueless, indeed.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 09:34 AMThe letter writer who asked to be dumped on may be from the Mormon planet of Kolog or Scientology's galaxy of 78 million years ago. Perhaps he is from the Raelian's planet, America's latest religion.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com on May 3, 2007 09:37 AMHey, Clueless, welcome back - well my writing isn't worthy of any great literary merit, but compared to the contributions of you, Keith and the other enlightened wingnuts it's like comparing Barbaro to a jackass.
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 09:41 AMAnd so humble too? Drew, you should be instituted as the brave new face of America, impeach Bush now!
Posted by on May 3, 2007 09:45 AMCharles B,Glenn Greenwald has a great post up today regarding the rule of law:"
What a great link. And Glenns opinion is so unbiased. He really approaches this with an open mind. (/sarcasm)
Posted by on May 3, 2007 09:47 AMMr Simpson,
So you're a Korean war veteran? That was the first war we lost ,or at least remains unresolved after more than 50 years, therefore we didn't win. You should know from that experience that the first essential ingredient for winning a war is you must have a just cause. We don't have a just cause. We were lied into this war. All of the reasons for going into Iraq have been thoroughly debunked. Do you expect the public to follow its' leaders into an unjust war? Do you think we are lemmings? Remember, the catastrophic consequences were predicted before the war. Bush went anyway. The vietnamese beat us with punji stakes and rat holes, not because our soldiers were not brave, not beacuse of the democrats, but because we did not have a just cause. Your rhetoric will not turn the lies that started this war into a just cause. We are not in a war for the survival of western civilization, as you mistakenly believe. That is another attempt to exploit our fears. We are in a war to prop up a puppet government we created in order to steal Iraqs' oil.
It is now clear that bush is going to leave this mess for his sucessor to clean up. He was dealt a fair hand when he came into office, having inherited the largest budget surplus in history, but now he has turned us into the most hated country in the world. Great job for a "uniter, not a divider".
Well as I said, it's of no great literary merit, but it's all relative - the work of my friend's 9 year old would look polished next to some of the incomprehensible rantings of the wingnuts on this site.
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 09:50 AMThis war is a failure because it is immoral and an act of genocide. We've seen this before. My forefathers were enslaved and brought to this country to do the jobs that whites wouldn't do." They were rewarded for their "free" slave labor by being stripped of their native religion, language, customs, and our women-folk were raped and bred like cattle, in pursuit of Herculean slaves. Today, criminal illegal Mexicans are our paid field slaves. Criminal illegal Hindu-Indians are paid high-tech slaves.
The war in Iraq-NAM is all about oil, stripping Arabs of their religion and customs, and in the aggregate, exterminating Muslims. The "decider" is a UCMJ felon (illegal separation and discharge) who should be tried in an international court for war crimes. He is a Hitler copy-cat.
Posted by jjtarheel on May 3, 2007 09:51 AMOld Grouch,
John II put the cogently so someone with even your limited attention could get through it. He put it in words of minimum syllables so a person of your limited intelligence wouldn't get lost.
John II wrote
The goal is stabilize Iraq. Politically, they have formed a new government with elections. Militarily, they are developing a trained army while US forces are attempting to provide security.
How about having another try? I'll bet you can get thought it if you really focus.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 09:56 AMJohn II,
The Old Grouch has gone to the minstrel dialect really early on this one.
That a good sign.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 10:01 AMTruth
You wrote:
General Patraeus and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have both made it clear that success of the surge is in no way guaranteed.
So we shouldn't fight to defend our liberty unless success is guaranteed? You didn't have any relatives at Valley Forge did you? Or did they show up and bug out?
Sounds a little tentative considering we're up against religious fanatics that want us all dead. It would make a good campaign slogan for the Democrats though.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 10:10 AMCharles B. ....You really need to return to Dogpatch and learn the correct pronunciation for the Dogpatchia language you pathetically try to emulate in many of your posts.
I realize your 2nd grade education will be a great benefit to you on your return. Even if you did flunk Dogpatchia language 101.
I am sure the people would welcome you with open arms.
“good offense is best defense”
So randomly punching out people in the street in case one of them might be a mugger is the policy most likely to prevent getting attacked.
I don’t think so.
As Attila the Hun, that left-leaning wimp said, the best defense is not giving unnecessary cause for somebody to attack you. He also put it another way, do not insult or antagonize anybody that you do not intend to fight with.
