President Bush and war
When will Bush learn that he has bitten off more than he can chew of the pretzel when the US pre-emptively attacked Iraq?
Choking? No problem. He’ll just wash it down with even larger bites of the pretzel.
And while he’s at it, why doesn’t he attack IRAN too? Yeah, our military is spent, and kind of busy right now. And, yeah, a pre-emptive attack on Iran would alienate every sane nation on earth (and a few insane nations as well). And, yeah, hitting Iran would most probably encourage a terror attack or two against the US homeland. And never mind that hitting Iranian nuclear facilities would likely spread radioactive fallout over populated areas.
Never mind all of that. Bush and his buddies, most notably Cheney, would likely have the US pre-emptively attack Iran anyway, even while our ground troops are still weighed down in Iraq.
Attacking Iraq. Attacking Iran.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but they certainly make official US foreign policy.
This letter has not been edited.
Easy answers to easy questions, edition #8,935:
"When will Bush learn that he has bitten off more than he can chew of the pretzel when the US pre-emptively attacked Iraq?"
Answer: Never.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 02:45 PMAnother from the looney left speaks up. We made a mistake in going in, but unlike you baby killers some realize we a responsibility to leave them in a position to defend themselves as they were before we pre-emptively left them defenseless. If you can't get a freakin' life, at least recognize the national responsibility we assumed when we removed their defenses.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 02:56 PMEasy answers to stupid questions, edition #8,935:
"When will Bush learn that he has bitten off more than he can chew of the pretzel when the US pre-emptively attacked Iraq?"
Answer: We didn't bite off more than we can chew. Some people just don't realize that it takes a bit of time to chew a tough steak well. Those people prefer babyfood.
Posted by Noggindog on September 4, 2007 03:54 PMleroy,"another child left behind".
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 04:15 PMSpecial keith, "the mental midget".
Posted by on September 4, 2007 04:22 PMI don't buy steaks that have to be chewed for years and "we" didn't start this war, Bush did. Why don't all of the people who think this occupation is such a great idea volunteer their services for their worthy cause.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 04:25 PM425 how about all of you freedom loving morons contribute something to keep your freedom and not complain about it
also for the all knowing wonderful far extreme left liberals out there, your girl hillary was the first to say she thinks we need to attack iran, Bush has said no.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 05:16 PM"...your girl hillary was the first to say she thinks we need to attack iran, Bush has said no..."
Don't confuse the looney liberals with facts. It clouds their emotions on which they base reality. Without life experiences to make them liberal (Sharon b), they would have to weigh, analysis and make rational judgments -- and that is contrary to "Looney Left Liberals for Thinkers 101.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 05:36 PM05:16 PM
I did. I'm home after my second deployment. In three months I return for my third. I believe in what I'm doing and taking proactive steps to achieve a goal. What are you doing besides armchair quarterbacking?
Sgt. USMC
Posted by on September 4, 2007 05:40 PM5:40
Thanks for your service, friend. Go with God when you head back. And in the meantime, if I bump into you anywhere around here, the beers are on me.
sorry, my post of 05:40 PM was to 04:25, not 05:16
Sgt. USMC
Posted by on September 4, 2007 06:01 PM"Leroy" sounds like one of those real deep thinking democrats we hear so much from lately concerning Iran.
He is worried about possible "fallout "if Iran's nukes are taken out?
How about the possible destruction of entire U.S. cities courtesy of upcoming Iranian nuclear technology .
Does Leroy really believe that Iran would not funnel nukes to willing terrorists to be used against us?
How would anyone in their right mind think that allowing a country that celebrates a yearly "DEATH TO AMERICA DAY" access to the production of nuclear weapons is no big deal.
Oh,wait,that's right,they only plan on using it for energy purposes.
Nevermind that they can almost poke a stick in the ground and hit oil.
Posted by Get Real on September 4, 2007 06:49 PMOK 5:16
Answer the question: Why don't all of the people who think this occupation is such a great idea volunteer their services for their worthy cause.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 07:15 PM7:15 PM -
Because you don't have to actively participate in anything to have an opinion.
This "absolute moral authority" crap started with Maureen Dowd bestowing it upon Cindy Sheehan to counter criticism of her.
Dems pull this tactic out frequently.
