0
   

What bothers me about the Dems right now....

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:42 pm
Was't that an episode of M.A.S.H. Or was it, "who's responsible?

I'd say about 50/50 between Saddam for his idiotic decade of defiance and Bush... Okay, blaming's done. Now wtf are we going to do about it? Idea

Thanks Fox!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:46 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


Show me a couple of quotes from any Democrat in Congress or running for office that is supportive of President Bush and/or encourages the troops to do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemies of a free and independent Iraq, and I'll withdraw my statement.

Until then, you only make my case beautifully my friend.


so because I think bush and his war are a total failure that automatically means I WANT this war to fail and continue to take the lives of our soldiers and piss away my tax money and degrade our status in the world and divert money that could be spent on infrasturcture, education and health services to a failed war just so I can talk **** about bush?

Because you make my case re: you idiots, beautifully with that sort of nonsensical horseshit honey.


No Sweetums. You make my case in that you can't see anything at all positive that is happening, has happened, or could happen and you can't name a single Democrat who can or at least who will. I don't know whether you want the war to fail or not. But I would bet you a steak dinner you would be disappointed if Bush received accolades for an ultimate success in Iraq. Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:47 pm
BPB, Hurray! These war-mongers know how to twist things around to make it seem that the anti-war group wants us to fail, and our soldiers killed and maimed, while spending two billion every week in a failed war. They don't understand anything about what and who took us into this war on false information, then changed their justifications so many times, it's now become "the democrats don't offer any solutions!"

This from the president that made light of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and refuses to negotiate with Iran.

That's chutzpah!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:55 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Was't that an episode of M.A.S.H. Or was it, "who's responsible?

I'd say about 50/50 between Saddam for his idiotic decade of defiance and Bush... Okay, blaming's done. Now wtf are we going to do about it? Idea

Thanks Fox!


No way will I let you assign 50% to Bush without protest. Just recall all the lofty pronouncements from the Democrats, including Bill and Hillary during their administration, and all the lofty pronouncements leading up to the decision to go to war, all the bluster and accusations from those in the UN and various heads of state, plus all the evidence that the UN inspectors believed pointed to the existance of WMD and how many of THEM believed Saddam had them. The decision to go to war against Saddam was made by GWB, his entire administration, and the entire Congress by a substantial majority in all departments.

That a bunch of weenie liberals now want to backtrack from those pronouncements and those proclamations and those decisions and blame them all on Bush just makes them bigger weenies.

And what we're going to do about it now is either a) cut and run like the Democrats advocate, or b) set our jaw, muster our courage, and win it like at least some Republicans want to do. I pick "B".

And you're welcome.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 03:57 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
BPB, Hurray! These war-mongers know how to twist things around to make it seem that the anti-war group wants us to fail, and our soldiers killed and maimed, while spending two billion every week in a failed war. They don't understand anything about what and who took us into this war on false information, then changed their justifications so many times, it's now become "the democrats don't offer any solutions!"

This from the president that made light of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and refuses to negotiate with Iran.

That's chutzpah!



I happen to agree with you, in some respects.

I don't like the bad intel, I don't like the way Rumsfield shut out his military staff, and I don't like the fact we are failing.

But you are showing your ignorance by stereotyping me.

I'm "twisting things around" by asking a simple question?

Why do you people refuse to answer this rather simple question? What is about this that is causing such hatred on your part?

Can't some of you answer me? Or is it too hard to answer the question and face yourself?

Will you rejoice if Iraq is stable in two months?

Your silence is thundering...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 04:12 pm
A Lone Voice wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


Where are the complaints about the Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad? If you believe that the Dems are capable of the one, then you have to believe that the Republicans are capable of the other, right?


"Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad?"

Sorry for highlighting it twice, but I needed to be sure about this.

Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad?

That sure seems to be a winning repub strategy. More soldiers die = Bush not looking bad....

Really?


Makes as much sense as "wanting us to lose so that Bush looks bad", doesn't it? To be clear I'm saying that both are nonsense and apply only to the fringe on either end.


Quote:
But tell me, Duck: How will you feel if the surge begins to work? What if a couple of months from now, Iraq is stable?

Will you rejoice?