OOPS Re-direct the Dogpatch letter to OLD GROUCH....Charles B. and Old Grouch are so much alike it's hard to differentiate between the two.
Posted by A on May 3, 2007 10:23 AMI'm trying hard to understand the Liberal position. Let's say a majority of Americans DO want to the war to end. That's a pretty safe assumption. But, how does that logically translate into "let's just give it up, come home, and than stick our heads into the sand"? Somehow, "they" have decided that the "will of the people" is defeat. I just don't believe that a majority of Americans support that solution. How about giving up on political correctness and appeasement, and just winning the damn war with overwhelming force?
Posted by Dinty on May 3, 2007 10:33 AMYou should only go to war as a last resort. This was obviously not even near the case. I can't help but think that if Bush and Cheney would have served during Vietnam that they might have been a little more sympathetic to the sacrifices that soldiers make. There is no accountability in the Republican party. These people were wrong and they made huge mistakes. All you get from the GOP is B,b,b,but Clinton
Posted by Corky on May 3, 2007 10:36 AMDinty you can't be serious with that post.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 10:37 AMDinty,
Good post.
I would say that all Americans want the war to end. The vast majority want to see it end with a stable, pluralistic government in Iraq that would give the millions of people there who voted for democracy a chance at a stable life.
There are Americans who just want us out and don't particularly care about the Iraqi's or think about what would come next for us. They are eager for retreat at any cost because for them that spells defeat for Bush. Those people are called Deomcrats.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 10:53 AMWhere is the accountability for the Republicans who chose this war??
Posted by Corky on May 3, 2007 10:55 AMWell, how touching - and all this time all Republicans wanted was to give little brown people around the world a chance at democracy and peace! Who knew! War profiteering and oil had nothing to do with it!
Maybe as liberals we can teach James Jones & his tender hearted buddies to hold hands and sing Kumbaya - just like we do. As I write I am getting moist eyes & a lump in my throat!
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 10:59 AMDinty, so your argument is that we shouldn’t let a majority decision pull us out of the war, which of course means that you think that a minority decision should keep us in the war. Do you feel the same about going into new wars, or is this just for when we are already in them?
You point to political correctness, but I think you missed the mark.
The political correctness was in the sheep-like attitude by Congress, the media, and the people who went along with the war in the first place. Everybody tried to outdo the next guy in a show of patriotism and belligerence, and in accepting patently weak arguments for war and the target of war. It was highly politically incorrect to question the arguments for war, and people who did so were ferociously attacked.
That is political correctness at it’s best and most obvious.
Please explain how your “overwhelming force” would work, I am dying to see just how far you are prepared to go in order to save face (another piece of PC), I am also curious about who you reckon we are at war with. Another bit of PC is that we aren’t supposed to ask who the enemy is, and also where the articles of war are. PC says we aren’t supposed to notice that we never actually declared war on anybody, and yet we treat this like a war in many other respects. One final bit of PC you might like to step over is Iraqi casualties.
How many have died, would you say?
Nameless idiot,
"What a great link. And Glenns opinion is so unbiased. He really approaches this with an open mind. (/sarcasm)"
So what about the referenced post do you take issue with? Or do you think it's enought to just attack the source?
Most of that post consisted of excerpts from a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
So what about it are you disputing?
By the way, good sarcasm need not be noted by the author.
Here's the link again:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/02/mansfield/index.html?source=rss
(click through the ad)
Posted by Charles B on May 3, 2007 11:14 AMJames Jones,
I would be interested in any evidence you have that says the vast majority of Americans want to see it end with a stable pluralistic government. Every thing I am encountering shows far more support for the Democratic plan of withdraw then for Bush's "stay the course".
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion just dont pretend you or Bush represent the American people.
Posted by flimflam on May 3, 2007 11:15 AMJames Jones, "The goal is stabilize Iraq. Politically, they have formed a new government with elections. Militarily, they are developing a trained army while US forces are attempting to provide security."
That FOX news talking point is now obsolete. The training of Iraqi forces is abandoned, and it appears that our troops will be the only ones refereeing the continuing sectarian violence, oops I mean fighting for our civilization.
Posted by holyreality on May 3, 2007 11:19 AMCorky,
Accountability for the politcal class in America is at the polls.
That's the place where Bush was elected President - remember?
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 11:54 AMDrew,
It is the liberals that are bigots as you just demnstrated. Conservatives believe that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
Conservatives saw 12 million human beings go the polls to vote for democracy under the threat of death. We were proud of them when they waved their-ink stained fingers defiantly at their tormentors. We're not ready to give up on them.