They propped up anti war vets John Murtha and triple amputee Max Cleland to slam the war effort with anticipated immunity from criticism.
It is a transparent and quite lame attempt to silence opposing voices.
Posted by Get Real on September 4, 2007 07:47 PM"Answer the question: Why don't all of the people who think this occupation is such a great idea volunteer their services for their worthy cause?"
It was ansewerd by Sgt. USMC at 5:40Pm with a responding question
Posted by on September 4, 2007 08:01 PM8:01,
So, what is YOUR point? Sgt. USMC was correct.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 4, 2007 08:16 PMStan Boyles:--
the 8:01 was a sarcastic remark to 07:15PM who reposted the same question from before. they had either ignored SGT USMC response or over looked it. i thought it best to repeat it for them and point out the question SGT USMC asked in return.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 08:56 PMNoggindog said:
"Some people just don't realize that it takes a bit of time to chew a tough steak well. Those people prefer babyfood."
Ahh yes, the "Christian" chimes in to illustrate his bloodlust...
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 09:11 PMLeftists annoy me.
Bush will not lead us astray;
Do they not know this?
--a haiku from...
Posted by the anti-Keith on September 4, 2007 09:28 PMAhh yes, the "Christian" chimes in to illustrate his bloodlust...
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 09:11 PM
Ahh yes, the pompous putz chimes in to illustrate his arrogance...
Posted by on September 4, 2007 09:43 PMCharles B
I suppose that brilliant observation is made from the depths of your understanding of Christianity? The acumen of your logic dazzles me- how crafty of you to leave us all to imagine what conclusion you have drawn from it... How insightful you must be to know much I am terrorized to be outed as a Christian! If only you could, somehow, type an evil laugh after your statement, the effect would be devastating!
Posted by Noggindog on September 4, 2007 10:04 PMthe anti-Keith
I have to say, that was really very funny.
Posted by Noggindog on September 4, 2007 10:08 PMWestern thinking is not a path to understanding Iraq or Iran.We in this country must understand why we are still in Iraq, not why we invaded Iraq. And, if we think we can install democracy in a Nation full of people who want to kill each other based on their religious differences and that don't have a clue how it works, never mind wanting it in the first place, we are delusional.
You can't overcome thousands of years of social stagnation and religious rule by constantly waring factions in anything less than two generations and that only if there is absolutly no oppossing influence. So, what to do?Get out as fast as possible and cut your losses. You can't win!
It is possible to conquer a country but never in the history of the world has a conquering force changed the ages old political and religious beliefs of any country with out employing tyrannical and dictatorial means. Even then, the radical Islamic religious elements and the terrorism they breed into people, starting at what we would call preschool age can not be stopped without naziism driven oppression of, once again, thousands of years old religious beliefs that are at war, and will continue to be at war, with each other.
Do some reading. No country has ever seen success in the Mideast, Southeast Asia or anywhere else through the use of military force because belief, especially religious belief, is the strongest force in human nature. Charlemagne knew this. He did not even try to change what people believed in. He focused on what they lacked, then fixed it. He allowed religious leaders free reign to teach what they would, he allowed the political leaders to continue ruling and he kept the peace by supressing social unrest. Even with all of this in place however, his rule fell apart and the ages old wars began once again.
Russia did the same in the Balken States but when their power declined the chaos, tavesties and genocide resumed in Yougoslavia, Bulgeria, Albania etal.
You can't "win the peace" in a country that is not at peace within itself socially, religiously or politically. In no way, at no time, in no country anywhere on the face of the planet in the entire course of human existence has that ever happened without killing of the entire population of one faction after another until there was only one left with no enemy.
Allen Campbell,
Excellent posting, sir.
Unfortunately, the old truth about people's responses still prevails: Those who don't want to learn, won't.
And, even more unfortunately, there are so many who fall into the sad category of those who can't learn, and don't - regardless of the wealth of evidence available - because their minds are already made up; and they refuse to be bothered with contrary facts that challenge their belief-systems.
However, It is a pleasure to read an intelligent, logical, well reasoned presentation at any time. Thank you for your work here.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 07:58 AMAllen Campbell
Do some reading. Mohammad and his disciples fought many bloody battles in their conquest of the area. That is how islam took control, BY MILITARY CONQUEST, not by people peacefully flocking to the true religion. And they are still there if that is any measure of success.
