PDA

View Full Version : Something spooky...


jAZ
02-01-2005, 02:24 AM
So two "spooky" things from me tonight...

1) I'm actually kinda excited and optimistic about the Iraqi elections. Yes, I know Bush is gonna try to deflect criticism of his handling of this entire fiasco with some kinda "end justifies the means" BS, and no, it doesn't. But that doesn't change the fact that the best thing (given what a mess things have become over there) is for these elections to succeed. I WANT them to succeed. It's in EVERYONE's best interest that they do. Here's to hoping that it works out better than my 2nd "spooky" thing.

2) The following article...

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.

[snip]

Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/31/2335/87390
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/82602711.html?did=82602711&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Sep+4%2C+1967&author=By+PETER+GROSE+Special+to+The+New+York+Times&desc=U.S.+ENCOURAGED+BY+VIETNAM+VOTE

Fairplay
02-01-2005, 02:33 AM
Apples and oranges Jaz.

jAZ
02-01-2005, 02:38 AM
Apples and oranges Jaz.
ROFL

Baby Lee
02-01-2005, 05:55 AM
Mememe and jAZ think alike. Spppoooooookkkkkyyyy!!!!

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=109362

Bootlegged
02-01-2005, 06:01 AM
I guess jaZ visited Democratic Underground a few hours after memeasshair. Both independent thinkers, not influnced by party lines....


Pathetic.

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 06:43 AM
You guys must’ve gotten your marching orders from DU yesterday. I’ve seen this exact same thing on a couple of other boards.

memyselfI
02-01-2005, 06:58 AM
You guys must’ve gotten your marching orders from DU yesterday. I’ve seen this exact same thing on a couple of other boards.

Nope. I did not see the story on DU but on Daily KOS. Of course, many of us suspected a similiarity of rhetoric and appearance existed. It took one person finding an article in an archive to prove it.

mlyonsd
02-01-2005, 06:59 AM
Nope. I did not see the story on DU but on Daily KOS. Of course, many of us suspected a similiarity of rhetoric and appearance existed. It took one person finding an article in an archive to prove it.

The only similarity at this point is both countries had a vote. Period.

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 07:08 AM
Nope. I did not see the story on DU but on Daily KOS. Of course, many of us suspected a similiarity of rhetoric and appearance existed. It took one person finding an article in an archive to prove it.

Right, so you got your marching orders from this “one person” who wasn’t DU. That makes a difference.

jAZ
02-01-2005, 07:27 AM
The only similarity at this point is both countries had a vote. Period.
Don't you wish that merely saying this could actually make it true? Gosh, that would be great.

Look, I am fully on board with the success of the Iraq elections. There is no doubt in my mind that the best way out of this is through Iraqi citizen ownership of the problems there. And the best way for that to happen is through successful elections.

But I'm also not stupid enough to believe that there are no similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. They are all over the place. This just happens to be the latest, and most distinctly identical.

And, for the record, I DID see this first on DU. What that has to do with the fact that this article was actually written in 1967, and the likelihood that someone could easily get away with updating the dates and changeing the names to Iraqi/muslim sounding names, and publish this exact article and 95% of readers would have no idea it wasn't written about the Iraq war?

It's pretty weird... and it does provide some context to the (rightful) sense of optimism over the elections. And (thankfully for the Iraqi people and our soldiers and my family)... much like the stockmarket (no matter what Bush's SS Privatization advisors tell him) past performance doesn't predict future results. So this could be nothing more than a "spooky" coinicidence.

Let's hope.

jAZ
02-01-2005, 07:28 AM
Right, so you got your marching orders from this “one person” who wasn’t DU. That makes a difference.
Did you click the 2nd link I provided? It's a direct link to the NY Times archives. You can buy the article yourself.

I'm not getting the skepticism on this one.

Cochise
02-01-2005, 07:33 AM
Something spooky... a repost.

looks like the DU mujahideen have begun their insurgency to decry the horrors of democracy

Cochise
02-01-2005, 07:34 AM
Right, so you got your marching orders from this “one person” who wasn’t DU. That makes a difference.

Actually, I was on the board at the time, Amnorix said something about it, and then 5 minutes later Duhnise had a new thread up. Seemed pretty obvious that she'd never heard of elections in SV but when Amnorix said something she probably had to break out the Richbrator

memyselfI
02-01-2005, 07:38 AM
Actually, I was on the board at the time, Amnorix said something about it, and then 5 minutes later Duhnise had a new thread up. Seemed pretty obvious that she'd never heard of elections in SV but when Amnorix said something she probably had to break out the Richbrator


I did not see Amnorix's post on the topic. But just as news supporting RWNJs opinions flies freely through the Free Republic and other RW 'Fascists Are us' types of blogs, so too does news on Dems blogs.

:rolleyes:

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 07:43 AM
Did you click the 2nd link I provided? It's a direct link to the NY Times archives. You can buy the article yourself.

I'm not getting the skepticism on this one.

Skepticism? I’m just pointing out something I’ve noticed, that several other liberals all over the Internet are quoting the same exact thing. Then I’m vocalizing, in a sense, my opinion that this must be because those liberal types got their marching orders to spin negatively.
The only thing I’m “skeptical” about is the motives of those parroting this.

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 07:46 AM
I did not see Amnorix's post on the topic. But just as news supporting RWNJs opinions flies freely through the New Republic and other RW 'Fascists Are us' types of blogs, so too does news on Dems blogs.