You're the one talking about "little brown people around the world." That's your problem not ours.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 12:01 PMAnd the place where we dumped the Republicans, big time.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 12:03 PM"Conservatives believe that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin."
Hahaha, this has to be a joke, right?
Posted by on May 3, 2007 12:05 PMflimflam,
There are two problems with your poll-driven approach.
First, and to directly answer your question, you can't be sure how people interpret the question. For instance, do you ask "do you support the Democrat tactic for rapid withdrawal" or do you ask "would you like to see a stabe government in Iraq."
Second, polls don't tell you what is true, they only tell you what people are thinking at the time.
I don't pay a lot of attention to polls but I do tell you what think. If you disagree with me and think the Amecian people don't care about what happens in Iraq then you can make that case.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 12:07 PMholyreality,
Actually John II posted that and it's not a talking point; it's a concise description of the conditions.
You are completely off base on the Petraeus plan. Our guys are not refeering anything. They shooting the bad guys. Big difference.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 12:12 PMholyreality,
Actually John II posted that and it's not a talking point; it's a concise description of the conditions.
You are completely off base on the Petraeus plan. Our guys are not refeering anything. They shooting the bad guys. Big difference.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 12:12 PMJames Jones-
Yup,all those Stars & Bars waving southerners who vote republican en masse are all so touching when they judge people "by the content of their character and not the color of their skin."
You righties are just such sticklers for racial equality around the world. Gimme a break - you think we just fell off the turnip truck?
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 12:13 PMJames Jones,
I agree that polls can be misleading. However, there is a science behind them and the questions in them can be directed in such a way as to not be leading. That being said I would be interested in any recent poll from a reputable organization that suggested a vast majority of Americans "want to see it end with a stable, pluralistic government in Iraq that would give the millions of people there who voted for democracy a chance at a stable life."
If you cant find polls may I ask what evidence you have for your conclusions? Like I said, your entitled to your own opinion but that doesnt mean you speak for the American people.
Also, no one I know is saying that Americans dont care about what happens in Iraq. Thats a beautiful strawman your beating on.
Posted by flimflam on May 3, 2007 12:16 PMSharon B,
You are confused. That last election was to select members of Congress. It was the election before that when we selected the President.
It is the President, not the Congress, that conducts foreign policy. Of course the new congress could force defeat in Iraq by cutting off the funding. They won't do that because, unlike you, they are concerned about conequences and don't want the accountabilty.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 12:17 PM"I agree that polls can be misleading. However, there is a science behind them and the questions in them can be directed in such a way as to not be leading."
I would love to see an example of a political poll that is conducted in a statistically significant manner.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 12:29 PMdrew,I could see your 9yr. in 9yrs.saying to you ,thanks dumb ass after he gets drafted.And that lump in your throat,by chance is the rest hanging out of your mouth.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 12:38 PMWow Brad, how convenient for you to forget that Saddam Hussein used WMDs on his own people. And I see you also forgot John Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Murtha and other dems voted for action against Iraq, but now want to cut and run since Al-Qarda is killing women, children and our own solders. And how dare you bring up the Geneva Convention when these terrorists cut off the heads of civilians and make women and children their primary target.
Posted by 119-redrum on May 3, 2007 12:39 PMYou know the politicians have us right where they want us! This war is a perfect diversion from what's really going on! We all squabble and take sides saying we are right or left or in the middle. Bush is a #$%$$# Hillary is a#$%%$# also. While we are becoming DIVIDED our wonderful so called government is making plans for the U.S. to follow many of the European welfare states and become a country under socialistic rule.
What are we hearing from what has or is becoming, a biased controlled press? Expressions like "global economy" "worldwide market" "global warming" world this, global that. Mr. Simpson your worried about the Democrats alone?? We should all be worried about Washington's plans (Republican's and Democrat's) for the United States and what promises to be a very dreary future. Don't believe me? Think I'm a kook go to your library and rent the video entitled "More Deadlier Than War" It was produced some time ago but applys perfectly in 2007 your gonna be stunned!! Your gonna be mad!
Omahgod, A, here comes dem black helicopters frum the You-En - you better ruuun Bubba! World Gummint is a-comin'
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 12:48 PMThe president was appointed once by the Supreme Court and elected once by the people.....
