The War In Iraq

[TheRightWing]

The War in Iraq has taken a turn for the worst, not because of inept leadership, not because of a foggy plan of action, but instead it's been undermined by the media from day 1. The media cares more about rating then it does for the national interest.

War is hell, people die, and when you enter into a conflict you have to expect a certain number of casualities, but that has to be expected in war. From day one with every soldier dead it gets reported a few hours later, every name read, every failure magnified x10, and the sheep that watch the media are endlessly brainwashed with our failures and not our successes.

3000+ Troops dead...Compare that to WWII, WWI, Vietnam, Korea...a mere small amount compared to those conflicts. Does that negate the fact that people have died, no it doesnt, but war is hell.

Also, let's look at the benefits of the Iraq war compared to other conflicts. At the end of the day The U.S. has just secured 1/4th the worlds oil supply. Mission Accomplished? I'd say so.

George W. Bush is going to be seen as a hero in the history books and hopefully we'll see some condemnation for the media's role in subverting the war effort to a level that comes near to treason.

[stefan segal]

Winger...you are a sick fuck...does your brand of faith create such inhumanities that you blow off thousands of your countrymen's children deaths by siting: "War is Hell...and anyway more got killed in other wars"...but we managed to kill, scare off, or completely destroy a non threatening country and steal their oil...and so it is all worth it.

winger...you are beneath contempt.

Stefan

[TheRightWing]

Okay stefan, do you condemn Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, all of whom sent american troops to die for far less a valid reason than securing resources for America?

If you don't you're just showing how much of a liberal hypocrite you are...FDR did far worst than Bush ever did, came out with less benefit for America then bush, yet he's a hero and respected and Bush is a scapegoat for a media to espouse their unrealistic view of what war is.

[stefan segal]

winger... You people of faith don't bother yourself with thinking...especially about considering facts.

All war is for the benifit of the cartels that supply war materials...they are always the winners of any war...the little people are always the loosers who pay the lasting price of the cartel's profits.

That is one line in the graph that can be drawn without consideration of the individual conflict...but there are many more motives and considerations to be charted, but those are individual to the war considered.

Being a non-thinker, you most likely don't care what they are, so let me suffice it to say, I don't support any war that isn't provoked by an armed force storming US borders...all else are entrepenurial adventures and a crime against humanity.

Politics on the international scale is called "the great game", and ever since the inception of this country, we have moved our militaries around the globe like an inexhaustable supply of pawns to pull off dirty tricks and subterfuges equal to all the other countries involved. Those presidents you mentioned were all players of the great game. (I don't approve personally, as would be the expected reaction from any pawn who also thinks, but it exists and we all must live with it.)

Butch can and should be excoriated because he's not living is the present age...he's a throwback to the empire builders...he also believes you and I should be closed-mouth peasants solely involved with trying to keep a roof over our heads and our children fed.

He's a shit in the same fashion as you're a shit...that's why you think he's OK.

I can't explain or convince you of that because you've proved yourself to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid...I could speak to a rock with much the same results as this post trying to offer information for you to think about...total waste of time...although it feels good to call you names:)

Stefan

[TheRightWing]

Let's see, so I'm basically comparing Bush to the Presidents before and ask why is he a villian when the previous Presidents are all considered great men. So you call me a non-thinker?

Seriously you can only call me names because you see I'm a republican and put your blinders up. Bush is a villian? So FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ (oops look at all the Democrats I'm naming)...they're alright, even though the engaged in wars that cost more in U.S. troops and got us less of a reward.

There's a fine line between villians and patriots depending on who's doing the spinning. Think about it and you might actually see there's a greater point to be made how sheep like you let the media spin your prospective instead of looking at history and making your own mind up.

Bahhhhhhhhhhbahhhhh little sheep...follow the spin.

[Linkster]

TheRightWing - I think you missed his point - he was saying that they are all idiots - and all driven and controlled by three groups - the media, corporate sponsors and religion - all three of which have the same end result - control of the weak-minded citizens
Both parties are made up of career politicians who care nothing more than saying the right things to appease certain contributors - whether it be Pat Robertson or the head of the Black Panthers

A great man once put the best words down on paper that went something like "Learn the mistakes of history or you are doomed to repeat them"

[Betty Blowtorch]

The War in Iraq has taken a turn for the worst,

not because of inept leadership, http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7415/bushmorphchimpvc1.gif


not because of a foggy plan of action,http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6349/propmonkeyaniyk2.gif


but instead it's been undermined by the media http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/9498/drunkirish048mh3.gif



Let's look at the benefits of the Iraq war http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4891/bushhitleranimatehq0.gif
compared to other conflicts. At the end of the day
the U.S. has just secured 1/4th the worlds oil supply.

Mission Accomplished? I'd say so.
Gee, why don't we invade Saudi Arabia so we can steal
half the world's oil? Hell, why don't we invade Canada
so we can steal two-thirds of the world's oil? Then we
can move on to Russia and steal whatever's left.

Let's don't forget Venezuela. They have some oil
we can steal. Anybody else's oil you want to steal,
Mr. Right Wing?

[TheRightWing]

TheRightWing - I think you missed his point - he was saying that they are all idiots - and all driven and controlled by three groups - the media, corporate sponsors and religion - all three of which have the same end result - control of the weak-minded citizens
Both parties are made up of career politicians who care nothing more than saying the right things to appease certain contributors - whether it be Pat Robertson or the head of the Black Panthers

A great man once put the best words down on paper that went something like "Learn the mistakes of history or you are doomed to repeat them"

At the end of the day though history still favorably, maybe unfairly, maybe fairly, judges presidents of the past by a different litmus test then they're currently judging George Bush by.

Now if everyone is willing to say we've been led by a pack of butchers that were hell bent on war. I could possibly accept that there's at least some consistent fairness in how we view our leaders. At the moment though I don't see consistency, I see a rather unfair assessment of a President compared to previous presidents before him.

[TheRightWing]

Gee, why don't we invade Saudi Arabia so we can steal
half the world's oil? Hell, why don't we invade Canada
so we can steal two-thirds of the world's oil? Then we
can move on to Russia and steal whatever's left.

Let's don't forget Venezuela. They have some oil
we can steal. Anybody else's oil you want to steal,
Mr. Right Wing?

It's so pleasant to see you need to use picture references for every single post you make. I'm sure the flash cards help you form your thoughts which otherwise would be muddled. I won’t make fun of your disability though as I support mentally challenged people using whatever devices they need to help them communicate with the world.

As for the point you try to make…I’ll ask you some questions and see what you come up with:

What was our reason for going into Vietnam?
What about the Bay of Pigs?
What was our reason for going into Korea?
What was our reason for going into WWII?
What was our reason for going into WWI?

Exactly…two wars for ideology and two wars to save Europeans (who in many regards probably didn’t deserve saving).

I’m being practical in my comparison…if the U.S. gains something from war, at least there’s some bottomline gain. Iraq, no matter how you look at it, will benefit the U.S. long term far more than our involvement in previous wars.

So, Bush is a villian for doing what his predecessors has done? Or actually one upping them by at least getting something tangible for America.

[stefan segal]

winger...it's not because you say you're a repug...what fills my gorge to overflowing with disgust, it's your claim to "faith" while you display a depth of imorality shocking in it's lack of selfconsciousness...so much do that you tout murdering citizens in order to steal their oil a laudable act.

I hope you haven't and never will breed, because you must have genetic defects to remain so obtusely conplacent in the face of grave injustices and then go on to brag about them.

You must be of the new breed of christian soldiers...the jeffery dommer of christendom...a product of jesus camps...the ones who teach children christian values...the value of being a warrior for jesus.

winger...all things taken into consideration, as a person, you're f.u.b.a.r.ed.

Stefan

[Bill]

If Bush and the republicans had the balls to say "We're taking their oil.", and the brains to actually do it, the american people would worship his balls forever.

Every street would have a Bush Balls shrine, and every SUV would be dangling a big hairy pair of Bush Balls from the mirror.

Americans wouldn't give a shit if 100,000 soldiers were killed and 1,000,000 wounded, if Bush brings home the gas.

[TheRightWing]

winger...it's not because you say you're a repug...what fills my gorge to overflowing with disgust, it's your claim to "faith" while you display a depth of imorality shocking in it's lack of selfconsciousness...so much do that you tout murdering citizens in order to steal their oil a laudable act.

I hope you haven't and never will breed, because you must have genetic defects to remain so obtusely conplacent in the face of grave injustices and then go on to brag about them.

You must be of the new breed of christian soldiers...the jeffery dommer of christendom...a product of jesus camps...the ones who teach children christian values...the value of being a warrior for jesus.

winger...all things taken into consideration, as a person, you're f.u.b.a.r.ed.

Stefan

The shock value of what I posted is what your stuck on and not the fact that I'm clearly speaking the truth on the topic. Bush has done no differently then Presidents before him, yet he's been made out to be the greatest demon of them all. Sorry, but wake up and smell the spin.

[TheRightWing]

If Bush and the republicans had the balls to say "We're taking their oil.", and the brains to actually do it, the american people would worship his balls forever.

Every street would have a Bush Balls shrine, and every SUV would be dangling a big hairy pair of Bush Balls from the mirror.

Americans wouldn't give a shit if 100,000 soldiers were killed and 1,000,000 wounded, if Bush brings home the gas.

That's an honest response and probably correct.

[Bill]

That's an honest response and probably correct.