:rolleyes:

Ah so you did get your marching orders, thanks for coming clean. :thumb:

Cochise
02-01-2005, 07:55 AM
Ah so you did get your marching orders, thanks for coming clean. :thumb:

It's all the same script, whether it supposedly cames from some socialist web blog or Muckrakers Underground or whereever else.

memyselfI
02-01-2005, 07:58 AM
Ah so you did get your marching orders, thanks for coming clean. :thumb:

Yes, I saw a post on a website that I thought backed up my claim of being too soon to tell if the election was a positive or negative. And then I actually decided to copy and paste the story as a new thread seeing I'd been challenged all morning on my 'pessimism' and 'need' to see the election fail. What better way to prove my point than to revisit history.

Imagine, I did this without even being INSTRUCTED to spread the word but on my own. I actually implemented proper orders BEFORE receiving them...what a good soldier I would be... :bang: If only I could kill on command... :hmmm:

mlyonsd
02-01-2005, 07:59 AM
Don't you wish that merely saying this could actually make it true? Gosh, that would be great.

Look, I am fully on board with the success of the Iraq elections. There is no doubt in my mind that the best way out of this is through Iraqi citizen ownership of the problems there. And the best way for that to happen is through successful elections.

But I'm also not stupid enough to believe that there are no similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. They are all over the place. This just happens to be the latest, and most distinctly identical.

And, for the record, I DID see this first on DU. What that has to do with the fact that this article was actually written in 1967, and the likelihood that someone could easily get away with updating the dates and changeing the names to Iraqi/muslim sounding names, and publish this exact article and 95% of readers would have no idea it wasn't written about the Iraq war?

It's pretty weird... and it does provide some context to the (rightful) sense of optimism over the elections. And (thankfully for the Iraqi people and our soldiers and my family)... much like the stockmarket (no matter what Bush's SS Privatization advisors tell him) past performance doesn't predict future results. So this could be nothing more than a "spooky" coinicidence.

Let's hope.

Well then if you want to make comparisons.....this is no different then us liberating Europe from Nazi Germany and the Phillipines from Japan.

You libs will hold onto anything in the hopes Bush will look bad. Kinda reminds me of the Reagan years.

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 08:03 AM
Well then if you want to make comparisons.....this is no different then us liberating Europe from Nazi Germany and the Phillipines from Japan.

You libs will hold onto anything in the hopes Bush will look bad. Kinda reminds me of the Reagan years.

You're not the only one.

Cochise
02-01-2005, 08:08 AM
Well, I'm not old enough to remember much about the Reagan years, but it seems like the libs have evolved in the past 4 years from presenting alternatives to running around with their hair on fire about the worst case scenario, then moving on to something else when that doesn't happen.

See: Ted "oldsmobile" Kennedy's demands that the election be postponed because it would be a disaster to the libs' return to the 'Vietnam' whispering.

Baby Lee
02-01-2005, 08:10 AM
You have to excuse Mememe, it's a personality trait. Her Gammy Talibanny was in the hospital recently at death's door. Then, with the whole clan gathered around her hospital bed, Gammy's vitals stabilized and her breathing eased. the doctor noted that it appeared that the fever had passed.

Ever the ray of sunshine, Mememe noted for all "She's still gonna die someday."

SBK
02-01-2005, 08:11 AM
The only similarity at this point is both countries had a vote. Period.

No, neither is a predominately white nation either. Don't forget both were racist wars. ROFL

Baby Lee
02-01-2005, 08:12 AM
Well, I'm not old enough to remember much about the Reagan years, but it seems like the libs have evolved in the past 4 years from presenting alternatives to running around with their hair on fire about the worst case scenario, then moving on to something else when that doesn't happen.

See: Ted "oldsmobile" Kennedy's demands that the election be postponed because it would be a disaster to the libs' return to the 'Vietnam' whispering.
Even Blue State Stewart laughed at how off pitch and pathetic Teddy looked on last nights TDS.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 08:13 AM
Well then if you want to make comparisons.....this is no different then us liberating Europe from Nazi Germany and the Phillipines from Japan.

You libs will hold onto anything in the hopes Bush will look bad. Kinda reminds me of the Reagan years.

As I stated recently, Germany, Japan, Vietnam and Iraq are each unique situations, with very different cultures and military/social/political situations leading to the conflicts and resolutions to the conflicts that engulfed each of those nations.

I worry that Iraq is more like Vietnam than like Germany and Japan, for reasons previously debated at length on this board. Hopefully, regardless of which historical precedent is "most similar", we can establish a stable, friendly regime in Iraq. Only time will tell, however.

SBK
02-01-2005, 08:17 AM
I worry that Iraq is more like Vietnam than like Germany and Japan, for reasons previously debated at length on this board. Hopefully, regardless of which historical precedent is "most similar", we can establish a stable, friendly regime in Iraq. Only time will tell, however.

I think libs compare Iraq to Vietnam instead of Japan, Germany etc. because they are rooting for a loss in Iraq too. They don't want to see us succeed like we did in WW1 and WW2.

Michael Michigan
02-01-2005, 08:17 AM
So two "spooky" things from me tonight...


2) The following article...

What's so "spooky" is that it took you so long to post this. My favorite moonbats mailed me several copies of this on Monday morning.

Was your ISP down?

Cochise
02-01-2005, 08:19 AM
What's so "spooky" is that it took you so long to post this. My favorite moonbats mailed me several copies of this on Monday morning.

Was your ISP down?

Apparently your barking moonbat early warning system is fully functional :thumb:

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 08:24 AM
I think libs compare Iraq to Vietnam instead of Japan, Germany etc. because they are rooting for a loss in Iraq too. They don't want to see us succeed like we did in WW1 and WW2.

First off, and I mean this quite seriously:
**** YOU!!


Second, I have posted in detail about why Iraq is really extremely different from Germany and Japan, while there are a disturbing number of similarities with Vietnam.