Posted by J-Mac on May 3, 2007 12:54 PMflimflam,
Your point eludes me. To quote myself,
The vast majority want to see it end with a stable, pluralistic government in Iraq that would give the millions of people there who voted for democracy a chance at a stable life.
That doesn't say anything about tactics.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 12:55 PMMake light of it Drew that way people will think it is not credible. An age old trick to divert attention from a serious matter. "You can fool some of the people some of the time..........
Posted by A on May 3, 2007 01:05 PMJames Jones,
although self-selected polls used on the web are often completely unscientific, there are many that are done with a great deal of rigor by academic institutions, government departments, and polling firms.
Pew and Zogby for example
Thank God for the supreme court.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 01:21 PMLets go to the bottom line.A large percent of Democrats hate this country and a large percent are cowards.The ones that hate this country are siding with our enemy hoping the US loses the war.The cowards in the Democrat party are hoping that if they side with the enemy they will not be attacked.No matter how you cut it the Democrat party is a real danger to the US and our values.
Posted by Ron on May 3, 2007 01:25 PMNice bundle of strawmen, Ron. Any actual evidence to back your complete and total BS?
Posted by on May 3, 2007 01:30 PMDrew or is it Imus?? I take offense at your language! From your comments I am assuming you are a Democrat. I don't believe all Democrat's portray the black people in such a way, or are you just a racist person with no consience??
Posted by K. on May 3, 2007 01:36 PMRon, are you really Ann Coulter in drag? Oops - forgot that Ann was in drag already - are you Ann Coulter without the drag?
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 01:38 PMRon--
That was retarded. Who let bin laden (remember him?) run free? Who is recruiting terrorists to al-quaida?
That would be your bestest pal, Bush.
Let me say that again: Bush is actively helping al-quaida recruit terrorists. Not to mention, terrorist attacks were up 40% last year. And bush is making us safer, right??? Riiiiiight.
Posted by Tbone on May 3, 2007 01:43 PMK,
Go to your dictionary (it's a book where you look up words) open to "I" (it comes after "H") - and look up "irony" - it's spelled I-R-O-N-Y
Posted by Racist person with no conscience on May 3, 2007 01:44 PMDrew, AKA Imus I for one do not see the irony in your shameful interpretation of the black race. Your response just proves my point.
I find you repulsive!
Jeez..take a powder, won't you - you wings just don't get nuances & irony do you? Were you all in remedial education? May as well talk to a chair.
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 02:07 PM"Jeez..take a powder, won't you - you wings just don't get nuances & irony do you? Were you all in remedial education? May as well talk to a chair."
You talk to yourself, didn't anyone tell you that's crazy?
Posted by on May 3, 2007 02:54 PMSpud,
I examine the issues and make up my mind where I stand based on my values. I post here what I think and why I think it.
It doesn't especially matter to me what the polls indicate.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 02:58 PMTbone,
Actually bin Laden was roaming freely when Clinton was in office.
Now that Bush is in OBL hiding in a deep hole somewhere and if his cell phone rings, he will not answer.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 03:01 PMJJ, you are confused or just pretending to be.
The polls are where Bush was selected once, elected once and, in the last election ,where we dumped the Republicans.
"unlike you" there you go again Re12:17. would you be attempting to read my mind again? Tell me what I think of consequences? And accountability.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 03:03 PMDrew,
So now southern Americans are racist. You truely are a bigot.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 03:04 PMJJ, you are confused or just pretending to be.
The voting polls are where Bush was selected once, elected once and, in the last election ,where we dumped the Republicans.
"unlike you" there you go again Re12:17. would you be attempting to read my mind again? Tell me what I think of consequences? And accountability.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 03:07 PMJJ, yes, Americans from the south are racist. Or do Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and the like don't really exist after all?
Posted by on May 3, 2007 03:07 PM"JJ, yes, Americans from the south are racist. Or do Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and the like don't really exist after all?"
James, wouldn't it be so much easier to join the leftist side with rest of us and think in generalizations? It really is a lot easier than having to think.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 03:12 PMAnd the "right" actually thinks? If that is what you call rote repetition of talking points that are chock full of straw men, then I will pass.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 03:15 PM3:15 Thanks for proving my point. If only those rightist aholes would learn to generalize everything, maybe we could get something done. Alas, it does not seem likely.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 03:17 PMI wish everyone would sign a name to their posts. This thread is starting to look like a computer clock is debating itself.
Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 03:22 PMEveritt, your letter is right on target. If the Democrats were serious about supporting the troops, they would also be supporting their mission. Defeat is not an option.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on May 3, 2007 03:27 PM"The voting polls are where Bush was selected once"
Sharon B - The Supreme Court ordered the recount be finished without changing the voting laws in the middle of the count. Gores team had spent so much time trying to get away with hanging chads rather than finishing the count that they didn't have enough time to finish the count.
Please quit repeating this same old tired line. If you doubt my account. Read the court transcripts.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 03:27 PM”Defeat is not an option”
If defeat isn’t an option then don’t engage in pursuits where it is a likelihood.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 3, 2007 03:47 PMKW,
It's also important to remember that the Gore team attorney's were also trying to get the mail-in ballots from the military thrown out based on the fact that they did not have proper Post Office markings.
A lot of the military ballots are picked up by military aircraft and flown directly to the base and then off to the polling station.
The Gore team apparently concluded that the military votes wero going to Bush.
The left gets a little fuzzy on historical details so we have to keep reminding them of what actually happened as opposed to what they want to remember.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 04:15 PM03:12 PM
You mean like thinking about all the black Americans who chose to live in the south and all the black politicians, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, engineers and professors who seem to do so well in that stifling, racist environment instead of moving to enlightened places like Denver?
That sort of thinking?
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 04:21 PMJJ, your 12:17 post needs clarification .
Knew the "selected" would get a response.
This is just becoming to easy.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 04:59 PMCome on Brian Stuckey defeat is exactly what the democrates want. They have no interest in the safety of this country. Just look a how President Clinton reduced our military and took no action against the terrorist attacks that happended under his watch. His watch was more concerned with Monica.
Posted by Yepper on May 3, 2007 05:19 PMSharon B,
I am happy to respond to material questions but you first have to ask one.
And it's "too easy"
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 05:30 PMWhat is my opinion on consequences and whatever else you said about me at 12:17?
Mouse finger getting tired, soo tired.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 07:06 PMThank you James Jones, Keith, A, Brian S., KW, and all the other patriots on this board who are so articulately defending the President and the Troops, and protecting America from slipping any further into the clutches of the terrorists!
God bless you all, and may He continue to guide your valiant service to our country. I am humbled simply to have the opportunity to post on the same thread with you all. You do my old heart proud, and while I'm not moved to tears often I find myself a bit moist around the eyes as I think of you all out there in the dark, alone, out-numbered, but yet still fighting. God speed noble warriors, the Silent Majority of this country stands behind you, and awaits your guidance for the continued struggle against enemies both within and without.
Posted by on May 3, 2007 07:29 PM7.29
Thank You. None of us walk alone.
Sharon B.
I don't have time just now to tell you what you think but promise I will get back to you soon.
Posted by James Jones on May 3, 2007 07:52 PMWell, pretty much as expected - and expectable.
John II never did come up with plan, or answer. As usual. He just let Jonesy front for him; sort of like hearing Charie McCarthy without an Edgar Bergan to make it have any sense at all.
The background and sidebars got interesting from time to time - if off the subject a bit more than on as time passed.
And all closed with a beautiful benediction.
This forum is even better than Improv. And a whole lot of fun, too.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 09:34 PMOld Grouch,
"John II never did come up with plan, or answer. As usual."
Some folks here say I answer too much. But, Old Grouch, did you really expect me to answer your question which impersonated Mrs. Clinton impersonating a black man? Some might even find your exaggerated Ebonics routine a bit racist.
"Waal now, John II, seems ta me as if yore asayin' thet it's up ta Americans ta solve nigh onta' 1200 yars o' fightin twixt a pair o' furrin religious sects. Don't spose ya got some idees bout how ta do thet, do ya?Posted by John II on May 3, 2007 10:22 PMThet thar word, "stabilize" shore air impressive. Course, it don't mean much, 'thout some plan fer adoin' tha job; an a plan fer adoin' ain't sumpin much ta be found in all tha fine talk 'bout what's sposed ta be done."
Ok, I used something found rarely at FOX News or by any Neo-Con it is called FACTS. In history no occupation as ever ended with a "victory". Next you try to say that my opinion some how ends up with "blood" on my hands???? But you are suggesting is the way to honor those who have died (on 9-11 and during this war) is to have more die in an endless war without a defined "Victory".
By the way I happen to agree plan to allow Iraq fragment into 3 nations and withdrawal our troops into Kurd territory. Maintain superior air control over the entire area and if there is a force build up in the areas south of Iraq, training area, etc. bomb them into the rubble. This keeps our troops from being police officers ala targets. We can also maintain this with control with less forces.
