Why does the left insist on defending the world's bad guys?

Set I just received a PM from McGentrix and he says if I don't stop posting my BS to his threads he's going to make a real nuisance of himself.

I may need a guard dog.

Using the Bible as a source of who really owns the land now occupied by Israel is not really an acceptable source unless one first accepts the Bible as a true book of history. (even biblically that is debatable, but that is for another sort of forum)

Bear, how will we know the difference?

A rather feeble defense of realpolitik, McG . . . and a damned myopic realpolitik it was, too. Try to be more careful, Reagan's adminnstration (not "we") supported Hussein to defeat Iran, not Iraq. The pretext for the invasion of Iraq was WoMD, which hasn't panned out, and the evidence for which has been deemed dubious by a Republican Senate. The "making the Iraqis safe from Saddam" is hindsight of the worst kind--it is rationalization after the fact. We funded the mujahdin to specifically attack the Soviets--Afghanistan already was, ostensibly, communist, and we did nothing until the Soviets invaded. Bin Laden got the money because his clan were old buddies with the then Veep, Pappy Bush. There was no conscious decision that Bin Laden was the man for the job, he was just a convenient tool--more evidence of shortsightedness, and the danger of attempting to play realpolitik when you're basically clueless . . .

It would be so much more entertaining to debate you, McG, if you weren't given to broad, unsupportable and disingenuous generalizations, such as the "The Left" supports the bad guys, simply because they despise the Shrub.

The president represents the US, like it or not, and that incorporates "we".

I always wondered what at 240 lb. sheep sounded like..... :wink:

I must say however that although I don't agree with your politics I do admire your ability to take a joke with such grace and humour......

Many people, including myself, objected in the 1980's to Republican support for Iraq--and no Republican administration has ever been "we" as far as i'm concerned. The only Republican for whom i ever voted, for a national office, was John Anderson.

As a matter of fairness, I will admit that its less aggravating to see the American government attack a bad guy for the wrong reasons than to see it defend a bad guy for the wrong reasons.

how do you feel about when they do both at different times in the name of greed and profit?

Odd then isn't it that when Bush speaks of America he does in the context of "me". Ever notice that? Plus when he does say "we" he points to himself. Next time watch his hands and when he tries to say "we" in context of America he will point to himself.

As far as him being President yes he is, and I don't like it. However NO he doesn't represent ME when he continues to talk like an idiot, or when he lies or when he uses non words like "suicider". Sorry.

What did someone say once?

"You can support the troops and not support the President"

Would you like to know what leader said that?

Trent Lott

Another funny thing about Hindsight is that it all comes down to the fact that YOU should have listened to US in the first place. But righties never learn from their mistakes! You'll never believe that an answer from the left might be the answer we need. Quite possibly the most recent of your mistakes won't take as long as usual to come bite us all in the ass, though. Too bad. For all of us.
Perhaps some of you will recall that there wasn't a huge lefty uproar about going to Afghanistan to find BinLaden and make him pay. I would hope that this illustrates to you that we have no compunctions about defending OURSELVES from real bad guys who have threatened or hurt us. The thing about Iraq is that we could see, at the time, that we were not threatened and had previously addressed and continued to address whatever initial threat we felt since the last war there. There was every reason to continue to employ other measures without 900-something young people being killed and thousands of others being maimed and untold other Americans losing their sanity to address what many felt was already addressed. The president knew this, thus felt the need to lie to us. To continue to trust the president after this action is foolhardy, after all, the American citizenry is supposed to govern itself, not be bullied by it's leader. While Timber might think 900 deaths is not a big deal, those of us who opposed the war did so not so much out of sympathy to Iraqis but to prevent thousands of deaths of every nationality for what was not a compelling reason. War should never be so hurriedly decided as the only option. I don't think those on the right agree with this; certainly PNAC doesn't, and president Bush is working for them more than for us. We already have supremacy, and we can keep it without war.

Fedral, posession is 9/10s of the law, hmm? maybe not in the middle east, but in terms of democracy. Here's this great land full of olive trees and whatnot. It should have been left as a sacred, unusable shrine until those of Jewish descent came to claim it, simply because an ancient text said it's for them? Sounds like voodoo to me, and it's a crappy reason for all the strife this has caused, particularly to us. And yes, if you are willing to give up 97% of what isn't yours, just drop all pretenses and give back the other 3% for cripes sake. If it means peace. I think Arafat should have taken the "deal", but the fact that he didn't doesn't now make all this mess the fault of the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, In BandarAfrica, McG and his family decide to reclaim what was theirs. They point out that this here statue was given to America, and all the great things built on the land were done by America, and they and some friends decide to reclaim the land that was once theirs. They decide to take action. McG sends his young son to be a lookout, to make sure the coast is clear. A BandarAfrican soldier sees McG's son peeking through the fence, looking suspicious, and shoots him dead. McG then wraps himself with a bomb made of fertilizer and decides he's taking them out. He gets on the bus to go to his job working in one of BandarAfrica's nuclear plants, and while on the bus, he detonates himself, killing many of his neighbors but also some BandarAfricans. Hoping to squelch activities like this by the "bad guys", Mrs. McG's house is bulldozed by BandarAfrica. As she cries, she yells about how the USA rightfully belongs to her, just look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, for God sakes! Representatives from BandarAfrica are unsympathetic and tell her her husband was a terrorist who refused to acknowledge the right of BandarAfrica to exist. The ruling body of BandarAfrica, made up of what we now call Native Americans, points out that they were here first, look at any history book for proof, and that any more such actions from the "Texans" would result in BandarAfrica's bulldozing more homes and taking back some of that land. One of the "Texans" is able to sneak out a letter to the leaders of democratic nations. They are upset to find that these nations now consider the "Texans" to be terrorists, and are even sending money to BandarAfrica to help it become a stronger country. There's no real sympathy there, either. The hard right-wing of one of those countries even goes so far as to taunt them that the land was never really theirs in the first place, so they should just get used to it and accept what they're so generously given. And so it goes... Each time the "Texans" try to stand up for themselves or express any anger over their lot by trying to kill their oppressors, they are reminded that they are now terrorists and only bad guys have any sympathy for them and only bad guys care that they ever know peace again. Most of the rest of the world has lined up on BandarAfrica's side, because, well, they are now powerful, and secondly, the Native Americans were there first, so the land really is theirs, so what are you gonna do? Get used to it, "Texans". This is your new lot in life. Stop being bad guys and just accept it!

You know how i feel about that, BPB. Its exasperating.

But even so, it is still less aggravating to see a President Bush attack Saddam for the wrong reasons than it was to see a President Bush support the same Saddam, back then, for the wrong reasons.

Set,
Same here! I voted for Anderson too. I don't remember that he was a republican, though. I thought he was independant. The only republican I recall voting for was Ed Brooks, for local office in Boston. Times have changed. I doubt I would ever vote republican now.

And this one has nothing to do with this thread

And this seems to summarize it all:

Yeah, Boss, he ran as an indepedent. He was formerly, however, a ten-term Republican member of the Illinois Congressional delegation. In that sense, he is the only Republican for whom i've voted for a national office. I vote for them all the time locally, if i consider them to be the best qualified.

Re: Why does the left insist on defending the world's bad gu


In order to prevent us from becoming them.

Woof.

Woof woof woof. And one more emphatically endorsive woof.