I don't have time today to repeat everything I've posted on this before, so for now, I'll just refer back to my first statement above.

Joe Seahawk
02-01-2005, 08:25 AM
This was in today's PI by a hard left cartoonist..

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050201/cartoon20050201.gif

SBK
02-01-2005, 08:26 AM
First off, and I mean this quite seriously:
**** YOU!!


Second, I have posted in detail about why Iraq is really extremely different from Germany and Japan, while there are a disturbing number of similarities with Vietnam.

I don't have time today to repeat everything I've posted on this before, so for now, I'll just refer back to my first statement above.

If you would read my post again I said libs, not you. You also said you hoped that it turns out well, which I said libs didn't want. :thumb: Neg rep coming your way for not reading what I said..ROFL (and referring to me in a negative light)

Baby Lee
02-01-2005, 08:28 AM
If you would read my post again I said libs, not you. You also said you hoped that it turns out well, which I said libs didn't want. :thumb: Neg rep coming your way for not reading what I said..ROFL (and referring to me in a negative light)
You did reply to his post specifically.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 08:30 AM
If you would read my post again I said libs, not you. You also said you hoped that it turns out well, which I said libs didn't want. :thumb: Neg rep coming your way for not reading what I said..ROFL (and referring to me in a negative light)

I'm a liberal. For the first year I simply had "A Liberal" as part of my avatar.

I'm beyond tired of pathetic accusations that liberals, or anyone else that disagrees with Bush and some or all of his stupider policies, are unamerican, unpatriotic, or do not have this country's best interests at heart. The ability of the right to wrap themselves in the flag and convince themselves that ONLY THEY are true patriots is unbelievably pathetic and absurd.

stevieray
02-01-2005, 08:31 AM
First off, and I mean this quite seriously:
**** YOU!!


Second, I have posted in detail about why Iraq is really extremely different from Germany and Japan, while there are a disturbing number of similarities with Vietnam.

I don't have time today to repeat everything I've posted on this before, so for now, I'll just refer back to my first statement above.

:deevee:

By all means , hold onto that Vietnam comparison.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 08:33 AM
I see all the CP lwnjs have officially received the talking points pamphlet from DU. Good job USPS.

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 08:35 AM
I'm a liberal. For the first year I simply had "A Liberal" as part of my avatar.

I'm beyond tired of pathetic accusations that liberals, or anyone else that disagrees with Bush and some or all of his stupider policies, are unamerican, unpatriotic, or do not have this country's best interests at heart. The ability of the right to wrap themselves in the flag and convince themselves that ONLY THEY are true patriots is unbelievably pathetic and absurd.

Kinda funny that you’d gripe about blanket statements then immediately make one.

SBK
02-01-2005, 08:36 AM
I'm a liberal. For the first year I simply had "A Liberal" as part of my avatar.

I'm beyond tired of pathetic accusations that liberals, or anyone else that disagrees with Bush and some or all of his stupider policies, are unamerican, unpatriotic, or do not have this country's best interests at heart. The ability of the right to wrap themselves in the flag and convince themselves that ONLY THEY are true patriots is unbelievably pathetic and absurd.

Before I reply to this, if I wanted to say you, I would just say you. See my replies to meme. You seem to be a pretty fair guy, even though you're a lib :p. I really wasn't referring to you, guess I should have made that more clear. I was adding to your point.

I don't think accusations are pathetic that the right is more patriotic than the left. Not ALL lefties are rooting against this nation, but you have to admit that there are a lot that are. Been to the DU lately? I don't see conservatives bashing every policy this nation has ever had, and speaking out about everything we do being a "quagmire" and that we cannot handle it. Or how "evil" or "empirialistic" we are. The only land we've ever aquired thru war was land we bought to bury our dead. I have never seen a conservative saying things like these.

I know not all libs are that way, but there are a lot that are, and unfortunately for the fair libs, they get lumped into that too.

Baby Lee
02-01-2005, 08:38 AM
The only land we've ever aquired thru war was land we bought to bury our dead.
That's just dumb. You're making that old Indian cry all over again.

SBK
02-01-2005, 08:40 AM
That's just dumb. You're making that old Indian cry all over again.

You have a problem with Indians or something?

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 08:41 AM
Ugg, Baby Lee, heap big trouble.... great white buffalo catch'um many spears

mlyonsd
02-01-2005, 08:42 AM
As I stated recently, Germany, Japan, Vietnam and Iraq are each unique situations, with very different cultures and military/social/political situations leading to the conflicts and resolutions to the conflicts that engulfed each of those nations.

I worry that Iraq is more like Vietnam than like Germany and Japan, for reasons previously debated at length on this board. Hopefully, regardless of which historical precedent is "most similar", we can establish a stable, friendly regime in Iraq. Only time will tell, however.

My comparing Iraq with Europe was mostly hypothetical. I was only using it as an example there are comparisons to almost all these types of situations and it's easy to grab onto just about anything.

Yes, South Vietnam had elections that in the end were pointless. But there are so many things different comparing it at this time is fruitless.

I'm like you I just the elections as a step and only time will tell. But to not see it as a positive step as some have done is only being politically biased IMO.

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 08:42 AM
You have a problem with Indians or something?

He’s saying is that the vast majority of land that we now call the United States was taken from the Indians through war, genocide, broken treaties, forced poverty, etc….

SBK
02-01-2005, 08:45 AM
He’s saying is that the vast majority of land that we now call the United States was taken from the Indians through war, genocide, broken treaties, forced poverty, etc….

Oh. Should've caught that one.

Brock
02-01-2005, 08:46 AM
http://www.bottlebill.org/images/general/crying.gif

Cochise
02-01-2005, 08:47 AM
Kinda funny that you’d gripe about blanket statements then immediately make one.

