TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A picture is worth 1000 words--Sheehan Arrested
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo regardless, it is a Democracy. tear their efforts down, regardless of the fearless work being done there.

It's not THEIR efforts I'm tearing down, it's OURS, and you fucking goddamn know it. It's cute when you attempt to obfuscate my points like that, but it's tiresome and annoying as fuck too.

OUR efforts are not the same as theirs, unless you think OUR efforts was a means to establish an Islamic fundamentalist regime that holds women's rights in a piss bucket and uses the Law of Islam as a guiding principle.

Or are you trying to tell me that it was ALWAYS Bush's plan to go there looking for WMD, not find them whatsofuckingever, not find any connections to Al Qaeda and the ******s that attacked us, divert our attention away from the ******s that attacked us by invading another country, and set up an Islamic fundamentalist regime similar to that of Iran - all in his cunning scheming mind, right?

And that cause is what we had in mind all along, right?

quote:

you would have a point if these were Norwiegians you and Sheehan were protesting, but they are Muslims in the cradle of the Muslim world. not white Christians. not Jews. not even Canadians. i'm proud of whats being done and sacrificed. no one doesn't have to be in the military or a "chickenhawk" or "killed in an ambush" to appreciate that.

Good for you. Be proud of the cause all you like, but that doesn't justify Bush's complete idiocy, nor does it justify yours either. I'm glad you're so proud of this so-called "democracy" that we are setting up that resembles nothing but an Islamic fundamentalist government. I'm glad you love taking a woman's rights and taking a giant shit on them. I'm glad you love going to war on false pretenses and completely diverting our attention away from the ******s that attacked us (or at the very least, outsourcing that war to fucking warlords in another country - good one).

It truly says much about your character, Q. But that's something we've known all along.....

I'm constantly baffled by the mechanics of censorship in the PDD forum. When you say the "******s" that attacked us, do you intend to say the "******s" that attacked us? I mean it lets you say "Fuck", but not "******s". Where is George Carlin when you need him???

Furthermore, couldn't you just sit back, have a latte and join the funny caption Cindy game?



Edit: Oh, now that's just great. YOu can really say "Fuck" but not "Phuckers" (with an F of course). Phucking great TA forum. Phucking great indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It's not THEIR efforts I'm tearing down, it's OURS, and you fucking goddamn know it. It's cute when you attempt to obfuscate my points like that, but it's tiresome and annoying as fuck too. OUR efforts are not the same as theirs, unless you think OUR efforts was a means to establish an Islamic fundamentalist regime that holds women's rights in a piss bucket and uses the Law of Islam as a guiding principle. Or are you trying to tell me that it was ALWAYS Bush's plan to go there looking for WMD, not find them whatsofuckingever, not find any connections to Al Qaeda and the ******s that attacked us, divert our attention away from the ******s that attacked us by invading another country, and set up an Islamic fundamentalist regime similar to that of Iran - all in his cunning scheming mind, right? And that cause is what we had in mind all along, right?

do you really want me to backtrack all of your anti-iraq garbage to show you that you have absolutely no respect for the sacrifices made there? i have not the time nor patience to point out to you what you already propagate to the world.

answer this question is it not a Democracy. and if it is, is that "pissbucket better than the alternative. i'll warn you that people have voluntarily put their existence on the line for that "pissbucket". try to obfuscate that you fucking propagandist hack.

quote:

[Good for you. Be proud of the cause all you like, but that doesn't justify Bush's complete idiocy, nor does it justify yours either. I'm glad you're so proud of this so-called "democracy" that we are setting up that resembles nothing but an Islamic fundamentalist government. I'm glad you love taking a woman's rights and taking a giant shit on them. I'm glad you love going to war on false pretenses and completely diverting our attention away from the ******s that attacked us (or at the very least, outsourcing that war to fucking warlords in another country - good one). It truly says much about your character, Q. But that's something we've known all along.....

well, your opinion has been made. it's in the history books. it's on the wrong side of history, but you've made it clear. now STFU, and let the people that put it all on the line finish writing history.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What's your fuck1ng point exactly you ignorant fuck1ng fascist prick?

what?

i will reach through that coax cable and chokeslam you.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what? i will reach through that coax cable and chokeslam you.

I'd love to see you try something like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo do you really want me to backtrack all of your anti-iraq garbage to show you that you have absolutely no respect for the sacrifices made there? i have not the time nor patience to point out to you what you already propagate to the world.

Blow me douche. Your asinine responses to me are the same old shit that you continue to dump GOP talking points over and over. Now let's be clear on one point - in no way am I disrespecting the men and women who are fighting that war by saying I fucking can't stand idiots like you who kowtow like a dutiful Bush apologist and believe our "cause" over there is a fucked up one from the very instance that we had no WMD found whatsoever. Any "sacrifices" made by stupid dumbshit civilians who FUCKING WENT AWOL THEMSELVES AND HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED BEING MAN ENOUGH TO FIGHT A WAR ON THEIR OWN are not considered "sacrifices" by me or any logical thinking individual on the fucking planet, nor will they ever be. You wanna continue standing up for a piece of chickenshit simply because you are committed to call him your "Commander in Chief", be my guest. Don't expect others to do the same.