The only problem we have is that the military doesn't seem competent and capable of occupying and pacifying Iraq and the Gulf for the 50 years necessary to drain Iraq of our oil.

Considering that everyone believes that Iraqi oil can be pumped out for about $1 a barrel, then sold for $60+ a barrel, I think Bush and the Republicans should offer a fixed discount price of $1 a gallon to any family that has a son in the military ($2 if they have a daughter in the military).

Because we are going to need to be there for a long time, fighting pretty much every day. Those Iraqis will overturn and repudiate the soon-to-be-approved Oil Law as soon as we relax our grip, and then those sneaky barbs will sell our oil to China instead of to reputable US companies.

I'd say we need a complete overhaul of the military. We need a military capable of controlling the gulf region by force.

[TheRightWing]

The only problem we have is that the military doesn't seem competent and capable of occupying and pacifying Iraq and the Gulf for the 50 years necessary to drain Iraq of our oil.

Considering that everyone believes that Iraqi oil can be pumped out for about $1 a barrel, then sold for $60+ a barrel, I think Bush and the Republicans should offer a fixed discount price of $1 a gallon to any family that has a son in the military ($2 if they have a daughter in the military).

Because we are going to need to be there for a long time, fighting pretty much every day. Those Iraqis will overturn and repudiate the soon-to-be-approved Oil Law as soon as we relax our grip, and then those sneaky barbs will sell our oil to China instead of to reputable US companies.

I'd say we need a complete overhaul of the military. We need a military capable of controlling the gulf region by force.

The problem comes back to the media and the fact that war is hell. If U.S. troops had the media imbedded with them during WWII, had news stories going out almost live as they happen, do you think we would have won the war?

Of course not, the American population would have questioned why we're there, what does Europe's problems have to do with America? The casualty rate of D-Day alone would have created an active Anti-War Movement.

What about the bombing of Dresden? That would have gotten British and U.S. troops labelled as monsters.

What about FDR and the Japanese Internment camps? They weren't even enemies, they were U.S. citizens. Unlike Gitmo where the detainees were actually associated with terrorist organizations.

As I said, War is Hell, if you enter into a war you're going to get your hands dirty...there's no way to avoid it...The media more or less makes it like you can take over and subdue a country with no loss of life. It's just not going to happen.

The Media will always look for the good story, but in the past they didn't compromise the war effort. WWII, WWI, Korea, all would have been lost if they had the current day media hounding them.

[Bill]

I gather that's a covert way of saying that decimation or genocide would solve the problem.

Which might be true, tho, that's not certain.

One wonders how our buddies the Sauds would react to a wholesale slaughter of Iraqis.

And, unless we go ABC, it's a moot point - it would be very difficult to wipe out all male Iraqis of military age with an army the size and disposition of the one we have available.

Decimation of a population is a more difficult tactical problem than one might think.

[TheRightWing]

I gather that's a covert way of saying that decimation or genocide would solve the problem.

Which might be true, tho, that's not certain.

One wonders how our buddies the Sauds would react to a wholesale slaughter of Iraqis.

And, unless we go ABC, it's a moot point - it would be very difficult to wipe out all male Iraqis of military age with an army the size and disposition of the one we have available.

Decimation of a population is a more difficult tactical problem than one might think.

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant is the news covers the war in such a way to make every failure seem magnified and every success seem diminished.

The point is...will history view Bush by the standards used for other Presidents....will they fairly assess his achievements and failures. At the moment as a student of history, if I compare him to other Presidents he probably ranks as a middle of the road president. I think Bush's legacy will be kinder to him than his current poll numbers.

[Bill]

I think thats freekin nuts, unless he brings home the oil.

If he brings it home and keeps it flowing for the next 30 to 50 years, all will be forgiven.

I personally fail to see how the media could be having any effect on the pacification of Iraq. Or bringing home the oil.

Are you talking about some kind of emboldening?

I don't care how bold you are, a 30mm grenade shell is still going to eviscerate you.

[Jeanne of ARc]

War is hell, people die,

Yes but that does not justify the people who died when they didnt have to.

3000+ Troops dead...Compare that to WWII, WWI, Vietnam, Korea...a mere small amount compared to those conflicts. Does that negate the fact that people have died, no it doesnt, but war is hell.

The world wars were major, so of course there would be a major difference, Vietnam was a disaster. We invaded a country the same size as a small portion of our own country and so far three thousand familes are without fathers and mothers from the war alone. It is alot for what it is, don't take it out of context and try to compare it to anything.

Also, let's look at the benefits of the Iraq war compared to other conflicts. At the end of the day The U.S. has just secured 1/4th the worlds oil supply. Mission Accomplished? I'd say so.

Is the mission moral or right or justified?
Most of the world would say no.

Is that what it is about benefits? So stability or the people of Iraq are unimportant?

Fine we secured one fourth of the worlds oil but we made many children orphans in the process , mission accomplished?
Are you proud of that? What about the children and civilians who commited no crime but walk the streets of Iraq and they died for it?

George W. Bush is going to be seen as a hero in the history books

For what?


and hopefully we'll see some condemnation for the media's role in subverting the war effort to a level that comes near to treason

Dictionary
treason |?tr?z?n| noun (also high treason) the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government : they were convicted of treason. • the action of betraying someone or something : doubt is the ultimate treason against faith. • ( petty treason) historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband. DERIVATIVES treasonous |?tr?z?n?s| adjective ORIGIN Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French treisoun, from Latin traditio(n-) ‘handing over,’ from the verb tradere.USAGE Formerly, there were two types of crime to which the term treason was applied: petty treason (the crime of murdering one's master) and high treason (the crime of betraying one's country). As a classification of offense, the crime of petty treason was abolished in 1828. In modern use, the term high treason is now often simply called treason.


Where did they murder a master or betray their country?

The medias duty is to portray the truth

[Jeanne of ARc]

As for the point you try to make…I’ll ask you some questions and see what you come up with:

What was our reason for going into Vietnam?

I can't think of any valid reasons that justify war, but I am certainly not saying it was war that should have been fought.



What about the Bay of Pigs?

Besides bad planning by the CIA and some mumbo jumbo about the new regime being a threat to security, I don't see why it was justified. It certainly doesn't seem justified to me. So in this case I agree with you, there is no valid legitimate reason for going into the Bay of Pigs

What was our reason for going into Korea?
I don't really understand that we had one.???


What was our reason for going into WWII?
We were attacked by a country that openly admitted to doing so, and we then that country's allies declared war on us, and we went to help our own allies from getting smashed. I consider that a good enough reason.



two wars to save Europeans (who in many regards probably didn’t deserve saving).
Who does then?
The second world war was entered because Japan attacked us, then Germany and Italia declared war. The world is better off for our involvement in that war.


I’m being practical in my comparison…if the U.S. gains something from war, at least there’s some bottomline gain. Iraq, no matter how you look at it, will benefit the U.S. long term far more than our involvement in previous wars.

But it will benefit the U.S and the U.S alone, the world war 2 benefited the world with our involvement, by the mad man that was determined to rule the world and commit genocide was no longer in power and in control of a very powerful nation.

So, Bush is a villian for doing what his predecessors has done? Or actually one upping them by at least getting something tangible for America.

Maybe America didn't gain directly from the other wars, or did it?
I mean America is a world power and has since then despite the loss of wars and no apparent gain in those wars.

[Jeanne of ARc]

$1 a gallon to any family that has a son in the military ($2 if they have a daughter in the military).

Why more for women?

[Bill]

Why more for women?

I'm being rhetorical.

[TheRightWing]

I think thats freekin nuts, unless he brings home the oil.

If he brings it home and keeps it flowing for the next 30 to 50 years, all will be forgiven.

I personally fail to see how the media could be having any effect on the pacification of Iraq. Or bringing home the oil.

Are you talking about some kind of emboldening?

I don't care how bold you are, a 30mm grenade shell is still going to eviscerate you.

No, I'm talking about erroding the confidence America has for it's troops and the war effort. You have cowards like Harry Reid saying to pull out because the war isn't dainty and nice.

Our troops have done an excellent job, in tough conditions, with a population that had most of its civilians armed and ready. If the news started reporting successes, started showing the good that's being done, the areas that are secure, then you'd start seeing those spineless democrats get off the topic of Iraq and try to take credit for it's success.

Just remember, when Hussein was caught, Hillary Clinton was proud of her vote on the resolution that sent us there :thumbsup: Talk about spineless leadership.

The media spins the war, only shows the negative, twists the american population between the dull moments of celebrity gossip, and the spineless democrats follow along with whatever gets fed to them.

[TheRightWing]

What was our reason for going into Vietnam?

I can't think of any valid reasons that justify war, but I am certainly not saying it was war that should have been fought.

Yet JFK is idolized as some great american, yet he loaded up vietnam with american advisors. The Bay of Pigs debacle also belongs to him. Yet JFK is a hero?

I don't really understand that we had one.???

Spread of democracy I believe was the reason for Korea. There wasn't any good reason for the war and American interests were not served. Yet, Truman, Ike, etc, are looked favorably upon.

WWI & WWII

WWI was an avoidable conflict for us. We insinuated ourselves in the war effort when it would have been very easy to remain neutral and not take sides. It was a European war, they've been doing that sort of stuff since recorded time.

Also, the way in which WWI was handled caused WWII. Again, though, WWII would have never reached American shores. Japan only attacked the U.S. because we insinuated ourselves in the Far East policy.