Well, I might've been the wrong person to ask, ALV because the truth is that I'm not against the surge. (I'm also not a Democrat, but maybe that is beside the point.) Dems were saying for a long time that we needed more troops, and it seems like a ridiculous about-face now for them to say, well, now that you see it our way, what we really want is for them all to come home. If these new additional troops are well-placed and can bring stability, well, stability is what I'm for. I will indeed rejoice if Iraq becomes stable, regardless of how it got that way.

Well, I take that back, killing everyone in the country would bring stability but that wouldn't make me rejoice. I don't have much faith in Bush to fix this mess before he leaves office. I think he is too stubborn and spiteful to come up with anything that will actually work long term. But I have hopes that someone under him will be competent enough to pull something off.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 04:24 pm
A Lone Voice wrote:
Will you rejoice if Iraq is stable in two months?

Of course I would.

How about you? What would you do if there's a surge, and in two months (or some other number of months that you may choose) Iraq has descended further into civil war? Will you then conclude that the surge was a bad idea and bring the boys home?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 04:29 pm
A Lone Voice wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
BPB, Hurray! These war-mongers know how to twist things around to make it seem that the anti-war group wants us to fail, and our soldiers killed and maimed, while spending two billion every week in a failed war. They don't understand anything about what and who took us into this war on false information, then changed their justifications so many times, it's now become "the democrats don't offer any solutions!"

This from the president that made light of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and refuses to negotiate with Iran.

That's chutzpah!



I happen to agree with you, in some respects.

I don't like the bad intel, I don't like the way Rumsfield shut out his military staff, and I don't like the fact we are failing.

But you are showing your ignorance by stereotyping me.

I'm "twisting things around" by asking a simple question?

Why do you people refuse to answer this rather simple question? What is about this that is causing such hatred on your part?

Can't some of you answer me? Or is it too hard to answer the question and face yourself?

Will you rejoice if Iraq is stable in two months?

Your silence is thundering...

I will certainly rejoice when every last american in Iraq is laid to waste from an IED or a snipers bullet, I will dance in the streets and sacrifice a goat. That's how much I hate Bush and america and every thing it stands for? Why you ask? Why just because I'm a LIBERAL.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 04:30 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Makes as much sense as "wanting us to lose so that Bush looks bad", doesn't it? To be clear I'm saying that both are nonsense and apply only to the fringe on either end.


Quote:
But tell me, Duck: How will you feel if the surge begins to work? What if a couple of months from now, Iraq is stable?

Will you rejoice?


Well, I might've been the wrong person to ask, ALV because the truth is that I'm not against the surge. (I'm also not a Democrat, but maybe that is beside the point.) Dems were saying for a long time that we needed more troops, and it seems like a ridiculous about-face now for them to say, well, now that you see it our way, what we really want is for them all to come home. If these new additional troops are well-placed and can bring stability, well, stability is what I'm for. I will indeed rejoice if Iraq becomes stable, regardless of how it got that way.

Well, I take that back, killing everyone in the country would bring stability but that wouldn't make me rejoice. I don't have much faith in Bush to fix this mess before he leaves office. I think he is too stubborn and spiteful to come up with anything that will actually work long term. But I have hopes that someone under him will be competent enough to pull something off.


My apologies. Now I see what you were saying.

I agree. Bush showed his stubbornness when he stood by Rumsfield for so long. I believe the military will succeed, in spite of Bush, if they have the time and resources.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 04:35 pm
dyslexia wrote:
A Lone Voice wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
BPB, Hurray! These war-mongers know how to twist things around to make it seem that the anti-war group wants us to fail, and our soldiers killed and maimed, while spending two billion every week in a failed war. They don't understand anything about what and who took us into this war on false information, then changed their justifications so many times, it's now become "the democrats don't offer any solutions!"

This from the president that made light of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and refuses to negotiate with Iran.

That's chutzpah!



I happen to agree with you, in some respects.

I don't like the bad intel, I don't like the way Rumsfield shut out his military staff, and I don't like the fact we are failing.

But you are showing your ignorance by stereotyping me.

I'm "twisting things around" by asking a simple question?

Why do you people refuse to answer this rather simple question? What is about this that is causing such hatred on your part?

Can't some of you answer me? Or is it too hard to answer the question and face yourself?

Will you rejoice if Iraq is stable in two months?

Your silence is thundering...