Now please explain how the LIBERAL view leads to a draft? It seems continuing the war is what will lead to a draft, not leaving. By the way read what the Republican's were yelling during Somolia and you will see what "cut and run" really is. History is what it is, learn from it or be doomed to repeat it.
If as veterans you are sooooo Pro Bush ask yourself what kind of President CUTS FUNDING TO THE VA during a WAR? This is spitting in the face our troops. The "pork" attached to emergency war funding by the Democrats you so hate happens to be FOR FUNDING THE VA, something this president does not do.
Posted by Brad McCauley on May 3, 2007 11:26 PMEverritt,dems.know that by supporting the killing of our troops,they have a bigger chance of stealing the White House.Just look at the idiot responses from charles b.,drew ,sharon and any other anti-american idiots.So you won your post,idiot liberals lose again.Lossssserrrss.
Posted by Keith on May 3, 2007 11:31 PMDo they do this in your name, and if so is the America for which we have served, bleed, and died for?
Rendering: (From Wikapedia)
“The US program has raised a series of moral, judicial, and political issues, prompting several official European Union investigations. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated one hundred persons had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA in cooperation with other governments. According to the European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. A large majority of the European Union Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions of the CIA and criticized several European governments and intelligence agencies for their unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation.
One notable example is the "Imam Rapito affair" in Italy, in which Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (aka Abu Omar), a radical Islamist cleric, was kidnapped in a joint CIA-SISMI operation in Milan on February 17, 2003, was transferred to the Aviano Air Base, and was rendered to Egypt, where he was held until February 11, 2007, when an Egyptian court ruled his imprisonment was "unfounded." He claims he was tortured both on the Aviano Base and in Egypt. Italian prosecutors investigating the kidnapping, and have indicted 26 US citizens including the head of CIA in Italy Jeffrey W. Castelli and 24 other CIA agents. They have also sent extradition requests to the Italian Ministry of Justice, which has not delivered it to American authorities. SISMI chief General Nicolò Pollari and second-in-command Marco Mancini have been forced to resign, and were also indicted. The trial of the 26 Americans and 9 Italians has been scheduled to begin in June 2007.”
Torture: (From ABC NEWS)
“The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. “
We ARE AMERICANS, not Soviets, not Cubans, not al-Queda, not communists, not terrorists we are to be BETTER THAN THAT. If we allow our government to do these things in our name we have already lost to the terrorist as we have become no better then they are. It is not hatred for our nation that leads people to question these things but IT IS LOVE FOR OUR NATION, OUR VALUES, and OUR BELIEFS.
Posted by Brad on May 3, 2007 11:52 PMBrad,
What about the one where they make you put your underpants on hour head and then they laugh and point at you?
Posted by James Jones on May 4, 2007 07:13 AMSharon B,
In response to your request that I read your mind and tell you what you think.
OK, here's me being you.
I hate George Bush. I hate him because he's a greedy, selfish, uncaring, stupid, greedy spoiled Brat. Now he's trying to throw his weight around in Iraq just because his buddies want the oil and he thinks he's some kind of a big shot but, we'll show him who's boss. We'll just make him pull the troops out and the we'll see how that makes poor, little Georgy feel. So JJ wants to know what will happen if we pull out.
Well you know what? I don't know and I don't care. They'll either go on fighting or they'll stop. What difference does it make? It couldn't possibly be any worse then it is now and it's none of our business anyway. So I'm sure everything in Iraq will be just fine.
And pulling out will let us send more troops to Afghan so we can capture Osama. And that will be the end of the terroritst problem because after we've captured their leader they'll just give up all this stupid religious fighting and everything will be fine.
Once we've got Osama then there will be peace in the middle east. Ooop, wait a minute.
The Palestinians are the good guys fighting for their freedom against the Isreali occupiers and that's what this is really all about right? So how is capturing Osama going to help the Palestinian freedom fighters?
Oh I don't know. It's just so complicated over there with everybody fighting everybody and everybody killing everybody nobody can understand it. Besides I've thought enough about this today and I can't solve every problem. I've already got the troops out of Iraq and that's plenty for this little gal.
I better get back to my post and see what John II and JJ are up to. I kind of like John II, he's kind of nice cometimes.
But I can't stand that JJ. He's just such an ugh!
And of course JJ just assumes he's Batman. So typical!!