Ooh... Radar just picked up one on the Lederman card %(/

Donger
02-01-2005, 08:53 AM
I'm a liberal. For the first year I simply had "A Liberal" as part of my avatar.

I'm beyond tired of pathetic accusations that liberals, or anyone else that disagrees with Bush and some or all of his stupider policies, are unamerican, unpatriotic, or do not have this country's best interests at heart. The ability of the right to wrap themselves in the flag and convince themselves that ONLY THEY are true patriots is unbelievably pathetic and absurd.

I agree. However, you must admit that (to borrow your flag example), people who are more likey to burn said flag than wrap themselves in it would more likely call themselves "liberal" than "conservative."

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 09:10 AM
You did reply to his post specifically.

Hey yeah -- that too! :)

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 09:11 AM
I agree. However, you must admit that (to borrow your flag example), people who are more likey to burn said flag than wrap themselves in it would more likely call themselves "liberal" than "conservative."

Can't argue that. I do agree that flag burning is probably free speech. I also think it's unbelievably ignorant and counterproductive, but then there's little rationalizing what the radical ends of the political spectrum do...

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 09:12 AM
I see all the CP lwnjs have officially received the talking points pamphlet from DU. Good job USPS.

Not sure if I qualify as a lwnj, but I have never visited Democratic Underground. Frankly, I spend too much time at this site... :)

RINGLEADER
02-01-2005, 09:20 AM
And, for the record, I DID see this first on DU. What that has to do with the fact that this article was actually written in 1967, and the likelihood that someone could easily get away with updating the dates and changeing the names to Iraqi/muslim sounding names, and publish this exact article and 95% of readers would have no idea it wasn't written about the Iraq war?


Wow, that's surprising.

And, unfortunately for your feeble attempt to seem open to the Iraqi elections that came about only because of your self-described "fiasco", the elections in Vietnam - both substantively and demographically - bear absolutely no resemblence to what took place this past weekend.

It's amazing that you have to keep reminding the liberals of the differences between Iraq and Vietnam, but let them keep digging I say...

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 09:23 AM
Not sure if I qualify as a lwnj, but I have never visited Democratic Underground. Frankly, I spend too much time at this site... :)

heh, nah I wouldn't consider you a lwnj. You're a liberal, but an objective one (as much as libbies can be objective :p ).

DU is a hoot - you should check it out some time. Those people are raving lunatics.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 09:25 AM
I'm like you I just the elections as a step and only time will tell. But to not see it as a positive step as some have done is only being politically biased IMO.

Well, it certainly isn't a negative step. It's unlikely to be a neutral step, so that leaves only a positive step. I find it hard to see how it could be anything other than a positive step.

Whether it's a positive step that LEADS anywhere, that remains to be seen.

RINGLEADER
02-01-2005, 09:31 AM
As I stated recently, Germany, Japan, Vietnam and Iraq are each unique situations, with very different cultures and military/social/political situations leading to the conflicts and resolutions to the conflicts that engulfed each of those nations.

I worry that Iraq is more like Vietnam than like Germany and Japan, for reasons previously debated at length on this board. Hopefully, regardless of which historical precedent is "most similar", we can establish a stable, friendly regime in Iraq. Only time will tell, however.

I agree with this statement except that we didn't defeat the enemy's government in Vietnam, didn't capture and kill its leaders, didn't allow the enemy to form an interim government that enabled the populations to get a taste of freedom, didn't set the conditions that allowed the enemy to vote for their own leaders and write their own constitution. In Vietnam we were fighting against a greater war on communism with well-funded and armed proxies. The North Vietnamese also were fighting for a belief and ideology whereas the Sunnis in Iraq that are fighting are doing so because they have no other options available to them (as they should not).

I think it's also important to note that the technology we can now employ provides such a higher level of force projection and accuracy in our attacks that we have been able to effectively limit civilian casualties in comparison to Vietnam. I've questioned before how Vietnam might have been different had we had the ability to launch missiles from out of the immediate theater and hit the headquarters and bases and communications infrastructure of the VC the way we dismantled the Iraqis and continue to attack them today.

Your overall assessment, that only time will tell, is completely accurate and the main reason why I'm willing to give the Bush admin a wide berth for some time...ultimately, however, it is up to the Iraqi people - just as it was for the Germans, Japanese, and Vietnamese - to determine when and if they want to embrace democracy or not.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 09:34 AM
heh, nah I wouldn't consider you a lwnj. You're a liberal, but an objective one (as much as libbies can be objective :p ).

DU is a hoot - you should check it out some time. Those people are raving lunatics.

Great, like my party really needs those. :banghead:

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 09:38 AM
I agree with this statement except that we didn't defeat the enemy's government in Vietnam, didn't capture and kill its leaders, didn't allow the enemy to form an interim government that enabled the populations to get a taste of freedom, didn't set the conditions that allowed the enemy to vote for their own leaders and write their own constitution. In Vietnam we were fighting against a greater war on communism with well-funded and armed proxies. The North Vietnamese also were fighting for a belief and ideology whereas the Sunnis in Iraq that are fighting are doing so because they have no other options available to them (as they should not).

The area we were trying to protect was South Vietnam. The government and local forces there were friendly to us, and did have relatively free elections so far as I'm aware.

It appears that at least some insurgents in Iraq may be well-funded and armed proxies, though not so much so as in Vietnam. I'd agree that the difference in firepower between our forces and the enemy in Iraq is significantly greater than was the case in Vietnam.