At the end though, both wars had nothing to do with the U.S. and our involvement only happened because we let it happen. Yet, Wilson, FDR, Truman, all heroes in the eyes of Americans.

But it will benefit the U.S and the U.S alone, the world war 2 benefited the world with our involvement, by the mad man that was determined to rule the world and commit genocide was no longer in power and in control of a very powerful nation.

Also if removing a brutal dictor is enough reason. Bush has got that point covered with Hussein. So he did a service to the world and also is in the process of securing us most of the world's oil. :thumbsup:

The validity of your arguments are fine. I'm not going to necessarily go against them. However, we need to be fair when looking at history. Think about previous presidents, our involvment in wars, and then re-examine Bush and his record. You may just find he's done no differently then other presidents before him.

[Bill]

The media spins the war, only shows the negative, twists the american population between the dull moments of celebrity gossip, and the spineless democrats follow along with whatever gets fed to them.

I'm not getting what that has to do with pacifying Iraqi guerillas.

Hillary sucks, no arguments there. I just don't see why you are invoking her, and what that has to do with the oil.

There's a real issue here, that doesn't have anything to do with the media, and that's pacifying Iraq enough to force them to pass the oil law, then keeping them passive until we've got all the oil.

If you are trying to say Reid keeps our soldiers from pulling the trigger, I just don't see how he has that power.

That almost sounds like you are saying our soldiers are a bunch of pussies, getting all consternated and too confused to shoot because of what some democrat says.

[TheRightWing]

I'm not getting what that has to do with pacifying Iraqi guerillas.

Hillary sucks, no arguments there. I just don't see why you are invoking her, and what that has to do with the oil.

There's a real issue here, that doesn't have anything to do with the media, and that's pacifying Iraq enough to force them to pass the oil law, then keeping them passive until we've got all the oil.

If you are trying to say Reid keeps our soldiers from pulling the trigger, I just don't see how he has that power.

That almost sounds like you are saying our soldiers are a bunch of pussies, getting all consternated and too confused to shoot because of what some democrat says.

So you don't see the American population supporting the war as a benefit? If Americans supported the war completely there'd be no talk of timelines to get out, there would be no limits to the troops or resources needed to get the job done. The failure in Iraq is the U.S. will power to just get 'er done.

Imagine if WWII was waged on a time line or limited the size of our involvement....that would have worked out swell.

[Bill]

So you don't see the American population supporting the war as a benefit? ...

Imagine if WWII was waged on a time line or limited the size of our involvement....that would have worked out swell.

When americans thought the war was going well, they supported it by a wide margin.

If Iraq was pacified and the oil was flowing, they would still support it.

Which takes us back to the real world problem, one that can't be spun by the media - Iraq isn't getting pacified.

And comparing Iraq to WW2 is comparing apples and oranges.

If you say Iraq was about getting the oil, what was WW2 about that is equivalent to getting the oil?

Besides, based on timeline, WW2 was over already, and we had won, and the germans, japs, and italians were pacified, and the US had seized the role and priviledges of superpower empire from the crushed europeans.

It was a success. Until we get the oil, Iraq isn't a success.

[Bill]

It also seems to me, that by saying the media is to blame, you are trying to shift the blame away from the people.

Media is a business. People watch what they want to watch, and switch media companies to get the message they want to buy.

If the people wanted to watch a view of Iraq that showed Iraq as a success, they would do so.

There was a time when no-one in the media dared to question the goodness and rightness of invading Iraq. Thats what the people wanted, thats what they got.

If you say the media is to blame, you are making exactly the same argumnet that the left wing makes, when it says the media was responsible for getting the invasion started in the first place.

[TheRightWing]

It also seems to me, that by saying the media is to blame, you are trying to shift the blame away from the people.

Media is a business. People watch what they want to watch, and switch media companies to get the message they want to buy.

If the people wanted to watch a view of Iraq that showed Iraq as a success, they would do so.

There was a time when no-one in the media dared to question the goodness and rightness of invading Iraq. Thats what the people wanted, thats what they got.

If you say the media is to blame, you are making exactly the same argumnet that the left wing makes, when it says the media was responsible for getting the invasion started in the first place.

The media is to blame because the masses are sheep waiting to be fed information, disinformation, because heavens if they actually had to think on their own their feeble minds might explode.

Ask an anti-war protestor to point out where Iraq is on a map and I can guarantee most couldn't even point it out. Simpering fools that need their opinions spoon fed to them.

Before anyone jumps on the topic that I'm just using talking point, umm, actually I've haven't seen too many people say, "How does Bush stack up against other Presidents?"

Why? Because the stink of hypocrisy would be all over it as they try to explain away how Iraq measures up to other military actions. Or maybe looking at the reason for War, Oil, which basically brings back the point that every Anti-War American driving around in an SUV is more or less talking out of both sides of their mouth.

And people call Republicans hypocrites.

[Bill]

If you wanna blame the american people for the state of things, I'm in complete agreement with that.

In fact, I don't really see how it can be repudiated.

But, to get back to my primary interest, Iraq still has to be pacified and the oil brought back to this country.

And we need to get trillions of dollars worth, because this war is going to cost trillions.

We're borrowing the money to pay for it now, but sooner or later the taxpayers gotta pay up. And borrowing to pay for the war just means we'll have to pay back a whole boatload more than we borrowed.

I think the republicans need to stop screwing around and get on the stick and make sure we get that oil, or the cost of this war is going to really start pissing people off.

[Jeanne of ARc]

As a president, how he stands up he isn't oh so worst than the others or better but to me I think at least Roosevelt stopped the slaughter of millions of innocents in by winning ww2 and prevented hitler from succeeding in taking over europe. But overall I think the Iraq war was a waste of time, but then again I never saw a point to it, and it has been pretty badly messed up if we ever had a chance of winning.

[Bill]

The reason the american people passively went along with the war is that they wanted Bush to steal the Iraqi oil.

"Winning" - now that's a fascinating concept, and the crux of any military raid or adventure.

Americans completely misunderstood what "winning" would be in any middle eastern country.

We expected them to behave like europeans. With europeans, once you smash their infrastructure and take away the benefits of modern civilization, they roll on their backs and expose their throat and bellies, the way dogs do in a dogfight, to symbolize surrender and pacification.

But the people in the middle east have only had a few of the features of modern civilization in the first place. And they have a cultural memory much different than ours, a culture of revenge. What is needed to force them into a "surrender" is profoundly diffferent from what we expected.

So, we are no closer to "winning" now than we were before the raid started.

[Linkster]

Bill - its a real shame that most politicians never had to study history - otherwise they would understand what would happen in Iraq with this invasion and occupation - and it is turning out exactly like the British attempt to do this same thing back in the early 1900s - when Churchill and his Generals used poison gas on the tribespeople of the Kurds and tried to control the Shiaa and all other factions - it just doesnt work and never will. This is a battle that has been going on since the beginning of time and one little US army isnt going to be able to control it no matter how hard they try

[Bill]

Now that takes us back to "Pig Bombs". ;-}

I searched, but couldn't find the pig bombs thread.

You know the Iraqis would surrender and pacify themselves to a conquerer so ruthless that he would use pig bombs.

[Linkster]

Bill - ya know its funny that if you go to London there are statues all over the place of aviator "heroes" from back in the 20th century - the most famous being Churchills fav - Arthur Harris - later known as the "Hammer" whose statue stands on Fleet St - one of the famous RAF pilots used to "quell the Kurds"
I think Churchills favorite comment during that period was
"against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror"


Im still wondering just how many US citizens remember when Iraq was a democracy? I do
- and still remember a really good girlfriend whose father was attached to the embassy in DC from Iraq until the US supported a takeover of Iraq by the military leading to Saddam taking power - and her tears from the loss of family members during that takeover and the loss of all of their freedoms
And most importantly her anger at the US for supporting the takeover and demolishment of the democracy in Iraq

[Betty Blowtorch]

The War in Iraq has taken a turn for the worst, not because
of inept leadership, not because of a foggy plan of action,
but instead it's been undermined by the media from day 1.

War is hell, people die, and when you enter into a conflict
you have to expect a certain number of casualities, but
that has to be expected in war.

3000+ Troops dead... Compare that to WWII, WWI, Vietnam,
Korea... a mere small amount compared to those conflicts.

The U.S. has just secured 1/4th the worlds oil supply.
Mission Accomplished? I'd say so.


Winger... you are a sick fuck... does your brand of faith
create such inhumanities that you blow off thousands of
your countrymen's deaths by citing: "War is Hell... and
anyway more got killed in other wars" but we managed
to completely destroy a non-threatening country and
steal their oil... and so it is all worth it.

winger... you are beneath contempt.


Okay stefan, do you condemn Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon,
all of whom sent American troops to die for far less a valid
reason than securing resources for America?

If you don't, you're just showing how much of a liberal
hypocrite you are... FDR did far worst than Bush ever did,
came out with less benefit for America then Bush, yet he's
a hero and respected and Bush is a scapegoat for a media
to espouse their unrealistic view of what war is.
First of all, Mr. RightWing, let's examine the sleazy tactic
you employ to deflect criticism away from Bush's genocide
in Iraq. Instead of being honest about the disaster he has
created, you try to point fingers at everyone else:

"Hey everybody! Look over here! Don't look at the mess
that the Bush regime has made in Iraq -- look over here
at what FDR did in World War II."

