Magginkat wrote:Advocate wrote:George, please tell me whether you supported Clinton's actions against terrorism. I don't recall anyone from the right backing Clinton on anything.
As you well know, Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, and was not a threat to us. Bush attacked Iraq for oil and political capital. Thus, backing Bush would be unpatriotic.
Frankly, I think that backing Bush is treasonous. Have we ever had any other person in the office of the presidency acting like the world's worst dictator? This administraton makes Nixon look like a kindly Sunday school teacher.
The kind of statement, devoid of any facts, which could be made about anyone. This is neither more nor less than wishful thinking on your part. You say the world's worst dictator, yet the last time I checked, we still had the vote, and freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. The only citizens about whom matters surrounding arrest, habeas corpus, and trial are even open to question are a few suspected terrorists. There are virtually no points of contact between your opinion and the real world.
I cannot agree that Bush is some great dictator. Instead, he is an unintelligent and unlearned pawn of the neoconservatives and super rich.
About the only thing good about Bush is that he is hastening the day when the public rises up and drives the neoconservatives from power. And, perhaps, people will begin to understand and fight policies that support the growing plutocracy in our country.
kuvasz wrote:Amigo wrote:If he had any brains, yes.
yeap.
The fukktard is a rank amateur monarch-wannabe so head-thickend and brow-lowered with caste-based inbreeding that the lowest markers of general intelligence - like sentence construction and primary mathematics - are debased to a point where the poor fukktard must weep every morning in sub-mongoloid rage that he is unable to carry out even the most basic functions of human existence and thought, like logic and a$$-wiping, so he is surrounded by stewards and toadies who do it all for him, all the "If a and b, then c" (for, surely, left to his own devices, the President's logical progression would be something like, "If a and b, then tuna") and ensuring that the Commander in Chief doesn't have a vague $hit smell coming off him.
I must congratulate Finn for his list of pyschopaths, the list also showed that each of those monsters at least had some innate intelligence and capabilites going for him, unlike George Walker Bush who attained his station in life by merely being the fastest swimming sperm in his daddy's nut sack.
(on correction, that last also goes for Kim Jung Il and his daddy's nut sack sperm)
LMAO! Kuvasz, I think you nailed it with that post. That will keep Finn, Frandon & a couple other righties screeching for a while. They won't want to admit that what you said was way over their heads!
George bu$h is the best argument in favor of abortion that I've seen in a while.
Magginkat wrote:kuvasz wrote:Amigo wrote:If he had any brains, yes.
yeap.
The fukktard is a rank amateur monarch-wannabe so head-thickend and brow-lowered with caste-based inbreeding that the lowest markers of general intelligence - like sentence construction and primary mathematics - are debased to a point where the poor fukktard must weep every morning in sub-mongoloid rage that he is unable to carry out even the most basic functions of human existence and thought, like logic and a$$-wiping, so he is surrounded by stewards and toadies who do it all for him, all the "If a and b, then c" (for, surely, left to his own devices, the President's logical progression would be something like, "If a and b, then tuna") and ensuring that the Commander in Chief doesn't have a vague $hit smell coming off him.
I must congratulate Finn for his list of pyschopaths, the list also showed that each of those monsters at least had some innate intelligence and capabilites going for him, unlike George Walker Bush who attained his station in life by merely being the fastest swimming sperm in his daddy's nut sack.
(on correction, that last also goes for Kim Jung Il and his daddy's nut sack sperm)
LMAO! Kuvasz, I think you nailed it with that post. That will keep Finn, Frandon & a couple other righties screeching for a while. They won't want to admit that what you said was way over their heads!
George bu$h is the best argument in favor of abortion that I've seen in a while.
The meaning of this post is trivially simple. Those who ignore the content of the argument in favor of impeaching an opposing poster's character or abilities forfeit the debate. It's the hallmark of people in the wrong to try to change the subject away from the content of their oponents' arguments.
Magginkat wrote:Quote: Brandon9000 The meaning of this post is trivially simple. Those who ignore the content of the argument in favor of impeaching an opposing poster's character or abilities forfeit the debate. It's the hallmark of people in the wrong to try to change the subject away from the content of their oponents' arguments.
A perfect example>> Any time a republican /conservative attempts to describe a Democrat/Liberal he always..........ALWAYS describes himself.
Okay, let's consider whether your response is the truth or not. I've been here for several years now and must have at least a thousand political posts for you to examine. Please give me a link to a post in which I respond to someone's argument with only a comment about him,
not accompanied by any attempt to address his argument. That's what you're accusing me of, so give one example. I'll tell you that in my opinion, I do this far less than one percent of the time. So, please, give one example to back up your accusation.
Brandon9000 wrote:Let's be sure that every potential future enemy knows that they only have to hold out for a few years, and we'll cut and run, that a theat by us is not credible, because we don't have the resolve to make good on it.
Following your logic, we'd still be in Vietnam. Isn't your scenario exactly what happened there? No. Vietnam waited us out. And look what happened--we now have Americans working there...
D'artagnan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Let's be sure that every potential future enemy knows that they only have to hold out for a few years, and we'll cut and run, that a theat by us is not credible, because we don't have the resolve to make good on it.
Following your logic, we'd still be in Vietnam. Isn't your scenario exactly what happened there? No. Vietnam waited us out. And look what happened--we now have Americans working there...