I think it's also important to note that the technology we can now employ provides such a higher level of force projection and accuracy in our attacks that we have been able to effectively limit civilian casualties in comparison to Vietnam. I've questioned before how Vietnam might have been different had we had the ability to launch missiles from out of the immediate theater and hit the headquarters and bases and communications infrastructure of the VC the way we dismantled the Iraqis and continue to attack them today.

Agreed. I also note that local conditions (desert vs. jungle) are more favorable to us in Iraq than was the case in Vietnam.

Your overall assessment, that only time will tell, is completely accurate and the main reason why I'm willing to give the Bush admin a wide berth for some time...ultimately, however, it is up to the Iraqi people - just as it was for the Germans, Japanese, and Vietnamese - to determine when and if they want to embrace democracy or not.

I agree with all this, even to giving the Bush administration a fair bit of discretion with regard to this action of theirs.

Iraq will define Bush, for good or for bad.

I remain CONVINCED that undertaking this project was a bad idea, regardless of outcome. But stupid actions have led to good results before, and I think that a good result is all that's left to hope for. I remain doubtful, but Bush has about 4 years to straighten it out. If he fails, then the Republicans will likely be swept out of power across all of Washington. Hell, the mid-term elections will be the first test of what the American public thinks of our ongoing Iraq involvement.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 09:40 AM
Great, like my party really needs those. :banghead:

Hate to break the news to you, but your party IS 'those'. The lunatic fringe has co-opted the DP.

RINGLEADER
02-01-2005, 09:41 AM
I'm a liberal. For the first year I simply had "A Liberal" as part of my avatar.

I'm beyond tired of pathetic accusations that liberals, or anyone else that disagrees with Bush and some or all of his stupider policies, are unamerican, unpatriotic, or do not have this country's best interests at heart. The ability of the right to wrap themselves in the flag and convince themselves that ONLY THEY are true patriots is unbelievably pathetic and absurd.


I like you a lot Amnorix because you seem to have a pretty level-headed approach to debating these issues (not to mention that we both picked the Pats to win it all before the playoffs even began :thumb: ). Which is why I can't understand why you would pull out the "right thinks only they are patriotic" card that we heard over and over during the election when no one of any importance on the right ever said such a thing.

I understand why you wouldn't want to be painted with a broad brush, but there is a sizeable slice of the far-left who ARE upset that Iraqis are voting because it makes Bush look good. Go over to DU and you'll see what I mean (there was a huge thread where libs were fighting and pissing and moaning about how the turnout couldn't be more than 30%) - totally irrational behavior that is, as you say, unbelievably pathetic and absurd.

RINGLEADER
02-01-2005, 09:50 AM
The area we were trying to protect was South Vietnam. The government and local forces there were friendly to us, and did have relatively free elections so far as I'm aware.

The government of South Vietnam was corrupt and not exactly loved by their people.

It appears that at least some insurgents in Iraq may be well-funded and armed proxies, though not so much so as in Vietnam. I'd agree that the difference in firepower between our forces and the enemy in Iraq is significantly greater than was the case in Vietnam.

I agree here...but again the absence of an ideological or political alternative to what we're offering is a huge difference from Vietnam. The fact that the North was fighting for a tangible goal that they believed in is absent from the Iraqi insurgents (unless you count killing Americans as a tangible goal)...but as the Dems found out hate isn't exactly a winning political strategy (sorry, couldn't resist ;) )

Agreed. I also note that local conditions (desert vs. jungle) are more favorable to us in Iraq than was the case in Vietnam.

Yep.

I agree with all this, even to giving the Bush administration a fair bit of discretion with regard to this action of theirs.

Iraq will define Bush, for good or for bad.

Agree and agree.

I remain CONVINCED that undertaking this project was a bad idea, regardless of outcome. But stupid actions have led to good results before, and I think that a good result is all that's left to hope for. I remain doubtful, but Bush has about 4 years to straighten it out. If he fails, then the Republicans will likely be swept out of power across all of Washington. Hell, the mid-term elections will be the first test of what the American public thinks of our ongoing Iraq involvement.

That's were thoughtful minds can disagree I guess. I find it important to set an example for these outlaw regimes and Saddam's history made him an excellent example while simultaneously allowing us to get a foothold in the backyard of our enemy. More democracy and freedom will have an impact in the region and that impact would not have been felt had we not made the decision to go in.

And that's completely ignoring the fact that, at the time, the UN, the CIA and foreign intelligence services were telling the president that Saddam had not accounted for his WMDs, was still subverting the inspections process and had contacts with Al-Qaeda. I know a lot of liberals want to ignore the facts that existed when the decision was made, but I think after 9/11 doing nothing would have sent a very bad signal.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 09:58 AM
Hate to break the news to you, but your party IS 'those'. The lunatic fringe has co-opted the DP.

:shrug: No more or less so than the lunatic fringe on the right has co-opted the Republicans.

It really is sad to see how moderates in both parties just get killed.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 10:00 AM
I like you a lot Amnorix because you seem to have a pretty level-headed approach to debating these issues (not to mention that we both picked the Pats to win it all before the playoffs even began :thumb: ). Which is why I can't understand why you would pull out the "right thinks only they are patriotic" card that we heard over and over during the election when no one of any importance on the right ever said such a thing.

Really, the "right thinks only they are patriotic" is in response to what I see on this BB, not from actual politicians. Of course, the right on this BB usually points to the most ludicrous things that any member of any liberal organization does and says "see, they're a bunch of nuts", so... :shrug:I understand why you wouldn't want to be painted with a broad brush, but there is a sizeable slice of the far-left who ARE upset that Iraqis are voting because it makes Bush look good. Go over to DU and you'll see what I mean (there was a huge thread where libs were fighting and pissing and moaning about how the turnout couldn't be more than 30%) - totally irrational behavior that is, as you say, unbelievably pathetic and absurd.
It is pathetic and absurd. And the extreme right does pathetic and absurd things as well.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 10:02 AM
No more or less so than the lunatic fringe on the right has co-opted the Republicans.