Trying to point fingers at other people in order to avoid
personal responsibility for your own crimes and blunders
is like a criminal standing up in court, telling the judge:

"Hey Judge! Don't look at the murders I've committed.
Look at what Jeffrey Dahmer did. He's worse than me."

Even an intellectually superior moron like you should be
able to see the moral fallacy of trying to deflect criticism
and avoid personal responsibility by pointing fingers at
everyone but yourself.

But since you're clearly committed to the finger-pointing
game, let's take a moment to examine the details of your
finger-pointing:



FDR did far worst than Bush ever did, came out with less
benefit for America then Bush, yet he's a hero and Bush
is a scapegoat.
It's difficult to comprehend how anyone could be stupid
enough to justify Bush's disaster in Iraq by comparing it
to FDR's performance in World War II.

World War II started in September 1939. America didn't
get involved for the first two years, until the Japanese
savagely attacked and decimated the US Pacific Fleet
at Pearl Harbor.

The German Nazis had already conquered all of Europe
(except Britain) and were on the verge of conquering
the Soviet Union, which would have given the Nazis
complete domination of Europe and Asia.

The Japanese Empire, allied with the Nazis, conquered
most of East Asia, China and the Pacific islands.

If America hadn't entered the war and won it decisively,
the Nazis and Japanese might have ended up dominating
the entire Eastern Hemisphere. FDR was instrumental
in preventing that disaster from happening.

FDR followed the constitutionally mandated method of
committing our armed forces to war: he asked Congress
for a Declaration of War and received unanimous approval.
The American public overwhelmingly supported the war,
and in less than four years, two of the most powerful
military machines in history were defeated.

After the war, America was the pre-eminent military and
economic force in the world, enjoying immense prosperity
and power in the decades following the war.

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4238/flagwave2uh2.gif


Now let's take a look at the lying, bungling http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7096/avatarbushcheneyinjailxr9.gif
performance of your chickenhawk heroes, Bush and Cheney:

They were supposed to kill or capture Osama bin Laden
and destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

But what did they do?

They FAILED.

Instead they invaded and occupied a sovereign nation
that didn't attack us and presented no credible threat,
but just happened to be sitting on top of an ocean of
black gold. Texas tea.

Did Bush and Cheney tell the American public
the real reason for invading Iraq?

NOPE!!
They LIED.
Repeatedly.

First they lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction.
When that lie was debunked, they tried another lie:

They conned the public into believing that Saddam
was in cahoots with al-Qaeda and participated in
the 9-11 attacks.

When that lie was debunked, they tried another lie:
They pretended that their real reason for creating
a nightmare of death and destruction for the Iraqi
people was purely altruistic, to bestow the blessings
of liberty and democracy on the heathen ragheads.

To this day, Bush and Cheney have never stood up
and told the real truth of why they invaded Iraq:
To STEAL the OIL.


Wanna hear a funny joke? http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4816/laughingpuppymv6.gif
It's a real knee-slapper.

Bush has blown almost half a trillion dollars on his
Iraqi Quagmire -- otherwise known as Vietnam II --
and he's gonna waste hundreds of billions more
of our tax dollars before this disaster is over.

And you wanna know the punchline?

We could have legally PURCHASED Iraq's oil
at a fraction of what it will end up costing us
to STEAL IT.

In case you weren't aware of it, Saddam was desperate
to sell us Iraq's oil at bargain prices. The UN sanctions
and oil embargo had left his country destitute. Saddam
made overtures to us, but was rebuffed.

Wow, what a concept: legally PAYING for something
instead of trying to steal it through military force.


Go ahead and keep pointing fingers http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2345/asspumpe0vw5.gif
at the media, the Democrats, and everybody else
except the real culprits: the bungling Bush gang
and the war-loving fanatics who voted for him...

... like you, Mr. RightWing.

[TheRightWing]

First of all, Mr. RightWing, let's examine the sleazy tactic
you employ to deflect criticism away from Bush's genocide
in Iraq. Instead of being honest about the disaster he has
created, you try to point fingers at everyone else:

"Hey everybody! Look over here! Don't look at the mess
that the Bush regime has made in Iraq -- look over here
at what FDR did in World War II."

Trying to point fingers at other people in order to avoid
personal responsibility for your own crimes and blunders
is like a criminal standing up in court, telling the judge:

"Hey Judge! Don't look at the murders I've committed.
Look at what Jeffrey Dahmer did. He's worse than me."

Even an intellectually superior moron like you should be
able to see the moral fallacy of trying to deflect criticism
and avoid personal responsibility by pointing fingers at
everyone but yourself.

But since you're clearly committed to the finger-pointing
game, let's take a moment to examine the details of your
finger-pointing:

You really are rather foolish. The point of this thread was to compare and contrast what other Presidents have done in the past and compare it to Bush's War in Iraq.

If you don't have the mental capacity to discuss the topic at hand please sit down, reread, and understand the crux of this thread was a basic comparison of the War in Iraq to other wars the U.S. was involved with.

So, I'm not detracting or using sleazy tactics, this is the thread that I started and as a student of history I wanted to see how Bush would compare to our other Presidents. Why is one President a Hero and another a villain for doing what amounts to the exact same thing?

Since I wanted a discussion about History and how History views our Presidents...yes, it's completely valid for me to bring this topic up.

It's difficult to comprehend how anyone could be stupid
enough to justify Bush's disaster in Iraq by comparing it
to FDR's performance in World War II.

World War II started in September 1939. America didn't
get involved for the first two years, until the Japanese
savagely attacked and decimated the US Pacific Fleet
at Pearl Harbor.

The German Nazis had already conquered all of Europe
(except Britain) and were on the verge of conquering
the Soviet Union, which would have given the Nazis
complete domination of Europe and Asia.

The Japanese Empire, allied with the Nazis, conquered
most of East Asia, China and the Pacific islands.

If America hadn't entered the war and won it decisively,
the Nazis and Japanese might have ended up dominating
the entire Eastern Hemisphere. FDR was instrumental
in preventing that disaster from happening.

FDR followed the constitutionally mandated method of
committing our armed forces to war: he asked Congress
for a Declaration of War and received unanimous approval.
The American public overwhelmingly supported the war,
and in less than four years, two of the most powerful
military machines in history were defeated.

After the war, America was the pre-eminent military and
economic force in the world, enjoying immense prosperity
and power in the decades following the war.

Oh how you read history is beyond me. I'm sure you bought into all the little patriotic babble that they spoon fed you in school. I'm not here to be your teacher, I don't have the patience to teach someone of your limited mental capacity.

The fact remains that Japan would have never attacked the U.S. if we didn't insinuate ourselves into WWII. You think the U.S. was just smelling the flowers and then big bully Japan came along and bombed our fleet? Are you that weak on history? Please do some reading. The U.S. was instigating an attack.

Quit watching movies about WWII and actually open a history book.

Since though we're talking about WWII, let's get it done and do the full comparison of FDR vs. Bush.

1. Conspiracy theories

a) People believe Bush was responsible for 9/11
b) There is evidence to prove that FDR knew about Pearl Harbour before it happened, but let it happen anyway.

2. Internment Camps

a) Gitmo - Everyone screaming about Gitmo but they've imprisoned people that actually have ties to terrorists
b) Japanese Internment Camps - FDR imprisoned American Citizens.

3. Reason For U.S. Involvement

a) WMD, Remove a brutal dictator, and one that's not mentioned Oil.
b) Remove a dictator and help european nations hold onto their colonial holdings.

4. Military Casualties

a) Bush - 3,400 Soldiers Dead
b) FDR - 292,000 Soldiers Dead

That's just a thumbnail sketch. You can go to your local library and read up on WWII the causes, the effects, etc, etc, etc. Civilian casualties would be an interesting thing to look up. Also spend some time understanding that the U.S. military occupied both japan and germany after the war and there was insurgents as well.

When you start reading history you start wondering why one president is considered "great" and another is a "villain"...is it the media? Is it the changing perspectives of Americans? Is it any number of reasons why two men that did the same thing gets viewed so differently? I'm just trying to expand your horizons and give you a historical prospective.

You can run along now and think for a bit. I do appreciate the fact that you tried your best to participate in a thread and you held off with your little cartoons all the way till the end. I'd give you a cookie, but I'm pretty sure you're the hyperactive type and it's probably not advisable to give you sugar.

[Betty Blowtorch]

You really are rather foolish. The point of this thread was
to compare and contrast what other Presidents have done
in the past and compare it to Bush's War in Iraq.

If you don't have the mental capacity to discuss the topic
at hand please sit down, reread, and understand the crux
of this thread was a basic comparison of the War in Iraq
to other wars the U.S. was involved with.

So, I'm not detracting or using sleazy tactics, this is the
thread that I started and as a student of history I wanted
to see how Bush would compare to our other Presidents.
Why is one President a Hero and another a villain for doing
what amounts to the exact same thing?

Since I wanted a discussion about History and how History
views our Presidents...yes, it's completely valid for me to
bring this topic up.

When you start reading history you start wondering why one
president is considered "great" and another is a "villain"...is it
the media? Is it the changing perspectives of Americans?
Is it any number of reasons why two men that did the same
thing gets viewed so differently?
Apparently you're trying to pretend that you started this thread
as an objective historical comparison of different presidents and
how history views them.

What a crock.

You started this thread to blame the media for the fact that
the war has taken a turn for the worse and now Bush looks
like an incompetent asshole.