I will certainly rejoice when every last american in Iraq is laid to waste from an IED or a snipers bullet, I will dance in the streets and sacrifice a goat. That's how much I hate Bush and america and every thing it stands for? Why you ask? Why just because I'm a LIBERAL.


Actually, If I recall correctly, you are an anarchist. A very tongue-in-cheek one.

You did answer the question, but not seriously.

Is it too serious to ask such a question?

Why the reluctance to answer it?

If you answered it as an anarchist rather than a liberal, I understand...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 04:50 pm
ALV, Your assumption about Iraq being stable in two months is an idea that too far from reality. We've tried "surges" in the past, and they didn't work. What makes you think a time-lined surge of 21,500 more troops will change the sectarian violence in two months? Do we wish for it to be successful? Who doesn't?

The 21,500 troops will be ill-equipped and untrained to fight in a civil war. They will become the targets of the Iraqis and insurgents, and all we'll accomplish is more of our soldiers dead and maimed.

More of the same is not the solution; something Bush and the neocons refuses to understand.

For those who argue that when the American People and congress discusses the Iraq war, we motivate the terrorists is hyperbole; ours is a democracy that allows for challenging the wrong path for our country.

There's a reason for having the three branches of government; it's called the balance of power. Our government works for the American People.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:04 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ALV, Your assumption about Iraq being stable in two months is an idea that too far from reality. We've tried "surges" in the past, and they didn't work. What makes you think a time-lined surge of 21,500 more troops will change the sectarian violence in two months? Do we wish for it to be successful? Who doesn't?

The 21,500 troops will be ill-equipped and untrained to fight in a civil war. They will become the targets of the Iraqis and insurgents, and all we'll accomplish is more of our soldiers dead and maimed.

More of the same is not the solution; something Bush and the neocons refuses to understand.

For those who argue that when the American People and congress discusses the Iraq war, we motivate the terrorists is hyperbole; ours is a democracy that allows for challenging the wrong path for our country.

There's a reason for having the three branches of government; it's called the balance of power. Our government works for the American People.


Actually, the difference will be the person calling the shots.

General David Petraeus has quite a resume, and has taken an unorthodox approach in his prior commands. Google his name for info.

I happen to agree with your statement about "those who argue that when the American People and congress discusses the Iraq war, we motivate the terrorists is hyperbole; ours is a democracy that allows for challenging the wrong path for our country."

You'll notice I haven't approached my question this way, or in this context. It's beside the point.

So it sounds like if this surge is successful, you will be relieved? Happy, even? (I know you find success unlikely, but as I said, war is improbable. And unpredictable, at times.)

It might cause the dems to lose some votes next election. That ok with you?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:30 pm
"If the surge succeeds in two months" is a wet dream, but I'll be the first one on a2k to admit that I was wrong if they do succeed. Everything in the past tells me it ain't gonna happen, except get more of our soldiers killed and maimed.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:39 pm
I will absolutely celebrate if there is a positive outcome in Iraq.

For me this would mean an rapid end to violence (including the Iraq civil war) and a political settlement that is accepted by the vast majority of all Iraqis.

If Bush can pull this off, I will happily admit I was wrong.

If the violence continues to escalate, the Iraqis continue to kill Americans and each other I am going to be even angrier, especially if the Bush fans keep claiming victory as people die and hatred escalates.

They have had more than enough chances, made more than enough false claims and be wrong more than enough times. He doesn't deserve the one more chance that it seems likely he will demand.

All logic tells me that in spite of this surge, we will still be having the same stupid argument in six months (and in a year).
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:45 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
"If the surge succeeds in two months" is a wet dream, but I'll be the first one on a2k to admit that I was wrong if they do succeed. Everything in the past tells me it ain't gonna happen, except get more of our soldiers killed and maimed.


Maybe.

Interesting, that Muqtada al-Sadr has already reportedly left Iraq, fleeing to Iran prior to the US buildup.

There is a strong belief his militia has been hiding their weapons, and not establishing Shiite check points right now.

Essentially, they are standing down.

Of course, the Sunni violence is continuing. Maybe the surge will be able to control it?

Maybe not. It is probably our last, best hope, isn't it? And war is unpredictable, isn't it?

I'm just glad to hear you say you hope for the military to succeed in Iraq.

Whether you are right or wrong is beside the point, wouldn't you say?

But hey, thanks for answering the question.