:spock:
I disagree, here. The RWNJs are definitely a part of the RP, but they're shoved to the back of the room, so to speak. The LWNJs are actually running the show for the DP.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 10:14 AM
The government of South Vietnam was corrupt and not exactly loved by their people.

Right, but they were all we had to work with so we propped them up. Whether Iraq's government is any less corrupt or more loved also remains to be seen.

I agree here...but again the absence of an ideological or political alternative to what we're offering is a huge difference from Vietnam. The fact that the North was fighting for a tangible goal that they believed in is absent from the Iraqi insurgents (unless you count killing Americans as a tangible goal)...but as the Dems found out hate isn't exactly a winning political strategy (sorry, couldn't resist ;) )

The reasons why we lost the election are many and complex. I don't think you can just say "Democrats just spew hate so they lost". IMHO that doesn't even begin to cover the topic.

RELIGION is the X-factor in Iraq that we can't control or account for very well.

And that's completely ignoring the fact that, at the time, the UN, the CIA and foreign intelligence services were telling the president that Saddam had not accounted for his WMDs, was still subverting the inspections process and had contacts with Al-Qaeda. I know a lot of liberals want to ignore the facts that existed when the decision was made, but I think after 9/11 doing nothing would have sent a very bad signal.

It appears that Bush operated on faulty intelligence with respect to WMDs. I don't blame him for that unless his administration leaned on those analyzing the data. As no Congressional or other investigation will ever look into that, we'll never know on that front.

The contacts with Al-Queda were exceedingly minimal, and not even referenced by Bush in any meaningful way in the buiild-up to the invasion. Not even the administration cited that as a reason for the invasion.

The 9/11 Commission handled all these matters, and it's not like the Bush Administration came out looking like a rose on much of this.

Let me put it this way -- the reasons the American public were given for the invasion of Iraq turned out to be invalid. Whether that's truly the blame of the top levels of the Administration hasn't really been determined, and isn't going to be. I think it's unlikely that BushCo manufactured the evidence, or unduly leaned on their intelligence operatives, but who knows.

Ultimately, the reasons we invaded Iraq are (1) punish a rogue dictator who was pissing us off, (2) attempt to create a friendly government in a hostile region, (3) send a message to other rogue dictators who piss us off, (4) maybe/hopefully/happily get a military base in a sensitive region, (5) move the world's second largest source of proven oil reserves from an unfriendly, hostile government to a friendly government, and (6) get rid of a murderous, brutal dictator who was oppressing millions of people.

Obviously, none of these are bad things. The issues are (1) would any of them compelled the US populace to support a war there, (2) were any of them important or significant enough to justify the costs, both in dollars and the blood of US soldiers, and (3) will we be able to achieve our long term goals.

Note that Eisenhower in the 50s supported the Shah and secured Iran as a friend for 25 or so years. At the end, however, the recoil was horrific, and the pendulum swung all the way to the other end of the spectrum, and the US-supported regime was resented and hated by the population, and ultimtely rejected in favor of a religious nutjob government. Only now, 25 MORE years later, is the pendulum swinging back to the middle somewhat in Iran.

Our actions have SERIOUS consequences, not only in the short term but the long term. I'm dubious that BushCo have done a very good job of calculating the short and long term results of their actions.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 10:17 AM
The DP needs more level-headed individuals like you, Amnorix.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 10:19 AM
:spock:
I disagree, here. The RWNJs are definitely a part of the RP, but they're shoved to the back of the room, so to speak. The LWNJs are actually running the show for the DP.

That's your perception, because that's the side of the fence you're sitting on. My perception is the exact opposite, for the same reason.

IMHO the religious right isn't just part of the Republican party anymore, now it IS the Republican party. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition now run the Republican party. God, guns, religion, anti-abortion, lower taxes, and damn everything else.

Michael Michigan
02-01-2005, 10:21 AM
Apparently your barking moonbat early warning system is fully functional :thumb:

Indeed. I wake up to 10 or 15 talking points each day.

I guess I should have posted it.

I think this one came from a DU guy, but I can't recall and I deleted it.

Michael Michigan
02-01-2005, 10:23 AM
:spock:
I disagree, here. The RWNJs are definitely a part of the RP, but they're shoved to the back of the room, so to speak. The LWNJs are actually running the show for the DP.

Don't knock it HC.

Howard Dean as the head of the DNC id great copy.

Cochise
02-01-2005, 10:24 AM
That's your perception, because that's the side of the fence you're sitting on. My perception is the exact opposite, for the same reason.

IMHO the religious right isn't just part of the Republican party anymore, now it IS the Republican party. Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition now run the Republican party. God, guns, religion, anti-abortion, lower taxes, and damn everything else.

The base religious to some degree or another. The base is anti-gun control. The base is anti-abortion. The base wants lower taxes. And I would submit that those are majority positions in America or very nearly so.

The fringe are the no 3 exceptions to abortion people, the outlaw porn people, the legalize automatic weapons people, etc.

Just like, on the left, you have the totally outlaw handguns people, the state funded abortion on demand people, the people like Sharpton who say 50% in taxes wouldn't be high enough.

Probably, from a couple of miles away on the political spectrum, they all look the same, but they aren't.

RINGLEADER
02-01-2005, 10:24 AM
Really, the "right thinks only they are patriotic" is in response to what I see on this BB, not from actual politicians. Of course, the right on this BB usually points to the most ludicrous things that any member of any liberal organization does and says "see, they're a bunch of nuts", so... :shrug:
It is pathetic and absurd. And the extreme right does pathetic and absurd things as well.