Furthermore, their so-called "sacrifices" are wholly separate from those who live and die for fighting in our military. However, if those who fight for our country (and yes, that includes you) continue to believe and fall in lockstep to your fucking idiot Commander-In-Chief and somehow believe that it was some grand scheme to put a fucking fundamentalist Islamic government in there that if this Constitution falls into place will most likely put that country into a full scale civil war with our men and women fucking caught in the middle, and that it's all right to sit in a fucking ridiculous mess like that,

then I have no sympathy for their complete and utter stupidity, just as I have no sympathy for yours.

quote:

answer this question is it not a Democracy. and if it is, is that "pissbucket better than the alternative. i'll warn you that people have voluntarily put their existence on the line for that "pissbucket". try to obfuscate that you fucking propagandist hack.

Honestly I'm not sure what your question is. If you're saying it's a Democracy, then tell me how their Constitution and law put into place resembles anything remote to our understanding of a Democracy. Be sure to include how a religious law being the pinnacle of their government is equivalent to a democracy in your answer.

As for being a "fucking propagandist hack", I'll let the crowd here decide over the years of our posting on who's fucking hacked worse. Of course my shit smells too, but if memory serves I do tend to refute the vast majority of your points made, and not the reverse.

quote:

well, your opinion has been made. it's in the history books. it's on the wrong side of history, but you've made it clear.

I'm sure glad it's because you said so. Funny how you continue to stand by your idiot leader to the fucking grave. Ever stop to look around and see the rest of the public growing more and more disturbed with you and your idiot leader's Iraq "vision"?

Ever wonder why Bush's poll numbers are dwindling down to nothingness, especially on Iraq?

But I'm more than willing to wait history out on this one champ if you are. I've been on this board for some time, and I have no intention of leaving anytime soon. So if you're happy to stick around for a few years and see just what a fucking debacle Iraq is turning out to be, I'm game.

quote:

now STFU, and let the people that put it all on the line finish writing history.

Just because people put it out "all on the line" doesn't make a history a correct and righteous one. Many idiots have given their lives to a particular cause only for it to be a very incorrect one.

But you're more than happy to continue down that line if you wish. I'm actually sad for you, as I am sad for a handful of friends I have who are over there fighting. They do not want to be there by any means, especially one who just had a baby with his wife (who happens to be a very close friend of the Mrs.), and I hope they make it back. They do not believe in any "cause" there anymore, because the original cause was disarmament. Their only real cause now to make it out alive, and they have no choice but to believe that doing their duty will somehow keep them alive (which in likelihood they do have a better chance of living by following orders).

That, however, does not make their orders "correct" anymore than it makes Rumsfelds orders to have 1/2 the number of troops really needed there to fight and maintain stability.

My argument on Iraq has always been one in which we shouldn't have fucking been there in the first place. We were fighting a war against the real enemy, and we got diverted away from that. But since we got diverted away and were told that Saddam was so gosh darn eeeeevil and had WMD pointed at our heads, I initially supported our cause because I felt we should eliminate this threat.

but do you really need a history lesson after that point? What happened next? And then what? And on and on. Rationales changed constantly, and the necessity to keep stability was wholly dependent upon not just our actions there, but the number of troops or shall I say, the lackthere of that we had there. Furthermore, we fucked around for months, even years to fully and adequately armour our troops and their vehicles.

So don't fucking even try to paint me as someone who pisses on the sacrifices. It's your fucking douchebag leader and your dumbass Administration who refuses to fucking fight this war right in the first place, nevermind the fucking false pretenses as to why we fucking got there in the first place, and nevermind the fact that the stupid mother****** who attacked us in the first place is still running around quite free.

Or have you actually seen bin Laden lately? I know you're in the military - do you fucking know something that the rest of the world doesn't about this guy? Or do you even fucking remember him?

So now we're there in a fucking half-ass way, watching our men and women slowly get picked off one by one in a cause of setting up a fucking fundamentalist Islamic government that's on the brink of civil war.

That is not fucking propaganda, that's a fucking fact - an undeniable one at that.

So if you wanna talk about the situation there, then let's do so. But do not fucking expect me to back down on my sentiments on our idiot neocon bullshit Iraq foreign policy, or our idiot fucking leader who got us there in the first place, or even the idiot minions who know nothing but "yes sir" to that fucking idiot leader and refuse to pull their heads out of their asses like the rest of the public is beginning to do.