You are one out of about 12 so far...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:47 pm
ALV, Even after al Sadr's disappearance into Iran, violence continues, and our soldiers are getting killed.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:53 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Brandon,

If (hypothetically speaking of course) the majority of Iraqis did not support the "democratically elected" government, and in fact voted almost entirely along ethnic lines.

If (also hypothetically speaking of course) the majority of Iraqi's now had no alligience to the "democratically elected" government, infact if (again hypothetically) they thought the whole thing a sham set up by an occupying force.

And, if (hypothetically) the vast number of attacks against US troops in Iraq were commited by Iraqis (not foreign fighters), and (hypothetically speaking) the US army itself admited as much.

And (hypotheticially) if most of the Iraqis identified far more closely with their ethnic/religious group then any loyalty to a governemen that (hypothetically) everyone knows is (hypothetically) impotent.

And, if (of course completely hypothetically speaking) the majority of Iraqis opposed the US occupation, including over 50% of Iraqi citizens asked say killing US troops was morally justifiable action against an occupation.

And if (and I am really stretching here, but bear with me) the majority of American citizens felt the war was not only unjustified, but wanted a timetable to withdraw American troops as soon as possible. And if (stay with me) hypothetically they Americans opposing the war had an unexpected success in mid-term elections backed up by every poll.

Now I know I have made a lot of stuff up here, but I want to see how far your commitment is... And this is a yes or no question.

Under these ridiculous circumstances would you contemplate withdrawing US troops from Iraq?

Perhaps so, although I would still feel some responsibility to the minority that wanted democracy, as opposed to dictatorship, since I personally believe that only democratic governments are legitimate, but you haven't proven those propositions, only stated them. And by the way, "voting along ethnic lines" doesn't mean that you don't want democracy, as you imply.

It seems to me, based on posts such as yours in this thread, that you couldn't care less about whether peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves or not. I, however, do.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:54 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I will absolutely celebrate if there is a positive outcome in Iraq.

For me this would mean an rapid end to violence (including the Iraq civil war) and a political settlement that is accepted by the vast majority of all Iraqis.

If Bush can pull this off, I will happily admit I was wrong.

If the violence continues to escalate, the Iraqis continue to kill Americans and each other I am going to be even angrier, especially if the Bush fans keep claiming victory as people die and hatred escalates.

They have had more than enough chances, made more than enough false claims and be wrong more than enough times. He doesn't deserve the one more chance that it seems likely he will demand.

All logic tells me that in spite of this surge, we will still be having the same stupid argument in six months (and in a year).


You are number two. Thanks for your honesty. I'm glad you are hoping for a positive outcome, and root for the success of the US military.

I happen to agree with you. If this doesn't work, I don't think anyone should cut Bush any slack at all.

He will go down in history as one of the worst presidents, ever.

Ironically, if this surge succeeds, public opinion will once again sway towards Bush and the repubs. It will make the dems look like they are out of touch, with a loser mentality.

Bush will probably be hailed by the public as the president who brought peace and democracy to Iraq.

Ironic, no?

Think you dems will be able to stomach this?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 05:55 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


Where are the complaints about the Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad? If you believe that the Dems are capable of the one, then you have to believe that the Republicans are capable of the other, right?

Show me evidence that there is even one Republican who wants the war so that Bush won't look bad.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:05 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.


Where are the complaints about the Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad? If you believe that the Dems are capable of the one, then you have to believe that the Republicans are capable of the other, right?

Show me evidence that there is even one Republican who wants the war so that Bush won't look bad.


In fairness to you, the way Freeduck phrased the question is really dishonest as a paraphrase of what has been said. In fairness to Freeduck, her question is a fair one IF we go with the thesis that Democrats want us to quit (aka lose the war) rather than have Bush look good, then the converse could be accurate that Republicans want us to win the war at least in part to vindicate Bush. I don't think we can rule that out of the mix.

It is my conviction, however, that Conservatives want us to win the war because it is the right thing to do, because it will produce positive things, and because it will make it worth it to all those who have died and/or suffered injury and pain in the effort to accomplish a wonderful thing. An even more compelling reason to not turn tail and run is that it will prove to our sworn enemies that they can prevail against America if they can just outlast the liberal will to accomplish something. That George Bush will be entitled to the credit if it happens on his watch comes in way on down the line.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 12:48:08