Posted by James Jones on May 4, 2007 07:38 AMJames Jones, WHAT? You make no sense, no counterpoint, and state nothing of value...YOU MUST BE A FOX NEWS kind of guy, right?
Posted by Brad on May 4, 2007 08:00 AMBrad,
sorry to tell you this old bean, but what you are describing is the America that the rest of the world knows.
The only shock is on the American side, but the rest of us know only too well that torture and violence are standard tools of American foreign policy.
This is who you are, and always have been.
"Wow" Fox News has another one shaking in his boots. Love ya Fox News!!!!!!!
Posted by Tudi on May 4, 2007 08:39 AMTudi your another one with no clue, please read a book, a newspaper, or something. FOX is not a news agency and never as been or was intended to be. At best it is simular to the "media" tools used by the USSR, Nazi Germany, and Facist Italy. Really, check it out at your local library under controlling the masses through media.
Un-named poster -
I don't agree that America as always used torture, rendering, or other such tools as a "basis" for foreign policy. I think that every government does things it is best the citizens don't know about, including England, Germany, France, etc. This administrtaion, however, as done it so openly and so wide spread that it is criminal in a world court.
Talk to veterans and they will tell you that many enemies were willing to surrender because they felt they would be treated as a humans, with rights, by American forces. That is gone now, increasing the danger to the troops in the field and the citizens here at home.
Posted by Brad on May 4, 2007 09:06 AM"This administrtaion, however, as done it so openly and so wide spread that it is criminal in a world court. "
The only difference is that is being done more openly and on an industrial scale in almost full view. It always was illegal, but who will prosecute the US?
Previously it has been done in a way that the US population could avoid seeing if they tried.
Go look at what the "School of the Americas" has been up to.
Read some Chomsky, read some Zinn.
You are now seeing a side of the US that you could previously ignore, if you tried.
Dorian Grey gets a peek at the canvas, that's all.
You don't deny that ALL governments are involved in some shady dealings. How did the British treat the IRA? Think it was all above ground for all of England to see? No but at least they didn't pass a bill and sign into law (as the Republican Congress, last year, and Bush did) that permitted torture and kidnapping. Yes these things have always been illegal, and hopefully someday the world will overcome these things. We all need to move to higher moral ground, but coming here and acting as if America is nothing but a bunch of gangsters is wrong. We have many people in this country who have fought and died for the right principals, and values.
Posted by Brad on May 4, 2007 09:36 AMVoulez les bon temps rouller. This one is getting to be one of the best yet. More laughs than a barrel of monkeys.
Going a long ways back to "A",
Dogpatch had a lot to offer in its day. It's all a matter of practice. Though most of the time, I like to think of it as trying to resemble Brett Harte; but someone catching on to that would be expecting too much. Since no reads the American classics any more. And even the funny papers have gone PC to a large extent.
09:26 AM,
Sorry friend, you're sort of in the wrong company, or on the wrong page. The Ruling-Class Party defenders in these parts mostly listen to Rush Limbaugh and such like, or watch Fox News for their "information". Reading for them is an effort, and a chore to be avoided at all costs - if some of them even know how, that is. Chomsky and Zinn are far and away above and beyond their capabilities. (So was/is Al Capp, for that matter; but we've already seen that.)
Posted by Old Grouch on May 4, 2007 09:56 AMbradley,Who is al Queda,is that mexicans?And have fun tonight on your stroll on capital hill with the other 2 bitches.
Posted by Keith on May 4, 2007 10:16 AMBrad, nobody said that you are "nothing but a bunch of gangsters", but you are far from being what you believe or pretend to believe that you are.
You can switch to the not-as-bad-as-hitler plea, but that says where in the lineup of ogres you fit, it doesn't say that you are a moral exemplar.
The English are certainly nothing you would want to compare yourself to. They have a truly horrendous record.
Posted by on May 4, 2007 10:23 AMJJ, Darlin` that was special. I told all my friends to turn on their computers because JJ was going to tell me what I think about consequences and accountability.
You sound like Scarlett in Gone with the Wind. Even have the acent right.
Do you realize how much you tell us about your hidden thoughts every time you take off like that?
Now I have to take all my friends out to lunch to make up for their disapointment.
Try again later if you can remember the question.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 11:11 AMMore proof that the Democrats want to destroy the US.The Democrats are pushing to allow ex-felons to vote,child molestors,murders,drug pushers,etc.Democrats know these people think like them and will vote for Dems.Dems are trying to get our troops killed by giving aid and comfort to the enemy but when it comes to you the law abiding citizen they want to take your guns away.Everything they do is to destroy the US.