I will not be helping you there. But history will definitely have something to say about you, as does the rest of the world right now at present.

listen, you are stuck on this liberal cliche' that all my responses are "GOP talking points". while you fail to see the validity of my responses, blinded by hate and animosity, there is a real effort by Iraqi civs. Iraqi military, American civs., American military that ovewhelms YOUR interpretation of whats right and whats wrong, "talking points" or not.

you and Sheehan have shown time and time again that there is no coherency between your hatred of Bush and your want for a better Iraq. if anything the hatred of one defaces the efforts of the other. i'm not asking you or anybody to lick Bush's nuts (tell me when i have ever done that here or in this forum) just remember that when i talk about the sacrifices been made, i mean the sacrifices of all on the right side of this conflict military and civilian. it's been my position this entire time i've written here. it hasn't wavered. you call it "kowtowing to my CIC". i call it respectful to the process.

deflate your ego for a moment and think what good is naysaying to what is happening over there. consider what was-then consider all who have died, and who will die, creating what will be.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Honestly I'm not sure what your question is. If you're saying it's a Democracy, then tell me how their Constitution and law put into place resembles anything remote to our understanding of a Democracy. Be sure to include how a religious law being the pinnacle of their government is equivalent to a democracy in your answer.

gee i don't know? they have a truly enfranchised electorate that has proven itself twice. i mean i'm not a prophet or nuthin but the dozens of Iraqi polls are nothing but optimistic about a legitamate represenative government come 06'. does it resemble anything we know about a Democracy? yes, it resembles. we don't resemble Shiri'a law.
like i said, we're not talking about Noweigians here are we? at least the decent is there to oppose it and it will be represented.

Q5echo.. you are the perfect example of the only view portrait to you, and thats the one portrait in America. Go out and open up and see things from the other perspectives.. there are plenty, it might elight your mind a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo listen, you are stuck on this liberal cliche' that all my responses are "GOP talking points".

They are. You repeat pretty much verbatum on what I hear on both Hannity, Limbaugh, Tony Snow, and the articles I catch on Newsmax and National Review. Call it whatever you want, but you are arguing the same points as they trickle them down.

quote:

while you fail to see the validity of my responses, blinded by hate and animosity,

The only "hate" and "animosity" I really have is driven by complete and utter frustration by repetition passed down by this Administration. I can't help but say that I've fucking had it at this point. I've fucking had it with this fucking idiot Administration change rationales and attempt to wiggle their way out of their fucking mess that they created, all the while attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with them as unpatriotic, unAmerican, and hateful "liberals". It's fucking old and irrelevant, and the American people have finally awakened to it.

quote:

there is a real effort by Iraqi civs. Iraqi military, American civs., American military that ovewhelms YOUR interpretation of whats right and whats wrong, "talking points" or not.

In no way am I belittling the efforts of the individuals who are trying to build Iraq back up after we fucking destroyed it to a pulp.

I am, however, belittling the unfortunate end-result of the policies that have created this mess in the first place, as well as our hypocritical bullshit policy of supposedly taking down an "evil-doer" while we do nothing but close our eyes or pat handfuls of "evil-doers" elsewhere in the world because it seemingly suits are current business interests in some way, shape or form.

quote:

you and Sheehan have shown time and time again that there is no coherency between your hatred of Bush and your want for a better Iraq.

Fuck Sheehan. I hold nothing to her, nor do I follow what she says or does in any way. Address me from now on, please. Don't be a chickenshit and try to paint me in with someone else that I hold no loyalty to in any way. She and her idiot minions could fall off a fucking cliff for all I care. Her five minutes were up a month ago.

quote:

if anything the hatred of one defaces the efforts of the other. i'm not asking you or anybody to lick Bush's nuts (tell me when i have ever done that here or in this forum) just remember that when i talk about the sacrifices been made, i mean the sacrifices of all on the right side of this conflict military and civilian. it's been my position this entire time i've written here. it hasn't wavered. you call it "kowtowing to my CIC". i call it respectful to the process.

I have not once claimed you have waivered from your position.

I've just said you're just flat out fucking wrong to have such a position without realizing the gratitude of the government and insurgent situation in Iraq when our men and women are caught in the middle.

quote:

deflate your ego for a moment and think what good is naysaying to what is happening over there. consider what was-then consider all who have died, and who will die, creating what will be.

I consider it everyfucking day. How about you? Where do you think my passion on this subject resides? Can you not tell by now?

I no longer care who I offend on this topic. The problem here lies in the fact that we are in a fucked up mess there that was created by this Administration from day fucking 1. You're in the military, right Q? Tell me then - was it responsible of this Administration to go to war so fucking unbelievably ill-prepared with about 1/2 of the troops advised to secure the country in a post-invasion situation? When folks like Gen. Shinseki says that we are insufficient in the #s, and he gets blown off by your fucking neocon leaders because they believe in a smaller, more technologically "savy" military, who do you think is probably more correct now?