The War in Iraq has taken a turn for the worst, not because
of inept leadership, not because of a foggy plan of action,
but instead it's been undermined by the media from day 1.
Poor pathetic little freeper. Your boy Bush is doing such a
shitty job (and his poll numbers are in the toilet) you have
to lie to yourself (and us) about the real reasons for the
quagmire in Iraq.

Even some conservative Republicans have publicly called
Bush's war the worst foreign policy blunder in American
history.

But YOU think the war is going badly because the media
is reporting that it's going badly. That's circular logic
and a lame excuse for Bush's lies and bungling.

Without a shred of evidence, you predict that history will
see Bush as a hero, and the media coverage of his war
will be seen as treasonous.



George W. Bush is going to be seen as a hero in the history
books and hopefully we'll see some condemnation for the
media's role in subverting the war effort to a level that
comes near to treason.
Oh I see. Reporting the news is treason. If the media
reports any facts about the war that are unpleasant or
negative, that's treason. If the media gives the names
of American soldiers who've died in Iraq, that's treason.



From day one, every dead soldier gets reported a few hours
later, every name read, every failure magnified x10, and the
sheep that watch the media are endlessly brainwashed with
our failures and not our successes.
Perhaps you'd be happier if we dug up Joseph Goebbels
and put him in charge of turning the American media into
the propaganda arm of the Neocon party. That way, he
could make sure that the American public receives only
glowing reports about how well the war is going.



Okay stefan, do you condemn Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon,
all of whom sent american troops to die for far less a valid
reason than securing resources for America?

If you don't you're just showing how much of a liberal hypocrite
you are... FDR did far worst than Bush ever did, came out with
less benefit for America then Bush, yet he's a hero and respected
and Bush is a scapegoat for a media to espouse their unrealistic
view of what war is.
Apparently you don't understand the definition of "scapegoat."
Bush is 100% responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, but you're
trying to scapegoat the media and blame them for Bush's
fuckup. You've got things exactly backwards.

You attempt to bolster your weak case that history will see
Bush as a hero by pointing fingers at other presidents and
claiming that they did worse and achieved less.

How sad for you, Mr. RightWing. You see Bush as a hero,
and the rest of the world sees him as a bungling buffoon
at best, and a war criminal at worst.

But you go right ahead, keep pointing fingers and tearing
down other presidents to try to make your boy Bush look
like something other than a fuckup.

If you're running out of fingers to point with, http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8465/avatarpicknoseey9.gif
I've got a couple of extra fingers you can use:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6673/fingermonkeylz2.gif
Yes indeed. History will see Bush as a hero
rather than an obnoxious, immature asshole
who fucked up and got in way over his head.


Here's a few extra fingers http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6540/fingergirlvk0.jpg
you're welcome to insert
in your anal cavity.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6442/fingereminemsj7.jpg




I'm just trying to expand your horizons and give you
a historical prospective.
Next time you want to expand my horizons and give me
some historical "prospective," try to spell "perspective"
correctly.

[TheRightWing]

Apparently you're trying to pretend that you started this thread
as an objective historical comparison of different presidents and
how history views them.

What a crock.


That's your assessment of why I started the thread. It's just interesting to me how people can't draw any comparisons to the past. You see nothing to compare, I see a great deal to compare, and just because you can't think beyond what someone spoon feeds you, well, that's your problem not mine.

You started this thread to blame the media for the fact that
the war has taken a turn for the worse and now Bush looks
like an incompetent asshole.


Poor pathetic little freeper. Your boy Bush is doing such a
shitty job (and his poll numbers are in the toilet) you have
to lie to yourself (and us) about the real reasons for the
quagmire in Iraq.

Even some conservative Republicans have publicly called
Bush's war the worst foreign policy blunder in American
history.

The media, the citizens, the expectations of what war is...they're all to blame. Now do a little research and see what Hillary Clinton and John Kerry said about Iraq all those years ago. If you can credit Bush with anything he stands by his convictions. Democrats are cowards of poll numbers.

But YOU think the war is going badly because the media
is reporting that it's going badly. That's circular logic
and a lame excuse for Bush's lies and bungling.

Without a shred of evidence, you predict that history will
see Bush as a hero, and the media coverage of his war
will be seen as treasonous.

I don't think the war is going as badly as people make it out to be. With the increased troops Iraq is a very achievable goal. Despite what's getting reported 24/7.


Oh I see. Reporting the news is treason. If the media
reports any facts about the war that are unpleasant or
negative, that's treason. If the media gives the names
of American soldiers who've died in Iraq, that's treason.


Perhaps you'd be happier if we dug up Joseph Goebbels
and put him in charge of turning the American media into
the propaganda arm of the Neocon party. That way, he
could make sure that the American public receives only
glowing reports about how well the war is going.

Read up on how the media previously covered American wars and entanglements. I don't have the time or the inclination to explain everything to you.


You attempt to bolster your weak case that history will see
Bush as a hero by pointing fingers at other presidents and
claiming that they did worse and achieved less.

How sad for you, Mr. RightWing. You see Bush as a hero,
and the rest of the world sees him as a bungling buffoon
at best, and a war criminal at worst.

You don't want or you're incapable of studying history...unfortunate, but what can I do. You don't want to see the possibility that our heroes of the "past" would be ripped apart in today's climate.


Next time you want to expand my horizons and give me
some historical "prospective," try to spell "perspective"
correctly.

Nothing like a spelling nazi, considering the amount I have to type in response to your blathering it's bound to happen.

[Betty Blowtorch]

The media, the citizens, the expectations of what war is...
they're all to blame.
Wow! That's a lot of people to blame. http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8620/avatarblameclintonpn9.gif
The media, the citizens, the Democrats, the Clintons...


You're gonna need more fingers to point with. http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9141/avatarfingerdt4.jpg


Unfortunately you blame everybody... http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9005/avatarstupidyo7.gif


... but the REAL culprit:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/5881/bushsatanuu7.jpg

[Betty Blowtorch]

I don't think the war is going as badly as people make it out to be.
With the increased troops, Iraq is a very achievable goal.
Despite what's getting reported 24/7.
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8608/lookieherebv8.gif
Oh, I see!!

YOU don't think the war is going badly.

Well now, that changes everything. http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9466/laughingyellowsmileysy9.gif

Hey, everybody! Mr. RightWinghttp://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4594/dyingsoldiere0rc7.gif
doesn't think the war is going badly.
Ignore any media reports to the contrary.


Break out the fireworks! http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1412/fireworks1wm7.gif
We're winning the war! Yayyyyyy!!!!

[Betty Blowtorch]

Just for kicks and giggles, let's ask a heathen raghead
how the war is going:

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2409/iraqvictimchild1resizesld0.jpg
"Thank you, Meester RightWeeng.
I deedn't really need my arms and legs.
Or my mother and father."

[TheRightWing]

Don't be obtuse. As I stated from the start war is hell, Americans want to engage in some sort of Arcade version of war and when people support the war when it's all push button destruction it's all well and good.

Don't go to war if you don't know what war is, don't pretend to be shocked after the fact, and pulling up a random picture doesn't negate the fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator (same as hitler), he was committing heinous acts (let's not look at that because pinheads like you want to make it like Iraq was a shangrila before the U.S. got there).

One other thing while you're in your ivory tower and admire FDR:

FDR was instrumental
in preventing that disaster from happening.

FDR followed the constitutionally mandated method of
committing our armed forces to war: he asked Congress
for a Declaration of War and received unanimous approval.
The American public overwhelmingly supported the war,
and in less than four years, two of the most powerful
military machines in history were defeated.

After the war, America was the pre-eminent military and
economic force in the world, enjoying immense prosperity
and power in the decades following the war.

Dresden? Google search some images. Aftermath of the nukes Truman dropped in Japan? Google search some images. Stop being a hypocrite and open your eyes to the fact that Bush is no worst than FDR, Truman, or any other President that got us into wars.

Maybe if you'd admit that I could at least stomach your babble because it's consistent babble.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Stop being a hypocrite and open your eyes to the fact
that Bush is no worst than FDR, Truman, or any other
President that got us into wars.

Maybe if you'd admit that I could at least stomach
your babble because it's consistent babble.
Just keep lying to yourself, Mr. RightWing Christian.
I guess that's what you have to do when the facts
aren't on your side.

It's rather ironic that an "honest" god-fearing Christian
like yourself would have the gall to compare Iraq in 2003
to the German and Japanese empires during World War II.

That's not like comparing apples to oranges -- it's like
comparing a declawed, defanged kitten to a pair of
full-grown, man-eating tigers hunting for prey.

With no provocation, Nazi Germany invaded and occupied
Poland, Austria, Czechoslavakia, Norway, Belgium, France,
Yugoslavia, North Africa, the Netherlands, Soviet Union,
and were at the gates of Moscow in 1941.

With no provocation, fascist Japan invaded and occupied
Manchuria, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indochina,
a bunch of Pacific islands, and were poised to attack
India.

In December 1941, Japan attacked and decimated the
US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, a clearcut act of war.

Now let's take a look at Iraq in 2003:

Saddam's military had been defanged and declawed in the
1991 Persian Gulf War. In 2003, Saddam had no weapons
of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaeda, no involvement
in 9-11, and presented no credible threat to his neighbors,
let alone the US on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

When the Bush gang invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003,
it was not acting in self-defense as FDR had done in 1941
with the support of virtually the entire world.

Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq can more properly be
compared to Hitler's unprovoked invasion of Poland in 1939,
which was unquestionably a war crime.