AF
08:00AM
What area are you talking about. You do some reading. The condition was the same before religion was an issue. Religion just increased the carnage, it did not start it. Before religion entered the picture it was tribal beliefs, land and resources that were the cause of wars.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 5, 2007 08:48 AM08:00AM, anonymous,
Your point being?
By some form of "military conquest", WE will manage to "pacify" the area?
By "military conquest", WE will "win" their civil war?
By "military conquest", WE will "bring democracy" to them?
If more than a thousand years of history shows that repeated "military conquest", by foreign parties - Turks, etc., - has not managed to do anything towards these ends, just how is a "military conquest" by America - along with an occupation of the territory, as with the Turks and British, etc., - going to do what others didn't?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 08:49 AMNoggindog:
I am familiar with your mythology books. You are a pro-Iraq-war "Christian" right? How do you square your politics with your professed beliefs?
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 08:49 AMViolence breeds violence generally speaking unless, that first violence totally wipes out the possibility of opposing violence through complete genocide of those on the opposite side. That is the only way violence can succeed, for awhile anyway but, more times than not, infighting within the means of that violence breeds power control violence that results in the self destruction of all of it.
Then the cycle starts again because what we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 5, 2007 09:13 AMNoggindog,
Leaving aside the matter of from whence come the ideas: What is it we are supposed to "chew"?
And, by way of my reply to 08:00 AM, anonymous, what are your answers to the same questions?
If the Turks couldn't manage, after hundered of years of "chewing" - occupying and garrisoning the area - and the British couldn't manage, after another close to humdred years of "chewing", just what, or how, or . . . are WE supposed to accomplish . . . what(?), if we "chew" as long as even they did?
Your postings are usually somewhat logical. What gives here?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 09:20 AMHi, Old Grouch
As far as the metaphor, "biting off more than he can chew" goes, don't read too much into it. It's a bumper-sticker argument, and I just intended to answer in like fashion.
re:
"If more than a thousand years of history shows that repeated "military conquest", by foreign parties - Turks, etc."
We have done a lot of things the Turks, and other folks, couldn't do. I'm sure you recall the argument from the left about Afghanistan, that "the USSR failed in Afghanistan, therefore we can't possibly succeed..." yada, yada, yada... Well, things are far from perfect in Afghanistan, but we have succeed wildly as compared to the Soviet adventure there, wouldn't you agree? So, I am not highly concerned with the failure of any who came before the USA in any venture. And frankly, what I personally hear from soldiers is much more positive about conditions over there than what I hear from anybody, pro or con, over here.
It's my opinion that people who hold the idea that Iraqi people can't have a democracy are simply practicing racism. They can have one whenever they decide they will settle for nothing less. Same with Iran, etc.
Can we democratize them by force? Can we pacify them with war? Who knows? My position is not that I know what will happen over there. My position is that we needed to go in, we did, and if we pull out now we will create disastrous consequences for us AND them. And if we have to stay there for 10 years just as things are today, it's a price we CAN pay- the only question is, do we WANT to pay it- is it better than the alternative? For now, I say yes, it is probably for better to stay and pay for a while as things stand today. Next year? Next decade? Next month? Ask me when we get there. Since our purpose is not to annex the area, I think we have some reasonable hope that things will improve over time and we are likely to have a chance later to withdraw under far better circumstances, with far less damage to our own security.
Charles B
Really, Charles, you don't debate and discuss in here. You throw dirt. And like our friend Truth, you never honestly acknowledge an error or misperception, even when obviously over stepping the boundaries of your knowledge. You despise my beliefs, and because of that you have, not just a poor understanding of them, you have a perverse understanding of them. I have no intention of discussing/justifying my religious convictions with you. Old Grouch will argue his points and sometimes acknowledge mine, and therefore is interesting to talk to. You will simply start throwing insults when you run out of arguments, and that doesn't seem to take very long. It's like you think informal debate is the WWF for old guys. A mental "Hulk Hogan" you are not. If Grouch wants to ask that question, I would probably feel obliged to answer. He's earned an answer. You have earned disdain.