Was it responsible of this Administration not to sufficiently armor and protect the troops and their vehicles? Was it responsible of this Administration to up to this day STILL not fully protect their troops?

Was it responsible for our military to beat and abuse prisoners at Abu Graib and elsewhere? Was it responsible for those orders to be there in the first place? Here's some more of the latest of confessions from the Army's 82nd Airborne division:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/p...agewanted=print

Was it fucking responsible to stear away from the f$cker that attacked us and invade a country with a hapless dictator?

What's it take for you folks to wake up and smell what you are shoveling? It finally took the WaPost editorial board a little wake-up call after kissing Bush's ass on the Iraqi mess and Constitution to realize that things aren't quite that rosy after all:

quote:

As Iraq moves toward a referendum on its new constitution just three weeks from now, many of its senior politicians readily concede that the charter is seriously flawed, and that its approval may worsen rather than alleviate the relentless violence. Leaders of neighboring Arab states and some Bush administration officials seem to share this view. Yet none of these officials or leaders has been willing or able to stop the political process from going forward. . . . Faced with sinking domestic support, the Bush administration seems driven by an unwise zeal to produce visible results in Iraq -- such as a ratified constitution -- however problematic they may be. . . . Yet, judging from what even supportive Iraqis are saying, the risk is very great that the constitutional process will either tip Iraq decisively toward civil war or produce a state far from the goal of a tolerant democracy for which nearly 2,000 Americans have given their lives. ...The real problem is the absence of an agreement about Iraq's future between the majority Shiite and Kurd communities and the minority Sunnis, who ruled the country from the time of its establishment until the fall of Saddam Hussein. That disconnect is expressed in the overwhelming rejection by Sunni leaders of the constitutional draft. . . . Though the details of implementation were postponed, the current draft would allow the Shiites, who already control the national government, to create their own ministate in southern Iraq, which very likely would be ruled by clerics and Islamic law and would closely ally itself with neighboring Iran. It would have its own armed forces and control Iraq's biggest oil fields. The Kurds would have their own ministate in northern Iraq and would probably take over the city of Kirkuk and its oil production. This radical form of "federalism" not only would be ruinous to the Sunni community, as well as the mixed population of Baghdad: It would be threatening and even destabilizing for all of Iraq's neighbors except Iran. It would produce an Iraq that the United States would have no interest in defending. The only way for Iraq to avoid catastrophe is a political accord among Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, one that can be based only on the preservation of Iraq as a federal but unified state in which resources and political power are fairly shared and human rights protected. The Bush administration, and Iraqi leaders themselves, ought to be focused on striking that national compromise rather than on prematurely enshrining pieces of paper or adhering to deadlines that were set arbitrarily 18 months ago. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2401142_pf.html

This is what BUSH is creating, not the men and women who are dying over there. They are merely following orders, so cease from your fucking attempts to paint my argument as if I'm somehow blaming them in any way. This fucking mess is on Bush's hands, it's on his fucking Adminstration as well as his followers, including yourself. You want to be proud of such a situation, well I certainly can't stop you.

But it's fucking disgusting, and that's painfully evident.

quote:

gee i don't know? they have a truly enfranchised electorate that has proven itself twice. i mean i'm not a prophet or nuthin but the dozens of Iraqi polls are nothing but optimistic about a legitamate represenative government come 06'. does it resemble anything we know about a Democracy? yes, it resembles. we don't resemble Shiri'a law. like i said, we're not talking about Noweigians here are we? at least the decent is there to oppose it and it will be represented.

We don't have to be talking about white caucasians - nor do we have to lower our standards to such levels in order to dismiss basic rights given to women and dissenters to Shiite law. It's "proven" itself twice only because the majority of voters have been, oh god what a fucking surprise - SHIITES! How 'bout that? What a shocker, ain't it? And even more shocking, the group that was once in control - the minority Sunnis, have boycotted the last election fiasco because, well, who the fuck would blame them? They wouldn't get shit for rights and policies within the Shiite/Kurd run government in the first place.

So that's what you call a "democracy"? Read the WaPost again and realize just how much things have changed. I too believed that we should be staying to supposedly "finish what we started" for a time - or to be more blunt, rebuild what we fucking destroyed. But the question you must ask yourself now is - what is it we are finishing? What is it we are now fighting for? We are no longer fighting for the freedom of the people, no longer fighting for WMD disarmament, no longer fighting for Al Qaeda ties. We are now fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government on the brink of a civil war, and our men and women are smack fucking dab in the middle of the mess.

This is NOT what we should be funding our foreign affairs over. This is NOT what our brave women and men should be giving our lives for. This is NOT what the total American "sacrifice" should be defined as anymore. This has NOTHING to do with our original intent in supposedly fighting the war on terror, nor does it have anything to do with supposedly protecting our country.