Who the fuck supports Bush's war? Besides you hardcore
Christian loonies, I mean.

Mr. RightWing, are you at all capable of looking at the war
in an honest way? Are all Christians as dishonest as you?
Should I judge other Christians by your example?

And don't pretend that you murdered 600,000 Iraqis as an
act of altruism, to protect them from a brutal dictator.
You haven't got an altruistic bone in your body.

You did it to "secure resources" in your Orwellian parlance.
Or to put it in honest English, you did it to steal their oil.

Speaking of which, thanks for all the cheap gasoline we've
been getting as a result of Bush's war. I hate to think back
to those dark days when I was paying a buck and a half
for a gallon of gas under Bill Clinton.

Now I'm paying $3.50 for that same gallon of gas.
Thanks to your hero, George W. Bush.

[TheRightWing]

With no provocation, Nazi Germany invaded and occupied
Poland, Austria, Czechoslavakia, Norway, Belgium, France,
Yugoslavia, North Africa, the Netherlands, Soviet Union,
and were at the gates of Moscow in 1941.

This was America's problem because?

With no provocation, fascist Japan invaded and occupied
Manchuria, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indochina,
a bunch of Pacific islands, and were poised to attack
India.

This was America's problem because?



In December 1941, Japan attacked and decimated the
US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, a clearcut act of war.

Only after the U.S. put embargos on Japan, refused to let Japanese ships through the Panama Canal, etc, and for what? Because some European colonies in Asia were in jeopardy?


Now let's take a look at Iraq in 2003:

Saddam's military had been defanged and declawed in the
1991 Persian Gulf War. In 2003, Saddam had no weapons
of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaeda, no involvement
in 9-11, and presented no credible threat to his neighbors,
let alone the US on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Let's look at that. First off intelligence, not only the CIA, but Russian, French and British intelligence all thought Saddam was working towards a new weapons program and had WMDs.

We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Was the intelligence right or wrong? Wrong, but it still doesn't negate that Saddam was a dictator, he gassed his own people, he tortured his own people, his idols were Hitler and Stalin. He wasn't exactly a nice guy.


When the Bush gang invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003,
it was not acting in self-defense as FDR had done in 1941
with the support of virtually the entire world.

Do you include the Democrats in Bush's gang?

Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq can more properly be
compared to Hitler's unprovoked invasion of Poland in 1939,
which was unquestionably a war crime.

Actually there was a number of UN resolutions against Iraq. Unfortunately the UN is a paper tiger and they should have been right along side the U.S. with ousting Saddam. So, you're an idiot.


Who the fuck supports Bush's war?

Apparently the Democrats as they do nothing to stop it. So saying one thing for the cameras and doing fuck nothing when they can kind of means they support the War in Iraq by default.

Mr. RightWing, are you at all capable of looking at the war
in an honest way? Are all Christians as dishonest as you?
Should I judge other Christians by your example?

I'm a realist and look at history by comparing and contrasting. An honest review of the facts.

And don't pretend that you murdered 600,000 Iraqis as an
act of altruism, to protect them from a brutal dictator.
You haven't got an altruistic bone in your body.

You did it to "secure resources" in your Orwellian parlance.
Or to put it in honest English, you did it to steal their oil.

Steal their oil...secure resources...it's really a matter of how you look at the problem. If the U.S. just declared this was to secure oil because there's a limited supply...I doubt there'd be much complaint.


Speaking of which, thanks for all the cheap gasoline we've
been getting as a result of Bush's war. I hate to think back
to those dark days when I was paying a buck and a half
for a gallon of gas under Bill Clinton.

Now I'm paying $3.50 for that same gallon of gas.
Thanks to your hero, George W. Bush.

You'll thank Bush once the rest of the world is choked off from oil and we have a corner on the market.

Now let me ask you. Why no anger towards the democrats? If you believe the war is so unjust and the democrats think it's so unjust, why don't they do something about it? Come on Babbling Betty, let's hear what you have to say to the Democrats for doing nothing. btw, they really did a wonderful job recently giving Bush everything he wanted.

Maybe the powers that be realize Iraq is a necessary evil to secure the resources to keep America going.

So babble some more betty and tell me about the democrats.

[Betty Blowtorch]

With no provocation, Nazi Germany invaded and occupied
Poland, Austria, Czechoslavakia, Norway, Belgium, France,
Yugoslavia, North Africa, the Netherlands, Soviet Union,
and were at the gates of Moscow in 1941.

With no provocation, fascist Japan invaded and occupied
Manchuria, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indochina,
a bunch of Pacific islands, and were poised to attack
India.


This was America's problem because?
I couldn't help noticing that you ask this question, then
you immediately follow it with a quotation of mine that
answers your question:



In December 1941, Japan attacked and decimated the
US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, a clearcut act of war.
On December 7th, 1941, Japan attacked us and made
World War II our problem. In 2003, Iraq didn't attack us
or anybody else. Bush attacked Iraq without provocation.
And he misled Congress and the American people about
his reasons for doing so.

International law recognizes the essential moral and legal
difference between an aggressor nation that starts a war
and a defensive nation that is fighting in self-defense or
to protect other nations that are being attacked by an
aggressor nation.

In World War II, the Japanese Empire and Hitler's Germany
were aggressor nations. America was a defensive nation.
Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq has turned America
into an aggressor nation like Nazi Germany.



I'm a realist and look at history by comparing and contrasting.
An honest review of the facts.
If you're honest, there's no way you can favorably compare
Bush's quagmire in Iraq to FDR's successful defeat of Japan
and Nazi Germany in less than four years.



Steal their oil... secure resources... it's really a matter of how
you look at the problem. If the U.S. just declared this was to
secure oil because there's a limited supply... I doubt there'd
be much complaint.

You'll thank Bush once the rest of the world is choked off
from oil and we have a corner on the market.
Don't you realize that one of the primary reasons that Hitler
invaded other nations was to "secure resources."

It's very eerie to hear you talk about securing oil as if it's our
natural right to invade other nations and steal their resources.
That's the way Hitler thought.

And you're a Christian? I guess you're this kind of Christian:

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8053/nazipriestssalutehitlerxd1.jpg


Apparently you want to blame the US for the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor:



In December 1941, Japan attacked and decimated the
US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, a clearcut act of war.


Only after the U.S. put embargos on Japan, refused to let
Japanese ships through the Panama Canal, etc, and for what?
Because some European colonies in Asia were in jeopardy?
These are standard non-military options intended to apply
pressure and achieve positive diplomatic results without
resorting to war.

You act like there's something immoral about FDR's embargo,
but you fail to see the Hitlerian immorality and illegality of
Bush's "Operation: Grand Theft Iraqi Oil."



Actually there was a number of UN resolutions against Iraq.
Unfortunately the UN is a paper tiger and they should have
been right along side the U.S. with ousting Saddam.
So, you're an idiot.
No, you're the idiot. The UN correctly avoided helping Bush
in his illegal invasion of Iraq.

The UN wanted Bush to allow the UN weapons inspectors
to do their jobs. Saddam cooperated with the inspectors
because he had no WMD's to hide. Bush kicked out the
inspectors because he was afraid they wouldn't find any
WMD's, thus eliminating Bush's phony pretext for war.



First off intelligence, not only the CIA, but Russian, French
and British intelligence all thought Saddam was working
towards a new weapons program and had WMDs.
There is ample evidence that the Bush gang intentionally
cherry-picked intelligence to fit their preconceived plans
to invade Iraq and steal its oil.

The Downing Street memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) reveals that "the intelligence
and facts were being fixed around the policy" of removing
Saddam from power, which proves that US intelligence
on Iraq prior to the war was deliberately falsified rather
than simply mistaken.

The Bush propaganda machine knowingly promoted false
intelligence to mislead Congress and the American people
with visions of mushroom clouds over Manhattan.



Why no anger towards the democrats? If you believe the
war is so unjust and the democrats think it's so unjust,
why don't they do something about it?
Yeah, let's blame the Democrats for failing to stop the
monster. But let's not forget who the monster is:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2339/bushnaziresizesmallerwr2.png

Bush has made such a mess in Iraq, there are no good
solutions. The only good solution was not to go there
in the first place.


Are you really a Christian http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6594/nunshootsbirdop6.gif
or are you bullshitting me?

Where in the Ten Commandments does it say:

"Thou shalt kill Muslims http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8854/hummeroa0.gif
and steal their oil to fill thy Hummer"

[Moby]

This was America's problem because?


This was America's problem because?

You are joking right?

[Moby]

I don't think the war is going as badly as people make it out to be. With the increased troops Iraq is a very achievable goal. Despite what's getting reported 24/7.
You stand by your beliefs. All facts, common sense and information say that things are going poorly but Dubya, Tony Snow and Dick say something else so you follow your beliefs. Well, OK maybe Anne Coulter will keep saying that things are going "Swimmingly".

So that's 4 people that have long history of telling lies vs. every other source of information and common sense imaginable.

Is this correct?

[Linkster]

Im really interested to know exactly what the "goal" that is achievable is? I dont mean this in a negative way - Ive just yet to hear a defined goal from any of the players - which I believe is the biggest problem with 72% of this country not understanding why we are there?

[TheRightWing]

I couldn't help noticing that you ask this question, then
you immediately follow it with a quotation of mine that
answers your question:


On December 7th, 1941, Japan attacked us and made
World War II our problem. In 2003, Iraq didn't attack us
or anybody else. Bush attacked Iraq without provocation.
And he misled Congress and the American people about
his reasons for doing so.