If you had said "extreme right" I wouldn't have argued the point.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 10:33 AM
God, guns, religion, anti-abortion, lower taxes, and damn everything else.

God - an entity our founding fathers deeply believed-in; the foundation for which our morality, as a nation, is based

Guns - 2nd Amendment.

Religion - see: God. There is no "state-sanctioned" religion in this country... there IS a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, which hasn't been trampled on (except by the anti-christian left) :hmmm:

Anti-Abortion - correct. Abortion is abbhorent; disgusting. The only time it should be allowed is to save the life of the mother (medical emergency only).

Lower taxes - and that's a bad thing?

"Damn everything else" - you can't be serious. This administration has put education in the forefront. Has pushed for radical reformations in Social Security (a social program that will soon bankrupt our nation if we don't do something soon), spent more money on AIDS research than any administration in history, all while fighting WWIII.

Donger
02-01-2005, 10:35 AM
God - an entity our founding fathers deeply believed-in

For the sake of accuracy, SOME did. Some were downright anti-religious.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 10:39 AM
For the sake of accuracy, SOME did. Some were downright anti-religious.

MAJORITY, not some. And, even so, they agreed a separation of church & state was in the nation's best interest. :) Secular government, religious populace.... with the freedom to celebrate whatever religion they wish; including atheism.

Donger
02-01-2005, 10:44 AM
MAJORITY, not some. And, even so, they agreed a separation of church & state was in the nation's best interest. :) Secular government, religious populace.... with the freedom to celebrate whatever religion they wish; including atheism.

I suppose that depends on how you define "God." Unless I'm mistaken, the majority of the FFs were Deists.

:thumb: on the rest.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 10:48 AM
God - an entity our founding fathers deeply believed-in; the foundation for which our morality, as a nation, is based

"God" -- a word that appears in our Constitution precisely ZERO times, and in the Declaration of Independence precisely ONCE. I do not deny that the Founding Fathers were religious, but they thought religion and good governance didn't necessarily go hand in hand.

Guns - 2nd Amendment.

See "militia", also in the 2nd amendment.

Religion - see: God. There is no "state-sanctioned" religion in this country... there IS a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, which hasn't been trampled on (except by the anti-christian left) :hmmm:

Actually, a true liberal would support your right to worship whatever religion you saw fit. Religion and progressive ideals are HARDLY exclusive. It's muddying the waters between religion and government that is a problem to liberals.

Anti-Abortion - correct. Abortion is abbhorent; disgusting. The only time it should be allowed is to save the life of the mother (medical emergency only).

I'm not particularly interested in rehashing arguments over abortion, I'm just stressing that the right tends to be utterly focused on a small group of concepts, and the rest is irrelevant.

Lower taxes - and that's a bad thing?

Definitely not necessarily, but all things are relative, and modern good governance includes more than building tanks and aircraft carriers.

"Damn everything else" - you can't be serious. This administration has put education in the forefront. Has pushed for radical reformations in Social Security (a social program that will soon bankrupt our nation if we don't do something soon), spent more money on AIDS research than any administration in history, all while fighting WWIII.

Add "the military" to the list of things the right is hyperfocused on.

"World War III" this isn't.

I can be serious -- half the right would like to dissolve the Department of Education and just throw it all back to the states because it's not clear that education is a federal matter, or somesuch.

I agree with the need for social security reform, and appluad Bush's efforts to do SOMETHING there. Unfortunately, the Democrats will kill him on the issue, so nothing will happen.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 10:48 AM
I suppose that depends on how you define "God." Unless I'm mistaken, the majority of the FFs were Deists.

:thumb: on the rest.

Good point; and you're not mistaken ;)

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 10:50 AM
I suppose that depends on how you define "God." Unless I'm mistaken, the majority of the FFs were Deists.

Correct.


I'll throw in my usual comment -- the Founding Fathers did a GREAT job with what they had to work with. My compliments to them, but they were NOT Gods, were NOT perfect, and their thoughts/opinions etc. should not control how the US runs itself today, except as set forth in the Constitution, etc.

6 Iron
02-01-2005, 10:54 AM
Ultimately, the reasons we invaded Iraq are (1) punish a rogue dictator who was pissing us off, (2) attempt to create a friendly government in a hostile region, (3) send a message to other rogue dictators who piss us off, (4) maybe/hopefully/happily get a military base in a sensitive region, (5) move the world's second largest source of proven oil reserves from an unfriendly, hostile government to a friendly government, and (6) get rid of a murderous, brutal dictator who was oppressing millions of people.

Obviously, none of these are bad things. The issues are (1) would any of them compelled the US populace to support a war there, (2) were any of them important or significant enough to justify the costs, both in dollars and the blood of US soldiers, and (3) will we be able to achieve our long term goals.

Herein lies the analytical problem, and the source of debate. It is not a matter of analyzing any one reason, but rather making a prospective decision based on all of the indications. This is why the after the fact "no WMD" mantra espoused by others (no broad paintbrush here!) carries so little weight.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 10:58 AM
Add "the military" to the list of things the right is hyperfocused on.

Post Gulf War I, our military was dismantled. We have had to invest quite a bit of $ to get it back into operational shape. At the same time, we've applied new theories to our warfare.

"World War III" this isn't.

I strongly disagree here. You may not take the fight against Islamafascism as serious as I do, but make no mistake about it: our enemies certainly wish to destroy you, me, our children, and our nation. We ARE in a global war against a group of evil motherf*ckers. I, for one, am DAMN glad our administration sees it as I do: we're in a fight for our existence.