Again I ask, you do remember bin Laden, right? You better fucking remember him, because we haven't done shit about him since. And another wonderful attribute to our fucking debacle in Iraq - we've successfully made it a fucking haven for terrorists:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan13.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/22/news/intel.php

http://news.yahoo.com/s/krwashburea..._terror_iraq_wa

The sooner you come to grips with the fact that this isn't the lovely optimistic rosy picture that you're trying to depict, the quicker you'll come back down to the reality-based community. And I might even welcome you when you arrive.....

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r She must be upset that the hurricanes have been getting all the press lately...

+1

Opus, No offense, but this whole "Talking Points" argument is a 2-way street. You are equally guilty of throwing out "Talking Points" of the left the people you are pointing the finger at. Furthermore, just because it is a "Talking Point" and you point it out as such, doesn't mean it's an irrelevant point. Ergo, simply identifying said "talking point" does not make it an irrelevant/impertinant.

With that said, I think there have been valid points made from both sides and the resulting ire and mudslinging are indicative of how divided we are are as a nation.

I honestly don't think it's a surprise at all that the longer the war has gone on, the more public support has waned. I bet that has been the case for a majority of wars throughout history. However, the right choice is not always the most popular one and I have more respect for a leader that is willing to see a mission through than for one who cowers out because suddenly the direction of leadership isn't as popular as it once was. There is a difference between leading and following public opinion.

Additionally, this administration has said from the get-go that this would be a multi-year operation, and to their credit, many of the milestones that have been targeted have been met on schedule.

With that said, whether the WMDs were found or not, you cannot deny that their existence was factually known in the '90's and before, and whether or not you want to admit it (because, yeah they were trace amounts), plenty of evidence has been found to support the fact that Iraq had the capability and the ambition to pursue a WMD program.

Aside from the WMD issue which was clearly the major selling point in going to Iraq, there was always the mission to get Saddam out of power and to establish a representative government for the people in Iraq. Saddam is out, elections have been had, a constitution has been drafted, and we have an obligation to see the mission through to the end, regardless of how loud the hypocritical Ted Kennedy's, John Kerry's, etc. of the world want to scream.

As much infighting as we have about this entire operation, as much as the anti-war crowd wants to equate it to Vietnam (which is in and of itself a laughable comparison meant to invoke hard-core anti-war sentiment), I think it's right to reserve judgement on the success of this operation as only time will tell (not 2 years, but more like 20) how this move serves the world (better or worse).

Did we rush to war? Maybe, though people seem to forget what life was like in 2002 and only remember what life was like yesterday (i.e. pretty much seems normal). However, what would waiting have accomplished? More rape room torture? A more advanced weapons program established prior to someone finally doing something? Forget the 12 years of ignored UN resolutions.

Also, as much of a pipe dream as it is, I can't help but imagine how the situation would've played out had the entire country gotten on board and supported this mission. It would've shown the Iraqis, radical Islamists and the world, that we at least were unified in our mission to stop the spread of radical Islam. Instead, we have bickering, a media that is by and large obsessed with blowing any negative story out of proportion without reporting positive developments, etc, etc, etc.

I'm tired of this.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Opus, No offense, but this whole "Talking Points" argument is a 2-way street. You are equally guilty of throwing out "Talking Points" of the left the people you are pointing the finger at. Furthermore, just because it is a "Talking Point" and you point it out as such, doesn't mean it's an irrelevant point. Ergo, simply identifying said "talking point" does not make it an irrelevant/impertinant.

Okay, to be painfully honest I guess I never really considered what I say as a Dem. talking point, despite agreeance of points made from various liberal sources. Your point is taken and I'll concede this, however I do stand by the fact that the points being passed down from the RNC and the White House to the various conservative mouthpieces are much more influential and in synchrony than any given liberal talking head will ever be. If I have to use a given example, take the topic of this thread - Sheehan. Not one liberal blog or radio station was ever behind her actions from the start. Oh sure, a slew of 'em came on once her momentum increased, but as far as I know she had no sponsors from the getgo. This is a far cry from the coordinated Machine on the Right that starts together and continues running together until the entire public crowd is singing their repetition. The Swift Boaters are a prime example of this.

But again, you're coming at this with a cooler head, so I'll reply in kind as I concede your point.

quote:

With that said, I think there have been valid points made from both sides and the resulting ire and mudslinging are indicative of how divided we are are as a nation. I honestly don't think it's a surprise at all that the longer the war has gone on, the more public support has waned. I bet that has been the case for a majority of wars throughout history. However, the right choice is not always the most popular one and I have more respect for a leader that is willing to see a mission through than for one who cowers out because suddenly the direction of leadership isn't as popular as it once was. There is a difference between leading and following public opinion.