International law recognizes the essential moral and legal
difference between an aggressor nation that starts a war
and a defensive nation that is fighting in self-defense or
to protect other nations that are being attacked by an
aggressor nation.

In World War II, the Japanese Empire and Hitler's Germany
were aggressor nations. America was a defensive nation.
Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq has turned America
into an aggressor nation like Nazi Germany.

What's the litmus test for sending American troops to fight in a war? Moral obligation to remove a dictator? Stop a potential threat? Stop a nation that's invaded other sovereign nations? Spread an ideology? Or maybe American troops should be used only when it serves the national interest.

America's involvement in WWI caused WWII. If we didn't meddle in European affairs the first time there would have been no second time. Learning from that example when you do a job you have to complete the job you started otherwise you have to go back in again and fix the problem later.

What Germany did in WWII was horrible, however, most of the European countries involved in WWII had colonial interest abroad. England, France, Portugal, Spain, etc, etc, all had colonial interests in Africa, Asia, India, etc. Securing resources by any means possible. Most of the major European powers weren't exactly saints to begin with and only altered their colonialism after WWII.

Japan and attacking the U.S...Japan / U.S. relations even during Japan's initial expansion was very good and we more or less were "friends". We traded heavily with them, we were in good diplomatic standing, and Japan would have attacked the U.S. if FDR didn't put crippling embargo on Japan.

These embargoes were strictly in place to instigate Japan to attack the U.S. because FDR wanted in the war, he had economic holdings in China (oh what? Sounds like Bush and oil doesn't?), and if he instigated war with Japan we could openly declare War on Germany.

Also, FDR knew full well that Japan would eventually have to attack, would eventually have to secure resources in south east asian, would eventually attack Pearl Harbor. Yet, umm, FDR kept the fleet bottle necked in the harbor? Hmm, interesting don't you think?

Read a book called, "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbour" You might actually start seeing the point that I was making all along. FDR makes Bush look like an amateur.

If you're honest, there's no way you can favorably compare
Bush's quagmire in Iraq to FDR's successful defeat of Japan
and Nazi Germany in less than four years.

It wasn't four years. The war took 4 years but we were occupying Germany for 10 years after that. FDR also cost America 292,000 troops. It's interesting how you judge success and failure.


Don't you realize that one of the primary reasons that Hitler
invaded other nations was to "secure resources.

It's very eerie to hear you talk about securing oil as if it's our
natural right to invade other nations and steal their resources.
That's the way Hitler thought.

Let's see, that was also the goal of every european country that had colonies abroad. Also, if you don't know your history, America has been securing resources since its birth. You know, manifest destiny, taking lands, resources, etc, from the Indians. Let's not be hypocritical here...that's basically the goal of every nation, empire, etc, since the beginning of time.

I admit it, I'm honest about it, while the rest of the world says one thing and does another thing. Kind of like the Democrats. Remove the hypocrisy and you'll see that history is cyclical and repeats itself regularly and often. It's been that way since the beginning of time and will continue to be that way. Some of us are willing to remove the candy coating and admit it. Others drive their SUV's around, drinking starbucks coffee, and acting outraged at a war that's more or less waged to support their lifestyle.

No, you're the idiot. The UN correctly avoided helping Bush
in his illegal invasion of Iraq.

The UN didn't want to stop the gravy train of the Oil for Food scam that was going on. Come on, let's not play it like the UN was acting altruistic. Let's also not forget that France and Russia both were backing Iraq because they had oil deals in place and weapons sales to continue on with. Oh yeah, France and Russia really didn't have a vested interest in being obstructionists.

The Bush propaganda machine knowingly promoted false
intelligence to mislead Congress and the American people
with visions of mushroom clouds over Manhattan.

Congress, the intelligence committee, had the knowledge that Bush had. They chose to agree with him and look the otherway, maybe because they knew the war was bigger than just WMDs. From one of your darling democrats:


"The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it. ... So in my frustration, I sat on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth."

Surprised? I'm not. Democrats have been in bed with Bush since the beginning of the war. They're cowards that hide beyond the media instead of just admitting they support the war.

Yeah, let's blame the Democrats for failing to stop the
monster.

I only blame Democrats for being hypocrites.


Bush has made such a mess in Iraq, there are no good
solutions. The only good solution was not to go there
in the first place.

Having another Marty McFly moment? We are there, we have to finish what we started or we have the aftermath of WWI all over again.


Are you really a Christian http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6594/nunshootsbirdop6.gif
or are you bullshitting me?

Mind if I use that picture as my avatar?


Where in the Ten Commandments does it say:

"Thou shalt kill Muslims http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8854/hummeroa0.gif
and steal their oil to fill thy Hummer"

Not in the ten commandments. I'll come back to this point because I don't have time to write anymore, but I don't drive a hummer.

[TheRightWing]

You are joking right?

I want to know the litmus test for war. You tell me. If I say I support the U.S. getting involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc. Then I want to know how those conflicts differ from our involvement in Iraq. How our previous presidents decided when to pull the trigger and go to war. How those men got labelled heroes and how someone like Bush gets labelled a villain.

[TheRightWing]

You stand by your beliefs. All facts, common sense and information say that things are going poorly but Dubya, Tony Snow and Dick say something else so you follow your beliefs. Well, OK maybe Anne Coulter will keep saying that things are going "Swimmingly".

So that's 4 people that have long history of telling lies vs. every other source of information and common sense imaginable.

Is this correct?

Apparently the democrats support the war as they've done nothing to stop it. So, I suppose Ann Coulter, the reps, the dems, and myself support it. Granted the dems do a great job of saying one thing and doing another thing.

[TheRightWing]

Im really interested to know exactly what the "goal" that is achievable is? I dont mean this in a negative way - Ive just yet to hear a defined goal from any of the players - which I believe is the biggest problem with 72% of this country not understanding why we are there?

I wish I had more time to answer this, but I'm in a rush. Secure Iraq, you can't leave the country without securing it, without setting up a government that can stand against outside pressures.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq now we've more or less given fanatic muslim elements the power and resources to wage a war in our backyard. Again, this is a WWI aftermath type moment. We pull out, we leave things in disarray, we don't lead, and it'll come back to bite us in the ass.

That's a goal that has to be achieved. Whether you supported the war or didn't, you have to understand that you can't leave the country as it is now.

Secondary goal, well, if everyone keeps saying the war is for oil and securing it for American use...that's a goal that needs to be done. Otherwise we've just choked America out of the oil market completely.

Third goal would be to westernize the thinking of Iraq...eventhough I think the spread of democracy is a near impossible goal. If you can get democratic principles in place, get a westernized mentality, moving a little more to the secular...it would do more good in the region than any other thing we could do. I believe this to be the hardest goal.

[Betty Blowtorch]

This was America's problem because?


This was America's problem because?

Apparently Mr. RightWing is a strict non-interventionist
when it comes to the fascist conquest of half the world
by Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire.

But he pulls a complete 180 and turns into a fanatical
interventionist when his gas tank starts running low.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush claimed to be a strict
non-interventionist.

Until 9-11 released his inner Hitler. http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8274/bushhitler12rl2.jpg


I mean, his inner Napoleon.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/676/bushnappiehj9.png


Actually he more closely resembles
the incompetent bungler, Mussolini.

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8560/mussolinihungth3.png

Wouldn't Bush look better
UPSIDE-DOWN?

[Betty Blowtorch]

Are you really a Christian http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6594/nunshootsbirdop6.gif
or are you bullshitting me?


Mind if I use that picture as my avatar?
Don't use that one. Use this one. http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7799/headupasstl1.jpg
It's all you.

It's impossible to pin you down on what you stand for.
You pretend to be a non-interventionist when it suits
your argument, but you're really the opposite.

You pretend to be a fiscally conservative Republican,
but your hero, George Dubya, has put America deeper
in debt in just six years than all the other Presidents
combined (except Reagan and Bush Senior, of course,
those other "fiscal conservatives" you idolize so much.)

You claim to be a Christian, but you don't strike me
as very Christlike or very honest at all.

I think Stefan pegged you correctly from the start:



Winger... it's not because you say you're a repug...
what fills my gorge to overflowing with disgust,
it's your claim to "faith" while you display a depth
of immorality shocking in its lack of selfconsciousness...
so much so that you tout murdering citizens in order
to steal their oil a laudable act.

You must be of the new breed of Christian soldiers...
the Jeffrey Dahmer of Christendom... a product of
Jesus camps that teach children Christian values...
the value of being a warrior for Jesus.

Winger... all things taken into consideration,
as a person, you're f.u.b.a.r.ed.

Stefan

[TheRightWing]

Apparently Mr. RightWing is a strict non-interventionist
when it comes to the fascist conquest of half the world
by Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire.

I ask the question to get an answer from you. When is it the U.S. role to go into another country. If you started answering the question you might find our previous wars had just about as much merit as Iraq.

You're too much of a dolt to look at history and examine the world you live in and instead of making Iraq appear to be some anomaly of U.S. foreign policy, you should be looking at it as a continuation of a policy we've always held.

I see you must return to your color books and trite attacks because you can't handle the truth.


But he pulls a complete 180 and turns into a fanatical
interventionist when his gas tank starts running low.

I'm honest, most of America isn't, and you're not honest. The world economy is built on petroleum. When the non-renewable energy goes away civilization will go away with it.