Noggindog,
The whole of Iraq - or any other part of the world for that matter -IS NOT worth ONE MORE AMERICAN LIFE; nor ONE MORE DROP OF AMERICAN BLOOD.
And as to Afghanistan, "succeeded wildly"? Where and how? The Taliban have taken over several provinces, and returned them to the "fundamentalist" way that the Taliban was ruining the country to begin with. We haven't caught up with Bin Laden yet - haven't even been bothering to chase him - much less done away with Al Qiada. Not to mention the simple fact that we are seeing more and more of the Anti-American sentiment - anti-any foreign takeover, or occupation - that has always smoldered in that part of the world.
Are you suggesting that we have some kind of "mission" as the world's . . . what? Savior? Police force? Occupation army? Conqueror? Whatever?
Talk about "rose colored glasses"!
Equating Defense - a logical necessity - with somehow building and sustaining an overseas empire is beyond comprehension. An almost perfect example of the cliche about learning nothing at all from history - and being doomed to repeat it, because of refusal to learn from it in the first place.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 01:25 PMWell after the "opportune" time on this topic, but I wanted to add my two cents.
The time is ripe for change in the Middle East because capitalism and consumerism is becoming more and more dominant for the "younger" generation. The Wall Street Journal did an excellent piece on the conditions of the political view of Iranians under 30. As these young Iranians experience more and more the McDonald's and Nike lifestyle, the more they want to mirror western culture, while still maintaining their faith.
As Iraq was essentially created from the British Empire in 1920, when Mesopotamia became Iraq, stability is not something that comes to mind in Iraq. However, a sharing of Government power and province control, as well as oil revenue sharing, once established, will help stabilize the region. As wealth, education, and opportunity become more available, the shift will begin (this whole theory of not understanding the region was also used in post WWII Japan, but time, patience, and self-determination brought us to the Japan of today).
We'll see what happens though. Time and history will tell if what is going on now, helps or hinders the growth and stability of the Middle East. Unlike Soviet occupation in Pakistan, where every attempt at erasing religion was of the highest importance, the United States understands that religion is a dominant part of this culture. We are not "making" anyone convert, just providing support for a democratic style of government. Once the dictator was deposed, the US's role should be of education, infrastructure repair, and security until the Iraqi's are ready to handle it on their own. It seems like, at least to me, the "powers that be" have finally figured out a way, after 3 years of chaos, to stabilize this situation, and work toward some goals. Big difference from 7 months ago.
Posted by Dan2 on September 5, 2007 01:40 PMOld Grouch
"The whole of Iraq - or any other part of the world for that matter -IS NOT worth ONE MORE AMERICAN LIFE; nor ONE MORE DROP OF AMERICAN BLOOD."
We differ on this point. Was France in WWII worth one drop of American blood? (I would say much more so then than now.) But even granting that premise, I would say we have to stay for OUR benefit if not that of the Iraqi people. Yes, I know we differ on that as well.
"Equating Defense - a logical necessity - with somehow building and sustaining an overseas empire is beyond comprehension."
Well, no, it is by no means beyond comprehension. It is, in fact, just a different version of the principle behind NATO, that principle being the placement of forward basis in strategic locations. But with that said, I reject your assumption that the Iraq mission is "empire building." That is a canard tossed out by lefties as propaganda, along with the whining of "we went there to take their oil." America has a long history of giving back conquered lands. In fact, we have ALREADY given back Iraq to the Iraqi people, and we are BUYING oil at market price- and precious little of that from Iraq. That's not empire building. America has a long history of benefiting from intervening on the world stage, and much less so from isolationist policies.
Afghanistan? We're a long way form the problems the Soviets had there, friend.
Noggindog,
Unless you've been here under a different alias, you don't know enough about me to make any true judgment as to my character, since we've only interacted on a few threads.
And by the way, I know your myths inside out and backwards, since they were hammered into my brain incessantly for fourteen years before I got wise. Perhaps time for you to get wise as well?
You're a presumptuous twit.
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 05:54 PMNoggindog, you said to OG:
"I'm sure you recall the argument from the left about Afghanistan, that "the USSR failed in Afghanistan, therefore we can't possibly succeed..." yada, yada, yada..."
I never heard that from anyone in the mainstream
"left". Could you provide examples of this?