As would I, so please don't misunderstand me here. I would not want a president to merely sway one way or the other simply because of opinion polls. Indeed, one of the true attributes of Bush is his conviction, which by and large the public identifies with and respects (and IMO, won him the reelection against hapless Kerry). If I agreed with this war and the resulting outcome of this war, I would not want Bush to sway merely on public opinion either.

It's not as if I don't understand this about you or Q's opinion on the matter - I do. However, I must also say that I don't think this fight for the resulting outcome is worth the fight anymore. Given the direction of where Iraq is likely going to go, analysts on both sides of the aisle are starting to chime on the tune of setting a date to get the hell outa there, and with good reason. And like I said, I wasn't too big on an immediate pullout myself, but things have changed and the lovely rosy picture that's being portrayed on how things are going to be in Iraq is just simply falling apart.

It's all bullshit, Shakka, and I don't want my friends and the loved ones of my friends dying for such a bullshit cause anymore. If things were not going to result in such a fucked-up outcome, I'd think otherwise about this whole thing. But that's simply not the reality of the situation, and I don't want ANYONE from our country dying by being in the middle of a civil war in another country.

It's just not worth it anymore. We fucked up, big. Our presence there is only giving them more momentum against us, as well as giving momemtum to our truly enemy, Al Qaeda, as it has become a terrorist breeding ground and recruitment hot bed. We just have to be seriously thoughtful on our actions there, and I don't see such thought occurring in this intellectually-challenged President.

Intelligence must override unwavering conviction at some point. Something has to give.

quote:

Additionally, this administration has said from the get-go that this would be a multi-year operation, and to their credit, many of the milestones that have been targeted have been met on schedule.

I think you're trying to sugarcoat the bullshit here. Sure, some milestones have been met, but the vast majority have not, and many milestones the bar has been continually lowered and lowered down to the point that a blind quadriplegic toddler could crawl over.

quote:

With that said, whether the WMDs were found or not, you cannot deny that their existence was factually known in the '90's and before, and whether or not you want to admit it (because, yeah they were trace amounts), plenty of evidence has been found to support the fact that Iraq had the capability and the ambition to pursue a WMD program.

You know I don't deny that - I've discussed that issue ad nauseum here before. And my reply has always been that Saddam did indeed need to be dealt with in time, but NOT at the expense of putting bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the backburner, NOT at the expense in terms of how we examined the evidence and discarded any counterevidence (Read "The Stovepipe" in the New Yorker), and most definitely NOT at the expense on how we handled the post-invasion fiasco. There were other alternatives to dealing with this hapless dictator, and the last option that we were supposed to utilize was invasion esp. at the expense of taking the eye off Al Qaeda.

That was clearly not the last option, especially given the fact that Saddam didn't have what we thought he had. Other Administrations certainly believed Saddam had capability, but it was THIS Administration that acted upon that notion without solid evidence and relying on dipshits like Chalabi and his minions ("Curveball") whom were deemed unreliable by CIA and the State Dept. intelligence agencies.

Of course all this will be told as soon as my Senator Roberts (KS) starts part 2 of the Select Intelligence Committee on WMD on how the White House and Dept. of Defense handled the intelligence given to them. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that he refuses to start that investigation.

Strange that, ain't it?

quote:

Aside from the WMD issue which was clearly the major selling point in going to Iraq, there was always the mission to get Saddam out of power and to establish a representative government for the people in Iraq. Saddam is out, elections have been had, a constitution has been drafted, and we have an obligation to see the mission through to the end, regardless of how loud the hypocritical Ted Kennedy's, John Kerry's, etc. of the world want to scream.

And the question remains - what are our troops doing there fighting for again? What exactly is being established? What will likely occur once it is established? Why would our troops be required to remain there once the outcome occurs?

(answers: fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government regime that has the Law of Islam as their guiding governing principle, civil war will ensue because of the Sunnis having no governing power, our troops will be fighting on the side of the Shiites against the Sunnis during this civil war).

quote:

As much infighting as we have about this entire operation, as much as the anti-war crowd wants to equate it to Vietnam (which is in and of itself a laughable comparison meant to invoke hard-core anti-war sentiment), I think it's right to reserve judgement on the success of this operation as only time will tell (not 2 years, but more like 20) how this move serves the world (better or worse).

You know I've kept away from the Vietnam analogy, and I'll continue to do so. 2 different wars, 2 different times. While there are some similarities, the differences still tend to outweigh overall.

quote:

Did we rush to war? Maybe, though people seem to forget what life was like in 2002 and only remember what life was like yesterday (i.e. pretty much seems normal). However, what would waiting have accomplished? More rape room torture?

Seems we did pretty well with some torture on our own. Abu Ghraib anyone?

quote:

A more advanced weapons program established prior to someone finally doing something? Forget the 12 years of ignored UN resolutions.