Posted by Ron on May 4, 2007 01:48 PMAlso the Clinton administration went to court and said the Second Amendment was not an individual right to own firearms.The Bush administration went to court and said it was an individual right.More proof that the Dems are trying to destroy the Bill of Rights and this country.
Posted by Ron on May 4, 2007 02:02 PMSoros is prepared to spend whatever it takes to create is dream of an open society. Many dems are his foot soldiers already.
Posted by KW on May 4, 2007 02:04 PMRon, do you really believe that or are you just trying to be entertaining?
Posted by Bango Skank on May 4, 2007 04:12 PMBrad,
I didn't realize you were serious. Let's talk about torture.
Due to time onstrainrts would you be willing to water board a terrorist to get information that would save a single innocent life?
Keith I am done responding to you until you actaully have something to debate or reach adulthood. Mr. Jones would you be willing to water board an innocent person to get false information that leads to renderings of other innocents? Check your history torture is a poor method of gaining useful information, since eventually the victim is willing to say anything to prevent further torture. Of course if you are a Nazi or follow McCarthism these methods work just fine and fit within your morale structure.
Posted by Brad on May 5, 2007 04:36 AMBrad,
I would not. I am am not a Nazi. However, that doesn't answer my question.
If you would like to discuss the morality of torture I would be happy to do so. If you are only interesred in sanctimonius posturing then that option is also available to you.
The choice depends on whether you have an actual interest in the question.
Posted by James Jones on May 5, 2007 09:02 AMBrad, what you said about torture is what happened at the Salem Witch Trials. The problem with torture, even the ticking bomb theory, is the possibility the person is innocent or does not have the information you want.
The idea that Democrats have someone in Iraq never seems to enter the minds of the "let`s call them America Haters" or "Blame America Firsters", does it?
And to forstall answers to this, I did not infer that anyone on this post called anyone , today, an American hater. This is a generic complaint and it is not necessary for anyone to write and defend themselves, it is assumed all current posters are innocent of my charges.
Also, not necessary to start a post with, "Then are you saying, are you implying, how dare you suggest etc.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 5, 2007 07:02 PM
Sharon B,
The witches at Salem were executed in a horrible manner but the were not tortuered in this context.
There is an important moral issue in Brad's point and you have missed it entirely.
Posted by James Jones on May 5, 2007 08:00 PMJames Jones is always good for a chuckle, at the very least.
In Salem, as elsewhere in the era, there was the "ducking stool". Simply, the accused was bound, hand and foot, to a seat on the end of a mechanism that "ducked" the individual under deep water. If the person survived, he/she was then executed - by being pressed to death under stones, or sometimes hanged - as "witch".
If, of course, the person drowned in the process, he/she was declared "innocent" of the charge of witchcraft. Which, of course did a lot of good, since the individual was dead anyway.
Or the accused were "examined", to see if they had any of the "devil's marks". The superstition of the day being that such marks neither caused the individual to have pain, or to bleed, when poked with sharp instriments.
If such "marks" - including, but not limited to various forms of warts, some of which do not have nerve endings, or blood supply - did not bring cry of pain, or blood, when stuck with pins, needles, and the tips of daggers, etc., the individual was, again, either pressed to death, or hanged, as a "witch". And, such "testing/examination" could be - and usually was - repeated until a 'satisfactory response" was elicited, or the individual "confessed" to bring about an end to the torment.
For Jones, of course, such is not "torture", as he puts it, "in this context".
Whoever gave him a passing grade in either history or logic has much to answer for. But then again, maybe it was done simply to get rid of him as the class clown, or nuisance.
IF - and ONLY IF expediency be the foundation of whatever the society calls "morals", that's one matter. In such a society, torture is as moral as any other act that serves the expediency of the moment. Such societies have existed throughout history; and some still exist even today.
If the society draws its "morals" from another source however, the matter is dependent totally upon the nature of the source, since there are societies that can, and do, hold expediency to be one allowable reason for torture. This is not a universal "moral" position, of course; nor can opposition to that position serve as a valid critique of that society, or of its "morals" as such.
Only within a given and particular society, and a fixed set of "morals" - drawn from whatever source you choose - may one debate the use of torture as "moral" in context.
There is no general "morality of torture" to be debated.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 6, 2007 12:20 PM