No. The idea that we shouldn't cut and run if a struggle isn't easy, is not the same as saying that we should continue with a war for decades. Vietnam was unusual in that had we started to do what it really would have taken to win it, we would have soon been at war with the Soviet Union, which might have resulted in Armegeddon, so we were forced into a kind of holding action. What you are saying in this post of yours is that a philosophy of staying with a hard but job until it's done properly is flawed. It's amazing that you'd advocate such an opinion. Furthermore, it's silly to deny that if history comes to show that Americans will cut and run as soon as anyone puts up a fight, then potential future enemies will be emboldened.
Brandon9000 wrote:Vietnam was unusual in that had we started to do what it really would have taken to win it, we would have soon been at war with the Soviet Union, which might have resulted in Armegeddon, so we were forced into a kind of holding action.
Interesting historical analysis. Unusual but interesting none the less.
Brandon9000 wrote:D'artagnan wrote:
Following your logic, we'd still be in Vietnam. Isn't your scenario exactly what happened there? No. Vietnam waited us out. And look what happened--we now have Americans working there...
What you are saying in this post of yours is that a philosophy of staying with a hard but job until it's done properly is flawed. It's amazing that you'd advocate such an opinion
Is that what I'm saying? I think not. I'm guessing you're too young to remember the kind of debate that went on 30+ years ago re withdrawing US troops from Vietnam. It was remarkably similar to what's happening now.
D'artagnan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:D'artagnan wrote:
Following your logic, we'd still be in Vietnam. Isn't your scenario exactly what happened there? No. Vietnam waited us out. And look what happened--we now have Americans working there...
What you are saying in this post of yours is that a philosophy of staying with a hard but job until it's done properly is flawed. It's amazing that you'd advocate such an opinion
Is that what I'm saying? I think not. I'm guessing you're too young to remember the kind of debate that went on 30+ years ago re withdrawing US troops from Vietnam. It was remarkably similar to what's happening now.
On what basis do you assume that I'm too young to remember it? Certainly not based on looking at my profile. On what basis do you conclude that not wanting to cut and run as soon as the going gets tough indicates someone who would advocate continuing the Vietnam war for decades? They're wildly different in degree.
My apologies re your age, Brandon!
But my point re the parallels still stands. How many decades do we need to have troops in Iraq before a withdrawal isn't a "cut and run"?
D'artagnan wrote:My apologies re your age, Brandon!
But my point re the parallels still stands. How many decades do we need to have troops in Iraq before a withdrawal isn't a "cut and run"?
Long enough that leaving wouldn't mean giving up our goal of denying Iraq to unelected Moslem extremists. You still sound as though you're saying that a philosophy of finishing something even if it's hard is somehow suspect. Why couldn't your argument have been applied to abandoning WW2 or the Revolutionary War after 3 years?
Kuva, don't hold back. You are much too kind to Bush.
Frankly, I favor cutting and running from this war into which Bush lied us. Sometimes, it is healthy to admit a loss and move on. We should have not invaded Iraq, and we should be ashamed of essentially destroying he country, killing 10s of thousands, and wounding many more than that. Further, Bush knew Iraq was no threat, but he wanted to invade to gain oil and political capital. Republicans swoon at the thought of admitting defeat, provided their own blood and guts are not on the line. Bush doesn't have a single relative in Iraq.
We stayed in Nam for about nine years, killing over 3 million Viets. We finally escaped the country off the roof of our embassy. Our leaders were war criminals. It is insane to repeat this type of thing.
Brandon9000 wrote:D'artagnan wrote:My apologies re your age, Brandon!
But my point re the parallels still stands. How many decades do we need to have troops in Iraq before a withdrawal isn't a "cut and run"?
Long enough that leaving wouldn't mean giving up our goal of denying Iraq to unelected Moslem extremists.
We "cut and run" from Vietnam, leaving that country in the hands of our worst enemies at the time, the Communists. Since you're old enough to remember that, I defy you to claim that they were perceived as less dangerous than our current enemies.
The Viets were not our worst enemies. They were no threat to us, and only wanted to expel foreign occupiers. I hope we have learned that not every country must be a capitalistic democracy.
D'artagnan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:D'artagnan wrote:My apologies re your age, Brandon!
But my point re the parallels still stands. How many decades do we need to have troops in Iraq before a withdrawal isn't a "cut and run"?
Long enough that leaving wouldn't mean giving up our goal of denying Iraq to unelected Moslem extremists.
We "cut and run" from Vietnam, leaving that country in the hands of our worst enemies at the time, the Communists. Since you're old enough to remember that, I defy you to claim that they were perceived as less dangerous than our current enemies.
Well, the Vietnamese didn't have a policy of harming Americans in America in any way possible, the way Al Qaeda and many Islamic fundamentalist groups do. They didn't put terror cells into America the way Islamic fundamentalists have.
The fact remains that you are challenging even the philosophy of persevering in a job even when tough. You are falsely equating the idea of not bailing quickly with the idea of staying forever. You have also failed to address the idea that if Americans establish a pattern of cutting and running as soon as someone puts up resistance, future enemies will be emboldened.
Quote:They didn't put terror cells into America the way Islamic fundamentalists have.
Yeah, terror cells everywhere you look these days, sheesh
Cycloptichorn
I think you know that pre-war Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaida. BTW, who said that we should stop fighting the latter?
