Question for the left and right:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

How were you threatened or menaced by Suddam?

How were you threatened or menaced by Samoza, or Pinochet, to name but two?

Not pertinent to my question to OmSigDavid.

However, I was not threatened or menaced by anyone, to answer your question.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And now for something completely different...than demographics:

Victory in Iraq

An Iraq that is no more subject to politically induced violence
than countries like England, Spain, Israel, Egypt, Indonesia etc

An Iraq that is a generally reliable international ally of America

An Iraq that is not a safe-haven for terrorists.

And the most difficult achievement:

An Iraq that provides people in the region with the example
of an alternative to despotic or theocratic rule.

All of this is achievable.

W thinx so.

I don 't believe that its worth the trouble,
nor the expense.

David

Quote:

Yes and no.
I thoroughly believe that we could not continue
with even the slightest possibility that Hussein had WMD.

So stipulated.

Quote:

In a post-911 world we could not run the risk that may have had WMD
and thus may have put them into the hands of terrorists.

Quote:

His However, I do not support our ongoing nation-building activities in Iraq.

nor do I

Quote:

Hussein's removal, the verification that he didn't have WMD
and the subsequent concentration of terrorists in a single battlefield
were all worthwhile outcomes of our effort in Iraq.

Agreed

Quote:

But, even if Iraq is never stabilized, Iraq will never been a friend to the U.S.
Since the days of the Barbary Pirates the Islamic world has been hostile to the U.S.

True

Quote:

Our only options are to either totally annihilate the Islamic world
or simply institute a policy of neutralizing the most obvious threat of the day
and then move on to the next one.

Sounds logical to me

Intrepid wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

How were you threatened or menaced by Suddam?

How were you threatened or menaced by Samoza, or Pinochet, to name but two?

Not pertinent to my question to OmSigDavid.

However, I was not threatened or menaced by anyone, to answer your question.

Pertinent indeed!

If you are to suggest that the US should not have become involved in Iraq because Saddam
did not represent a material threat to American citizens,
then it follows that that Americans (of any stripe) should not have given a fig about the bogey-men of
The Left like Saqmoza and Pinochet.

You can't have it both ways.

Pinochet.

An engagement by the USA, (then) Secretary of State Colin Powell called
"it is not a part of American history that we're proud of" (in 2003).

Killing commies is something to be proud of.
He need not join in the pride.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Killing commies is something to be proud of.
He need not join in the pride.

We here in Germany are glad that our sisters and brothers in the GDR weren't killed
by such proud Americans like you are but became part of our country again.

Just another point where I disagree with and deeply regret that I have to read your posts when here.

Quote:

I'd thought that commies wer commies.

Yeah, but r thay commies ??

or helpless prisoners who despise the atrocities of communism
that r imposed upon them many times more intensely than I do ?

Quote:

But I forgot about the racial sub-differences right Americans like.

I am under the impression that the commies killed by my hero, Pinochet,
shared the same race with him ?

If someone is tormenting and threatening his victim,
sharing the same race, or a difference of race
may be of less interest than the horrors with which
the victim is being afflicted.

Quote:

Could the word "Communist" be used?
The word "commie" sounds like a bumper sticker from the 1960's.
This takes away from the intellectual integrity of the post for me.

I use both.
Is use of " nazi " equally unacceptable ?
Please advise.

Quote:

I would just send all Communists to reindoctrination schools
where they would read Superman comics all day.

???

Quote:

By the way, in pre-WWII Germany, the Communists were always fighting with the Nazis.
Well, thank goodness the Communists didn't win,
and Europe was spared the atrocities the Communists might have perpetrated.

Thay were pretty good friends in Sept. 1939.
Thay got along pretty well until June 22, 1941.

Thay were pretty good friends in Sept. 1939.
Thay got along pretty well until June 22, 1941

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Thay were pretty good friends in Sept. 1939.
Thay got along pretty well until June 22, 1941

Quote:

You may ask the few survivors of the KZ's what they think about this nonsense.

I 'll do that,
if u 'll ask the few survivors of the national socialist-international socialist
joint invasion of Poland what THAY think of it.

In other words, thay had a happy partnership
( a natural partnership, in that nazis & commies were both collectivist-authoritarians )
and there 'd have been no trouble in joint-socialist paradise,
if the nazis had not broken faith with the commies and invaded Russia.

From all appearances, thay 'd have gone on merrily TOGETHER
ECSTATICALLY enslaving the rest of the world to the fullest possible extent
and butchering whatever survivors thay chose, in a joint state of unbounded socialist joy,
if der fuhrer had not gotten a little over-optimistic.

David

In other words, thay had a happy partnership
( a natural partnership, in that nazis & commies were both collectivist-authoritarians )
and there 'd have been no trouble in joint-socialist paradise,
if the nazis had not broken faith with the commies and invaded Russia.

From all appearances, thay 'd have gone on merrily TOGETHER
ECSTATICALLY enslaving the rest of the world to the fullest possible extent
and butchering whatever survivors thay chose, in a joint state of unbounded socialist joy,
if der fuhrer had not gotten a little over-optimistic.

David

Foofie
I hope that the main thrust of your post was tongue in cheek.

rabel22 wrote:

Foofie
I hope that the main thrust of your post was tongue in cheek.

Quote:

I don't know what tongue in cheek means?
Can you ask specific questions, like,
"Were you being sarcastic when you said..."

What do you mean, "I hope that..."? Have you become the arbiter of my political comments?

Quote:

Did you not like the Superman comic reference?

I am not sure what the relevance was,
but I still have my Superman comic collection from the 1940s n 50s.

Quote:

And the reason I don't like the word Commie, is because back in the 1960's
there were bumper stickers during the Vietnam Era, "Kill a Commie for Christ."
In my opinion, Christ would never have wanted to kill a Commie/Communist,
since the early followers of Christ were Jews who were the Essenes, living
in a sort of socialistic commune. The willingness to mix right-wing,
anti-Communist rhetoric with Christianity only makes the rest of the
world have a low opinion of the U.S., I believe. I don't want to be
associated with that image, thus the preference not to use the word Commie.

During the 3rd World War, I was fiercely anti-communist,
but for my own part, I never associated religion together with this war.
I deemed it a political-economic-military conflict.




I 'd have enjoyed reading your response
to my question of whether u apply the same criterion
to the nazis as u do to the commies ??

In other words, whether one must say:
" national socialists " instead of "nazis" for the intellectual integrity of the post ??

I imagine that some folks probably have used the word "nazi"
on some bumper stickers.
Please advise.

David

Nazi is an acronym;
Commie is a shortened version of the word Communist.

I was only saying why I don't use the word Commie.
Bringing in the word Nazi is a non-sequitor, in my opinion.

Nazi is an acronym;

Nazi is not an acronym.
Nazi is a shortened version of the word "Nationalsozialistische"
of "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"
or acronym: NSDAP.