Again I don't disagree with the necessity to address the Saddam problem. But we had a very real problem with AQ needing to be addressed and we simply pissed that away for this one. The truth of the matter is, according to the Duelfer Report, the UN sanctions had successfully kept Saddam crippled, although he had the intentions otherwise.

Well Jesus, there's probably 2 dozen asshole dictators out there that don't care too much for us that might have similar intentions too. What, are we going to attack every asshole on the block simply because they have the intentions to attack us? Since when did the US foreign policy become the fucking Thought Police?

And if we were to address the problem with invasion - then we fucking needed to do it right. How can you not agree with this? You guys honestly believe that the number of troops we used for post-invasion was appropriate? We still can't maintain stability in that country in at least 3 provinces which just happen to be Sunni populated - you think this is appropriate at all to have such low numbers of troops that are still not completely armoured?

This is what I fucking laugh at when people like Q accuse me of attacking the sacrifice being made. If this Adminstration believed in the sacrifice made - they would have fucking done things right from the getgo to successfully stabilize the region. But the truth is they didn't think this out whatsofucking ever. They thought it was a bunch of rose peddles at our feet as we rebuild with such great ease. They have no fucking clue or care a whit about Muslim culture, and they didn't even have fucking enough interpreters in the first place.

This is what I'm talking about. The choice to me is clear on this war, and let me make my point very clear for you - fight this war right or get the fuck out.

It's clear that this Administration refuses to even comprehend on how to fight this war right with the right # of troops and protection to both them and the innocent. As a consequence, they're fucking stuck in the middle as they slowly get picked off one by one while a civil war ensues. This is the stem of my anger, and I think this is why the public is turning on the issue on both sides of the aisle. I'm sick of this Administration fuckups, and I don't want any more men and women to die as a consequence. I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than that.

quote:

Also, as much of a pipe dream as it is, I can't help but imagine how the situation would've played out had the entire country gotten on board and supported this mission. It would've shown the Iraqis, radical Islamists and the world, that we at least were unified in our mission to stop the spread of radical Islam. Instead, we have bickering, a media that is by and large obsessed with blowing any negative story out of proportion without reporting positive developments, etc, etc, etc. I'm tired of this.

As am I, but you simply can't handwave away the fact that you GOPers had the public in the palm of your hand after 9/11. Bush could do no wrong at all, and the numbers of invading Iraq and even post-invasion numbers were very much in your favor.

But sooner or later, reality catches up. It's not simply a matter of having a bigger chearing section in a ballgame - it's the fact that the players down on the field have no helmets, no referees, and no football either. It doesn't resemble the game that the people came to cheer for, so they're leaving the stadium.

Can you honestly blame them?

Certainly a good response--your points are well taken. I have no intentions of arguing with you, I think we know where each other stands. I'm trying to look out for your blood pressure here! Just a few things...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Since when did the US foreign policy become the fucking Thought Police?

I love a good 1984 reference.

quote:

They thought it was a bunch of rose peddles at our feet as we rebuild with such great ease.

That's petals.

quote:

This is what I'm talking about. The choice to me is clear on this war, and let me make my point very clear for you - fight this war right or get the fuck out.

I have no disagreement here. This war has certainly not been perfect (far from it). It is very important that we all learn from this experience so that we are better equipped to deal with the Irans, North Koreas, Venezuelas or any other regimes that are openly hostile towards us or who blatantly violate human rights. In the same breath, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

quote:

As am I, but you simply can't handwave away the fact that you GOPers had the public in the palm of your hand after 9/11. Bush could do no wrong at all, and the numbers of invading Iraq and even post-invasion numbers were very much in your favor.

This is pretty hard to deny. The country wanted action and action they got.

Again, let's just hope that we learn the valuable lessons from our successes and failures so that we are all the more better equipped when the next conflict arises (and there is no question that one will. It's always a question of when, not if).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It is very important that we all learn from this experience so that we are better equipped to deal with the Irans, North Koreas, Venezuelas or any other regimes that are openly hostile towards us or who blatantly violate human rights.

Wtf since when is venuzuela a threat to anyone?! hey I say go invade china, that's probably a bigger human right violator than any of the others (except north korea I guess)!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Additionally, this administration has said from the get-go that this would be a multi-year operation, and to their credit, many of the milestones that have been targeted have been met on schedule.

What do you mean by "get-go"? As far as I remember this thing started as a simple disarmament mission - the Iraqis would welcome the US troops and Iraq would be a beacon of freedom, tolerance, and democracy in the middle east. I remember no talk of two years plus of fighting rebels and soothing things over with quarreling ethnic groups? It's not until about a year ago, when I first heard Rumsfeld state that this was going to be a long operation (about the time the terminology changed from "war" to "struggle" - and after the US election), that the administration began to come clear about this IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It's all bullshit, Shakka, and I don't want my friends and the loved ones of my friends dying for such a bullshit cause anymore. If things were not going to result in such a fucked-up outcome, I'd think otherwise about this whole thing. But that's simply not the reality of the situation, and I don't want ANYONE from our country dying by being in the middle of a civil war in another country. It's just not worth it anymore. We fucked up, big. Our presence there is only giving them more momentum against us, as well as giving momemtum to our truly enemy, Al Qaeda, as it has become a terrorist breeding ground and recruitment hot bed.

