0
   

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 03:10 pm
McG,

Quote:
Based on the fact that Saddam had used them previously, that Saddam would not allow weapons inspectors to perform their duties and that Saddam was a royal a55wipe who had no apprehensions of funding and supporting terrorism.


While I don't dispute the veracity of any but the last one (the desires and aims of Al Qaeda are contrary to those of Saddam), surely you realize that this does not constitue proof?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 03:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McG,

Quote:
Based on the fact that Saddam had used them previously, that Saddam would not allow weapons inspectors to perform their duties and that Saddam was a royal a55wipe who had no apprehensions of funding and supporting terrorism.


While I don't dispute the veracity of any but the last one (the desires and aims of Al Qaeda are contrary to those of Saddam), surely you realize that this does not constitue proof?

Cycloptichorn


You asked for what evidence I based my opinion on, not proof that he had WMD's.

I gave you my answer.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 03:15 pm
Cool.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:10 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I have the same problem with most surveys and statistics.

I know a lot of Bush supporters and I haven't known ANY of them to believe Saddam and Osama were working directly with each other.

The polls here say the Christian-Democrats and small Christian parties are the choice of 25% of the Dutch. But I know many Dutch and I don't know ANYone who votes for those parties. The polls must be wrong.

McGentrix wrote:
Most of them believed Saddam had WMD's prior to the war as did I. Many feel that the WMD's were moved or hidden, as do I.

So you're one of those 57%, then, I'd guess (who believe the Duelfer report showed that Saddam had either WMD or a major WMD program before the invasion, etc etc).

McGentrix wrote:
I hope you understand what I mean.

Yep - you're one of those people who will say a poll must be based on "12" people if you don't like the outcome it shows.

(In reality, with 2725 respondents (ie, people who actually answered the questions) who usually break up in roughly equal parts Reps, Dems and Indys, 57% of Republicans would be some 500 respondents.)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:14 pm
revel wrote:
Where I think we went wrong is underestimating the religious factor.

Where I think we have an uphill battle is pointing out that the religious factor is not really religion at all but a con game that certain political people play to get their agendas across.

We also need to keep pointing just how dangerous it is to slide down into a nation that governs itself by religion. We need to say that by doing that we just become the other side of the coin of other religious nations. We also need to point out how enforcing your religious beliefs takes away from other who do not hold those beliefs and that is not the American way.

Even if it is not a winning thing; it is the right thing to do, in my opinion.


So the "religious factor" is a con game.

Thus the millions of people who voted on the basis of how their religious beliefs informed them are either bunko artists or marks.

It is this sort of thinking that, if perpetuated, will doom the Democrats to continuous defeat.

You may not agree with what these folks believe but if you continue to trivialize and deride their beliefs you will continue to lose.

Please do.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:16 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I can also see how embracing the KKK (under a different name of course) would gain support in the old south but doesn't make it a good idea.


More of the same.

Religious voters = KKK

That's a sure strategy for victory.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:21 pm
Far from vindicating war critics, The Duelfer Report found that "...[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.", that " ... [Saddam's] primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with the UN inspections to gain support for lifting the sanctions with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face.", that Saddam saw the Oil For Food Program " ... could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.".

As noted in the report, " ... At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members [of the Security Council] and foment international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort." and that " ... a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war." In fairness, it must be noted the nature of that material is indeterminate; the transfer was accomplished almost entirely by night, " ... over a period of several months", with " ... military precision" and " ... under conditions of strictest secrecy, documented chiefly through infrared satellite photography."

Further, the report held that contrary to sanctions and requirements, and beyond the awareness of the UN inspection teams, Iraq continued development, domestic manufacture, foreign acquisition, and operational deployment of proscribed conventional weapons systems of various nature.

The report concluded that Iraq persisted in defiance of relevant Security Council Resolutions, that Iraq's dual use facillities could within " ...a matter of days produce substantial quantities" of proscribed agents, using " ... materials on hand" and that Iraq's assets, capabilities, and intentions posed an ongoing threat to both regional and global security.

"We must not allow that threat to become imminent"
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:25 pm
Quote:
..... well, shove it.


Good boy! You're learning. That worked well.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:31 pm
Quote:
But I do make a distinction between people of all economic situations who both purport to know what is good for other people and propose to impose it on them, and others who rely on some relaticely objective construct for minimal moral restraint and advocate freedom and choice outside that. Yup

Blatham, don't confuse the world of Irish Catholic, Jesuit educated, Military, business types with elites. Just a moderately successful working stiff whose effervescent personality elevated him temporarily beyond his proper sphere. However I do take your point about leaning.
Why exclude such a class from your definition? Perhaps by 'elite', we mean any influential group of which we ourselves are not a member.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:31 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Yeah Larry I am a really silly goose, I haven't been in the old south for several months now and I'm sure things have changed.