Noggindog gave up:
"I have no intention of discussing/justifying my religious convictions with you."
...because believing in ghosts and magic is indefensible for an adult...
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 05:59 PMcharles b.
Anyone who has read ANY of your posts knows that you are a blowhard douchebag.
You cant hide from the impression your own words portrays.
z
Charles B
Actually, I did not give up. I occasionally have to work for a living, and therefore sometimes go a few hours between posts. For future reference, though, I don't feel obligated to answer every note directed towards me.
You say I don't know you well enough to have an opinion about your "debating style." And then immediately prove that my perceptions were correct. Brilliant.
Now to deal with your main point. I believe it was the argument, "You're a presumptuous twit."
Hmmm. How shall I deal with that rapier thrust of insight...
Oh, I know- as soon as I post this, I shall put my fingers in my ears and chant, "LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU I CAN"T HEAR YOU!"
That should teach you.
...because believing in ghosts and magic is indefensible for an adult...
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 05:59 PM
What an arrogant, presumptuous dolt. People who fall to insults and such have run out of logic based arguments and resort to children playground taunts to emphasize their point.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 08:03 PMYo Charles;
Seriously,
From a fellow lib,
Why don't you see how far up your ass you can shove your favorite new catch phrase,
GHOSTS AND MAGIC ?
Let us all know pal.
Since Noggindog seems unable to actually engage in the debate he says I will not engage in, I will address his post to OG.
Noggindog asked rhetorically:
"Was France in WWII worth one drop of American blood?"
You're comparing apples and oranges. Not useful.
"I would say we have to stay for OUR benefit if not that of the Iraqi people."
You're willing to gamble the blood of more innocent Iraqi's for your benefit. Fair enough.
Here's a tip that will allow you to write more concisely: Don't say you would say something, just say something.
Example:
"I would say we have to stay for OUR benefit if not that of the Iraqi people."
Becomes:
"We have to stay for OUR benefit if not that of the Iraqi people."
See how much more direct and economical that is?
Caution!. This method causes you to lose the plausible deniability that you would otherwise employ once your postulations are rebutted in the course of events...
"Afghanistan? We're a long way form the problems the Soviets had there, friend."
The Soviets had about six years before the insurrection got rolling. Don't count your chickens...
In any case, it's a red herring since our military action in Afghanistan was supported by almost everyone and is not an issue. There is a nearly universal feeling of dissatisfaction with how the "search" for Bin Laden is going (and damn can they grow poppies!).
"America has a long history of giving back conquered lands."
And an even longer one of keeping them.
Pearls of civility from Noggindog:
"I reject your assumption that the Iraq mission is "empire building." That is a canard tossed out by lefties as propaganda, along with the whining of "we went there to take their oil.""
Got it. Anyone who thinks the PNAC plan is being followed by Bush/Cheney is just so unserious, a real whiner, catapulting the propaganda and tossing out canards.
You toss out more canards than a clown tosses candy.
The root of your problem? You speak in generalities:
"America has a long history of benefiting from intervening on the world stage, and much less so from isolationist policies."
First, there's a differnce between intervention and a preemptive attack. You're really not saying anything here that deals directly with the Iraq issue or shed's light on anything in particular. It certainly doesn't support your contention that we aren't nation building.
Curiously, you defend nation building while at the same time denying we are doing it.
Evidence of duplicity and disingenuousness.
"In fact, we have ALREADY given back Iraq to the Iraqi people, and we are BUYING oil at market price- and precious little of that from Iraq."
That isn't inconsistent with empire building.
BTW, could you tell your teenage fan club that you're a big boy and can take care of yourself?
Of course, I expect to be attacked when I scratch at the very foundation of your (and their) philosophical house of cards- Christianity.
Are you a foolishly annoying person? In my judgment, yes. But why should I say that when I can just say "twit"?
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 09:28 PMA "Fellow Lib" said:
"Why don't you see how far up your ass you can shove your favorite new catch phrase, GHOSTS AND MAGIC ? Let us all know pal."
This is the reaction you get when you start poking peoples comfortable delusions with the sharp stick they deserve.
I take it you believe in ghosts and magic?
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 09:33 PMAn unnamed sock-puppet illustrated how to fit hypocrisy into a mere two sentences:
"What an arrogant, presumptuous dolt. People who fall to insults and such have run out of logic based arguments and resort to children playground taunts to emphasize their point."