While I agree with most of your sentiments (particular your loathing of Bush) and admire your emotional engagement, I do think that you're forgetting one thing: The troops are not dying completely in vain, and the US hasn't lost completely - yet. As long as the US is present in Iraq it sends a signal to the world that the US realizes that it messed the place up - messed it up bad - and that you're doing whatever you can to get things into a stable state again. This quest for redemption is all that keeps you from facing up to the unfortunate facts that you lied in the UN and through deception goated your best friends into joining you in the war on Iraq. Once you leave Iraq in a mess you'll have no friends left. At least not among the populace of your current allies.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic What do you mean by "get-go"? As far as I remember this thing started as a simple disarmament mission - the Iraqis would welcome the US troops and Iraq would be a beacon of freedom, tolerance, and democracy in the middle east. I remember no talk of two years plus of fighting rebels and soothing things over with quarreling ethnic groups? It's not until about a year ago, when I first heard Rumsfeld state that this was going to be a long operation (about the time the terminology changed from "war" to "struggle" - and after the US election), that the administration began to come clear about this IMO.

Would you prefer I said, "from the early stages?" Nobody ever promised me a quick resolution. I think an optimist would always hope for a swift end to this ordeal, but I don't think anyone ever said it would be over quickly. Maybe "major combat", but there's always been the pending reconstruction, which is the more difficult, time-consuming process.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka However, the right choice is not always the most popular one and I have more respect for a leader that is willing to see a mission through than for one who cowers out because suddenly the direction of leadership isn't as popular as it once was. There is a difference between leading and following public opinion.

A++++++++!

A lot of leadership books/essays mention this very point of unpopular decision making.

If countries ran according to popular opinion all the time, they'd have a very flakey government indeed...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka or any other regimes that are openly hostile towards us or who blatantly violate human rights.

Don't we love being hypocritical. The US guilty of this itself on several occasions.

And to address your point about torture/sexual abuse earlier (which is also related to my previous statement), boy don't you have a selective memory. And what about the prisoners in Guantanamo and prisoners transferred to other parts of the world were the US can conduct brutal torture against people who they have no proof of guilt against.

WMDs? Give me a fucking break. Even ex-CIA guys were saying it a bullshit manufactured claim by this Administration (watch Uncovered: The War On Iraq).

And the US obviously doesn't care about brutal dictators, especially as long as they serve their purposes, and have supported plenty in the past, including Sadaam.

I have yet to hear a single valid point from you.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic What do you mean by "get-go"? As far as I remember this thing started as a simple disarmament mission - the Iraqis would welcome the US troops and Iraq would be a beacon of freedom, tolerance, and democracy in the middle east. I remember no talk of two years plus of fighting rebels and soothing things over with quarreling ethnic groups? It's not until about a year ago, when I first heard Rumsfeld state that this was going to be a long operation (about the time the terminology changed from "war" to "struggle" - and after the US election), that the administration began to come clear about this IMO.

I can't understand how people would think such a thing could ever happen over a weekend?
Countries simply don't work that way.

Personally, I'd be way more suspicious if they DID do it that way...
Puppet government, etc., etc. would be the first thing coming to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Don't we love being hypocritical. The US guilty of this itself on several occasions.

Really? When?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Really? When?

I really don't need or want to make any effort educate a blind, ignorant, and highly biased individual such as yourself, as no matter how much evidence is presented, you're not likely to change your mind. All you have to do is read the very next line for one example.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I really don't need or want to make any effort educate a blind, ignorant, and highly biased individual such as yourself, as no matter how much evidence is presented, you're not likely to change your mind. All you have to do is read the very next line for one example.

No need to get personal but that's how you feel you have to be, then so be it.
Note however that it does nothing to enhance your intelligence either since you want to travel down that road...

I, in fact, did read the next line and my question would be, why wasn't it closed down then?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I, in fact, did read the next line and my question would be, why wasn't it closed down then?

That has nothing to do with the point I made earlier, and in no way invalidates it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That has nothing to do with the point I made earlier, and in no way invalidates it.

Me thinks you're reading a little too much into a simple question.
There's nothing between the lines with that question which still stands...why isn't it closed?
I know the arguments as to why it should be as much as anybody here (for the most part) but I haven't come across anything concrete as to why it's still actually open if so much is wrong with it.

Don't worry, you should know me by now, if I wanted to arguement a point I wouldn't be quite has cryptic as you thought my question was...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.