I don't think you're a silly goose Dys, just an ignoramus when it comes to your antiquated generalizations about the South, and, by extension, Southerners.

You know, stereotyping Southerners is just as asinine as stereotyping minorities.

I can only speak to my own personal experiences, but I believe them to be instructive.

I grew up in New York and moved to the South at age 30. When I left NY, defacto segregation was in full force. Blacks who had the temerity to move into a "White" neighborhood, had their homes repeatedly attacked by vandals.

When I moved to North Carolina, our next door neighbor, in an affluent suburb, was a black family and no one in the community minded at all.

Southern schools are far more integrated than their counterparts up North.

Systematic bigotry in the South while being a historical truth is a modern day canard.

For a progressive, your thinking is rather retro.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:45 pm
Quote:
Southern schools are far more integrated than their counterparts up North.

Systematic bigotry in the South while being a historical truth is a modern day canard.


Bull. While we keep it more under the carpet than before, it still exists greatly here in the south.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Southern schools are far more integrated than their counterparts up North.

Systematic bigotry in the South while being a historical truth is a modern day canard.


Bull. While we keep it more under the carpet than before, it still exists greatly here in the south.

Cycloptichorn


You are simply wrong.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:49 pm
Quote:


george

I think you are wrong on some key points here. Would you like to go at this carefully on another thread? Invite foxfyre or anyone you like, but let's lay some debate ground rules first.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:51 pm
McG wrote:
Quote:
Who are "they"?


Apparently, "they" is you.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:53 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Far from vindicating war critics, The Duelfer Report found that "...[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.", that " ... [Saddam's] primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with the UN inspections to gain support for lifting the sanctions with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face.", that Saddam saw the Oil For Food Program " ... could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.".

So to translate the above in normal people language, Saddam did not actually have any WMD, but was in theory still able to make new ones - which it didn't, because it was trying to co-operate with the inspections, but which it would start doing again as soon as the sanctions were gone.

Sounds to me like the sanctions were working.

In the meantime what Saddam still had was the "intellectual capital for WMD" (the scientists were still alive and their books hadnt been burned) and perhaps most damingly, Saddam saw (1) how the OFF could be used (2) to acquire exchange that would make it possible (3) to build stuff that potentially (4) might be related to (5) WMD.

timberlandko wrote:
As noted in the report, " ... At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members [of the Security Council] and foment international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort."

Yes, and politicians working for their own self-interest in the diplomatic arena, as we all know, is well enough a case for war. Just ask oralloy.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 04:58 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Systematic bigotry in the South while being a historical truth is a modern day canard.

Bull. While we keep it more under the carpet than before, it still exists greatly here in the south.

You are simply wrong.

Wow, Finn's argumentation skills reach a new height. A fellow Southener says it does exist, Finn says no it doesnt. This is gonna be so exciting! ;-)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 05:00 pm
Quote:
You are simply wrong.


Once again, Bull.

I've lived in Texas my whole life. You may not see much racism, but I grew up as a white kid in a poor Black and Mexican neighborhood.

We may not have systematic racism here but the concept is still very much in people's minds and actions.

No offense, but if you don't think Racism is still a big problem in Texas, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Cyclolptihorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 05:10 pm
nimh wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Systematic bigotry in the South while being a historical truth is a modern day canard.

Bull. While we keep it more under the carpet than before, it still exists greatly here in the south.

You are simply wrong.

Wow, Finn's argumentation skills reach a new height. A fellow Southener says it does exist, Finn says no it doesnt. This is gonna be so exciting! ;-)


Well that's a true Dutch Treat, nimh weighing in on a topic of which he has absolutely no knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 05:19 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
You are simply wrong.


Once again, Bull.

I've lived in Texas my whole life. You may not see much racism, but I grew up as a white kid in a poor Black and Mexican neighborhood.

We may not have systematic racism here but the concept is still very much in people's minds and actions.

No offense, but if you don't think Racism is still a big problem in Texas, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Cyclolptihorn


Cyclo

I suppose I could counter with "You don't know what the hell you are talking about," but that would be childish.

That you admit to Texas (at least) not having systematic racism is all the support I need.

Unless you have lived in the North, it is difficult to consider that your observations have much relevance.

Does racism exist in the US? Yes.

Is it institutionalized in the South? No longer.

The issue is not whether or not racism exists, it is whether it is more rampant in the South than the North. Having lived both places, I can attest that while it may be underground in the "Red" South, it thrives in the "Blue" North.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 05:23 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
You are simply wrong.

No offense, but if you don't think Racism is still a big problem in Texas, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Cyclolptihorn


Racism is still a big problem and will always be as long as there are black and white and brown and yellow people on this or on any planet. Many, many people will always be fearful, distrustful, and feel superior to others. It's human nature, I believe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 05:42:21