Americans consume oil, gas, etc, at a rate unmatched in the world and then they become all hypocritical when a war is waged in part to secure more oil. So people can demonize what I say all day long, they get off on it because they "sound" morally superior and feel warm all over as they type out their Horatio Alger style posts...but at the end of the day they probably drive around using probably more gas than I do, they don't make any effort to conserve energy, and yet they feel good about themselves because they wrap themselves up tight in their own hypocrisy.

[TheRightWing]

It's impossible to pin you down on what you stand for.
You pretend to be a non-interventionist when it suits
your argument, but you're really the opposite.

I argue points to make people deal with issues instead of slipping into the common fray of political talking points. It offends you that I should comment on our involvement in WWII, but I bring it up to force the issue of how Americans view conflict, how we've involved ourselves in wars, how our leaders made decisions to enter into war and to look deeper at history both past and present.

You pretend to be a fiscally conservative Republican,
but your hero, George Dubya, has put America deeper
in debt in just six years than all the other Presidents
combined (except Reagan and Bush Senior, of course,
those other "fiscal conservatives" you idolize so much.)

Fiscally I am conservative, I've made a lot of money in my lifetime, I've run a lot of businesses, and generally believe in small government. However, I see the inherent problems that's going to arise in 30 years from now and investment now will pay dividends later.

Unfortunately, most Americans only think of the here and now. They don't look at the problems that are coming to them in the future and they care very little about the future of their children.

You claim to be a Christian, but you don't strike me
as very Christlike or very honest at all.

You define me by one post I made in a religious thread, where I said I was a Christian, and you've proceeded to follow me into every thread that I participate in and stalk me solely on my faith...which isn't the only factor in my life.

There are biblical references as well as historical references regarding Christians and war. 1 Samuel, Chapter 15, verse 3...also there's some thoughts on the topic from St. Augstine and Thomas Aquinas on the topic of Christian wars, and the idea of just wars.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Americans consume oil, gas, etc, at a rate unmatched
in the world and then they become all hypocritical when
a war is waged in part to secure more oil. So people can
demonize what I say all day long, they get off on it because
they "sound" morally superior and feel warm all over as they
type out their Horatio Alger style posts...but at the end of
the day they probably drive around using probably more gas
than I do, they don't make any effort to conserve energy,
and yet they feel good about themselves because they
wrap themselves up tight in their own hypocrisy.
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9224/bulbmr4.gif
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9321/nun1gu5.gif It finally dawned on me.

The reason why you like to point fingers and place blame
on everybody but Bush and the Neocons, and the reason
you're so intent on looking for hypocrisy in others is:

Deep down inside, in a place you don't like to admit to,
you sense your own guilt and hypocrisy for supporting
Bush's war. If we were living in Hitler's Germany, you'd
be a member of the Nazi party, and I'd be a member of
the opposition.

I don't share your guilt and Christian hypocrisy. I didn't
vote for Bush, and I opposed the Iraq War from Day 1.

I get 35 miles per gallon so I'm certainly not a gas hog.
The weather is moderate where I live so my energy bills
are low.

And if your goal is to secure oil resources for America,
I don't think it's such a great idea to make enemies of
a billion Muslims around the world, considering that
they own so much of the oil we need.

Did Iraq refuse to sell us oil? Did you have no choice
but to steal it? Did you exhaust all other options
before starting an aggressive war for oil?

Don't project (http://www.awakeninthedream.com/shadow.html) your own guilt and hypocrisy onto us.
It's yours to deal with.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Don't you realize that one of the primary reasons that Hitler
invaded other nations was to "secure resources.

It's very eerie to hear you talk about securing oil as if it's our
natural right to invade other nations and steal their resources.
That's the way Hitler thought.


Let's see, that was also the goal of every european country
that had colonies abroad. Also, if you don't know your history,
America has been securing resources since its birth. You know,
manifest destiny, taking lands, resources, etc, from the Indians.
Let's not be hypocritical here...that's basically the goal of every
nation, empire, etc, since the beginning of time.
It's a Brave New World, Mr. RightWing.http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7742/worldspinning1rm0.gif
European colonialism died in the 20th Century.


These days, all those uppity brown people
in Third World countries actually expect
to get PAID for their natural resources.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7480/sadrmilitiayk2.jpg

Why, the nerve of some people! http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/426/nun1ub7.gif
How can they be so selfish and greedy?
Thank god for George W. Bush!http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/444/hitlergetsblownupxf4.gif
He's trying to bring back the age of colonialism.
Too bad things aren't going so well.

[Moby]

I want to know the litmus test for war. You tell me. If I say I support the U.S. getting involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc. Then I want to know how those conflicts differ from our involvement in Iraq. How our previous presidents decided when to pull the trigger and go to war. How those men got labelled heroes and how someone like Bush gets labelled a villain.
The fact that you're asking such questions while debating the issue pretty much sums things up. You're reacting to emotion and not any reasonable logic and valid information.

I bet you spend a lot of time being angry about a lot of things.

[TheRightWing]

The fact that you're asking such questions while debating the issue pretty much sums things up. You're reacting to emotion and not any reasonable logic and valid information.

I bet you spend a lot of time being angry about a lot of things.

Actually, I'm rarely angry. I've been posting on this forum for about a week or so and I've discovered some really interesting things about the people that post here. Most have an inability to discuss a topic with someone of a differing opinion. Let me give you an example:

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=1000

That thread. I answered giving my opinion, yet by page 2 I had Babbling Betty calling me hitler. Granted, BB didn't take the time to answer the original question of the thread until I continually pressed the point to give an answer.

Once the answer was given, surprise, surprise, we actually pretty much agreed on the topic, barring some minor differences.

So, what I've learned from posting here is that you need to take a lot of effort to keep people on track and to prevent them from automatically hating your opinion just because you appear to be the "opposition".

Nothing I said in this thread is all too shocking, it deals with history, it deals with American foreign policy, it deals with how history has replayed itself time and again.

You say it's emotionally driven? Not at all, it's history driven, and from the beginning of this thread until now all I was asking for was a simple compare and contrast between Bush and previous presidents and their wars.

I suppose it's too much to ask to avoid an endless assault of personal attacks on myself for daring to express an opinion that differs with the majority here, but it doesn't bother me :D

I noticed another republican posted here for a bit and he posted this:

Here is a list of tactics liberals use to debate. Ready them. Study them. Be ready the next time you debate a liberal

1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.

2. If for some obscure reason the facts actually fall your way (an extremely rare occurrence) then repeat them endlessly regardless of the reply of your conservative opponent. Remember time is limited, use this against him.

3. Get as personal and vicious as you can, maybe it will distract your opponent from his train of thought.

4. If you are unable to insult him with the usual insults such as 'racist', 'homophobe', or 'bigot', then insult someone else on his side (someone related to the subject under discussion is preferable but not required).

5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.

6. Talk loudly and rapidly, don't allow your opponent to get a word in. Remember the more time you consume, the less time your opponent will have.

7. Use hyperbole as an example of your opponent's argument and suggest that that is what they are suggesting.

8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.

9. Make up 'facts' most people don't check them and anyway, you'll be long gone by the time the truth is known, and so will the audience.

10. Expect perfection. Focus on the slightest flaw in your opponent's argument, any kind of mistake, grammatical, spelling, contextual, anything no matter how slight is sufficient to deflect attention away from how vacuous your arguments are.

11. Act insulted. Take umbrage at the slightest contradiction and act as if it is a personal insult. This will make your personal attack seem warranted and just.

12. Mug the camera or audience while your opponent is speaking, make faces, sneering is good, head-shaking better, and looking toward the ceiling is best [notice the avoidance of the word Heaven, Liberals avoid words of a religious nature WM]. Let the audience know you disagree with your opponent (even if you’ve no idea what he’s saying)

13. Use condescending laughter as much as you can. It serves two purposes, first, it dismisses your opponent as being unworthy of your respect and second, it shows your contempt for his arguments. This is a very powerful tool and can really annoy your opponent and disrupt his train of thought.

14. You’re an arrogant Liberal; demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority by acting in a condescending manner.

15. Forget how many of the wealthiest in this nation are Liberals, always beat the drum of “Rich Republicans” and “working class Democrats.”

16. Finally, always remember style trumps substance. Know it, Live it.

Amazing how many of these tactics have been used against me since I started posting here. It's almost comical.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Here is a list of tactics liberals use to debate. Read them.
Study them. Be ready the next time you debate a liberal.
You're so hypocritical, you drag out this list of tactics
and pretend that only liberals are guilty of using them.
In fact you're just as guilty.

Remember this little gem?



I do realize that much like a child you want attention
from your intellectual superior.
Isn't that a flagrant violation of #14 on your list?



14. You’re an arrogant Liberal [or in your case, arrogant
Repug.] Demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority
by acting in a condescending manner.
Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

I don't apologize for ridiculing you and your arguments,
but I also don't hypocritically trot out a list of tactics
and pretend that only Repugs are guilty of using them.



By page 2, I had Babbling Betty calling me Hitler.
Try being honest. Here's what I actually said:



Hitler would be proud of you. So would Stalin.
Bush and Cheney are very proud of you.
And they thank you for your vote.
You're not Hitler. http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4376/nazisaluteyr5.jpg
You're just a good little Nazi who voted for him.


Don't get too narcissistic on us. http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9814/kittenlyintohimselfvk5.jpg