And by the way, what "logic based argument" do you have for belief in ghosts and magic?
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 09:42 PMCharles B
Really, Charles, back for more? Are you a slow learner? I should think that after being thrashed soundly twice running, you would forebear further humiliation.
Well, against my better judgement, your suasion so moves me, I'll engage you once more. Just remember, you asked for it. Now, what from that mountain of discernment and reason shall I answer? I think I will answer... yes, I will answer the charge you level yet again, that I am a "twit." Let me just crack my knuckles, and flex my fingers... ready?
I know you are but what am I?
HA! I retire, 3-0
(Here's a tip Charles: You're rude. I'm not going to engage with you in any serious way. You don't deserve it.)
Posted by Noggindog on September 5, 2007 09:53 PMOnly true change can come from within; be it individual or country. Nobody or nation can force change onto another.
Boy: Do not try to bend the spoon; that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Boy: Then you will see, it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
This whole thing has fallen into the swamp of meaningless debate, name calling juvenile baiting and just plain idiotic claims of knowledge that no one really cares about.
But, that's nothing new, maintaining a reasonable, Itelligent dicourse is not the work of juvenile minds and un- thoughtout ideas. However, those who can't participate on that level seem to think we need to hear their inanities, as if we were missing something important, anyway. It's a sad truth OG and, I fear there is no cure for the concept that, Hey, we're all equal so that means all our ideas are equal, right.
God, I certainly hope not.
Computers are wonderful. Or at least, so I am told. Maybe, one of these days, I'll manage to figure out why - and maybe even figure out how to actually run one without a continual interruption of "Error Boxes", and shut downs. In the meantime, however . . . .
Charles B,
A line from Hamlet - if memory serves, and probably slightly mis-quoted:
"There are more things twixt heaven and earth than all philosophy has ever dreamed of, O Horatio."
Upon which note, here endeth further dispute concerning ghosts, etc., for me.
As to the rest of your answers to our friend, "Noggindog", concerning the matter of Iraq, You have summarized well the main points of difference and disagreement, with respect to the topic - leaving the personal evaluations and comments aside of course.
Both of you gentlemen have a well developed ability to present issues and ideas. And, overall, the matter of the "source" - or "outlook", or "mindset" - from which the issues proceed is secondary to the content of the thought as such.
It is highly doubtful that either of you will "convert" the other, insofar as "outlook", or "mindset", be concerned. But, that should not detract from the worth of the exchange of ideas.
My apologies for the sermonizing; but I do feel that, insofar as it be possible, those of us who understand the principle of a marketplace of ideas - as both of you do - should make every effort NOT to present ourselves in imitation of the yapping puppies who butt in senselessly from time to time.
Allen Campbell,
Unfortunately, there seems to be a certain kind of topic that manages to "push buttons" for some people, rather than appealing to reason, judgment, and discussion. Sometimes, I think that the RMN deliberately chooses these - both in the printed Letters to the Editor feature as well as here on the website - over less controversial presentations about matters.
But, at the same time, I also have to remember that there is an element of "equality" involved in the whole principle of freedom of speech as well, that of the equal right of expression, without regard to content. So, in the end, I chalk it up to keeping the forum open, and having such fun and amusement as some of that kind of thing allows. (Such as the "Theology discussion" on another line; which managed to pull over 300 postings, yet.) I am often reminded of Alexander Pope's words: "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep; or touch not the Perean Spring."
In any event, I do think the matter of out continuing presence in Iraq has just about exhausted its welcome; as most positions are so fixed as to be almost totally predictable just by seeing the screen name of the poster. A new slogan, perhaps: "I can't wait for 2008!"
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 06:52 AMNoggindog:
I'll take that as your concession...
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 07:10 AMDan2
I can appreciate your desire to see Iraq change but, that is a fuzzy dream at best. The young do not run Iraq in any way what so ever and, never will have their voiceses heard because Iraq is, and has been, embroiled in a religious civil war for, get this, thousands of years going back into the misty, mysterious history when it was known as Mesopotamia.
As I said in my posting, western thinking cannot understand the entrenched power religion has in Iraq. We look at religion as a free choice right to believe in whatever you want to the point that our founding fathers wrote that the state could not estabish a national religion.
Iraq and indeed all countries in the mideast Based, get it, Based their countries social structure around the one and only designated state religion Islam and, established it's teachings as the ultimate authority in the creation of laws and regulations the people MUST live by.
That kind of indoctranation over thousands of years cannot be undone by a McDonalds or a Target. Even if the religious dictators who really run the country allowed them and the people bought things there, to think that will alter the beliefs of Iraqies is ludicrous.
The Sheites and the Sunnites, both Moslems sects , think nothing of wiping each other of the face of the planet because they differ in how the religion should be interpretated but, they do agree on one thing; Western thinking, religion, commercialism, womens rights, gay rights, any right not in agreement with the overpowering religious teachings that rule that society, is and example of that Great Satan, the United States of America.
If you think we should stay in that mess until we can establish a democratic government, you better start preparing your great grand kids for being the occupiers of Iraq but, maybe not. We'll run out of money before then if we keep up the present rate of spending and the U.S. will be so broke we can't even pay attention ,never mind enough to pay future soldier/ occupiers.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 6, 2007 07:15 AMOG:
The yappy puppy in me only emerges when I don't take a walk between writing and posting...
And there are some people so condescending and full of crap that I can't help it...
One of my many failings..
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 07:21 AMcharles b.,talking about yourself and og.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 08:39 AMKeith, your not in the same league with those who think through their comments before offering them to this forum. I, like OG will defend your right to do so, it's just that for once you should try making a point clearly and concisely so we may grasp your meaning and respond in like kind.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 6, 2007 10:59 AMOld Grouch
and
Allen Campbell
Gentlemen, frankly I'm a bit surprised at you both. I would not be offering any support to one of my ideological allies if this was the sort of commentary offered: (from "Gasp! Jesus even had capitalist friends!")
"a fictional... place that only exists in their addled minds"
"What a hilarious thread! Talk about chasing tails!"
"Scripture is hilarious, but not as funny as the poor fools discussing it as though it matters..."
"utterly unprovable [is that a word? "unprovable"?] fantasy and superstition "
"Care to elaborate on your delusions so I can have a good laugh at your expense?"
This is not useful discourse by any standard. If we are to take seriously his comment that, "The yappy puppy in me only emerges when I don't take a walk between writing and posting..." then I must conclude he is wheelchair-bound.
My decision to mock Charles rather than dignify his invective should not trouble either of you in the least, in my opinion. If you are irritated by it, perhaps you should simply skip those comments. I'll warn you right now, you will also want to skip anything I write to "Truth" as well.
Those that choose to write in a forum like this are a self-selected group that will almost always harbor a bit (or more) of arrogance. I am certainly not the least in that regard, and I admit it. But look over my comments in the previously mentioned thread, and you will see that I went to great pains to tolerate the insulting and juvenile pabulum Truth resorts to when he has been shown up in discourse, beyond reasonable expectations, I think. I simply saw Charles' predilection for insult before I engaged him, and have dished to both Charles and Truth all the respect I feel they deserve. If Charles feels so strongly that he needs to engage me, he can stop the nonsense. Until then, all he will get from me is nonsense. Frankly, I fail to comprehend why he doesn't just decide to ignore me, as I will him except when he insults me directly. And even then I don't feel any obligation to address him. I just think it's fun to show him what level I think it is appropraite to respond to him at.
Posted by Noggindog on September 6, 2007 02:28 PMNoggindog:
You didn't have to concede twice. I get it already! You prefer someone to debate who will walk on eggshells for you.
I cannot be allowed to poke at the delicate membrane of your "faith" in ghosts...
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 11:58 PMallen campbell,After seeing your interview I can start you as a assistant to a laborer.Some day if you get your head out of your ass,maybe,just maybe I'll be able to promote you to be a laborer.
Posted by Keith on September 8, 2007 12:12 AMHarry Reid said weeks ago that the war was lost: Hells Bells~~ McCain said that in 2002.
Me, Deicide Grimes.
Deicide Corner: “Men of simple understanding, little inquisitive and little instructed, make good Christians.” -- Michel de Montaigne
Posted by rg ~~~~ r22037yahoo on September 9, 2007 03:02 PM