I can be serious -- half the right would like to dissolve the Department of Education and just throw it all back to the states because it's not clear that education is a federal matter, or somesuch.

The DoE is a waste of taxpayer $; it has done more harm than good. Since its inception, the quality of public education in this nation has declined. I'd be eccstatic if the federal beuracracy were dismantled.

I agree with the need for social security reform, and appluad Bush's efforts to do SOMETHING there. Unfortunately, the Democrats will kill him on the issue, so nothing will happen.

Not likely. The RP has the majority in both the House and the Senate. There are working models in-place which prove priavatization works. Most polls indicate citizens under the age of 55 not only approve of privatization, but encourage it. If the DP tries to stand in the way, the backlash will be huge.

RINGLEADER
02-01-2005, 11:06 AM
Correct.

I'll throw in my usual comment -- the Founding Fathers did a GREAT job with what they had to work with. My compliments to them, but they were NOT Gods, were NOT perfect, and their thoughts/opinions etc. should not control how the US runs itself today, except as set forth in the Constitution, etc.


No doubt. Look at how many times we've had to update the damn thing...

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 12:12 PM
The contacts with Al-Queda were exceedingly minimal, and not even referenced by Bush in any meaningful way in the buiild-up to the invasion. Not even the administration cited that as a reason for the invasion.


Yes he did. Powel mentioned the conection to Al-Quada in is speach to the UN, then IIRC Bush repeated it in his SotU address.
What they didn’t claim was any connection from Saddam’s Iraq to the Sept. 11th attacks.

Let me put it this way -- the reasons the American public were given for the invasion of Iraq turned out to be invalid. Whether that's truly the blame of the top levels of the Administration hasn't really been determined, and isn't going to be. I think it's unlikely that BushCo manufactured the evidence, or unduly leaned on their intelligence operatives, but who knows.


Invalid? Not quite. It’s obvious now that some of the claims were over inflated or just flat bogus, but when you take away all the hyperbole, we are still left with all these things missing. (http://www.desert-voice.net/what_is_missing.htm)

Chemical: What happened to 3.9 tons of VX chemical agent? Experts either want proof of its destruction or its location. The Iraqis have told different stories over the years, but ultimately admitted prior to 1998 that they had produced that much VX and had stabilized it. Iraq has claimed the documentation on the destruction was lost or destroyed by coalition bombing, but the inspectors do not believe the Iraqis, noting that officials made seven copies of every program document, each for a different archive.
The Iraqis also claim that after 10 years, the VX would be destabilized even if it did exist. The inspectors say that once VX is stabilized — and the Iraqis admit they were able to stabilize it — it can remain effective for up to 100 years. Iraq has also denied it had weaponized VX for missile warheads, but tests conducted by an earlier weapons inspection team proved otherwise. In addition, the United Nations is seeking information on 6,000 aerial bombs filled with chemical weapons and 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

Biological weapons: U.N. experts either want proof of destruction or the location of 17 tons of biological growth media needed for growing the biological agents for weaponry. The missing growth media represent half of what inspectors believe was imported by Iraq. The inspectors also want information on 15 missile warheads filled with biological agents and 157 aerial bombs believed to be filled with biological agents.

Missiles: U.N. experts either want proof of destruction or the location of Scud-type missiles. Estimates of these weapons are based in part on what Iraq did with 845 Scud missiles it imported from the Soviet Union, some of which were fired during the Iran-Iraq and Gulf Wars, and some of which were converted to longer-range missiles.
What concerns the inspectors is that Iraq developed its own missile design based on Scud and Condor missile technology. They now believe that Iraq actually built missiles based on that design but they cannot locate the weapons. The Condor missile was an Argentine-Egyptian-Iraqi program whose technology was far superior to the Scuds. Iraq said it had only tested the missile, but the inspectors believe Iraq has deployed it. Estimates vary greatly on how many missiles may be missing. U.N. experts believe there are around seven, the CIA estimates there are two to 12 and Israel believes there are up to 70. The weapons inspectors also are interested in 50 conventional missile warheads and 500-plus tons of missile fuel.

Nuclear: The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has responsibility for nuclear weapons inspections, wants Iraq to provide some key information: documentation related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons design program and details on foreign sources of assistance. The inspectors fear that Iraq may have either continued to pay foreigners who helped assist their program, or sent its own scientists abroad to work with those who provided assistance, and that when sanctions are listed, the scientists could easily restart their programs. Still, the nuclear agency has long said it “found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons, or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.”

Ultimately, the reasons we invaded Iraq are (1) punish a rogue dictator who was pissing us off, (2) attempt to create a friendly government in a hostile region, (3) send a message to other rogue dictators who piss us off, (4) maybe/hopefully/happily get a military base in a sensitive region, (5) move the world's second largest source of proven oil reserves from an unfriendly, hostile government to a friendly government, and (6) get rid of a murderous, brutal dictator who was oppressing millions of people.


I’ll agree with most of this but you’ve left some out. (7) Eliminating a source of money and refuge for terrorists including those that had attacked us. (8) Eliminating the possibility that he might give those WMDs that are still unaccounted for to terrorists for use against us. (9) Taking the fight to the enemy.
It’s quite obvious to me that sitting on our collective thumbs is what brought foreign terrorism to our shores. I don’t know whether Bush’s policy of confronting terrorists where they live is the correct one or not but it’s different. We’ll just have to wait and see how effective it is.

Baby Lee
02-01-2005, 12:45 PM
Let me put it this way -- the reasons the American public were given for the invasion of Iraq turned out to be invalid. Whether that's truly the blame of the top levels of the Administration hasn't really been determined, and isn't going to be. I think it's unlikely that BushCo manufactured the evidence, or unduly leaned on their intelligence operatives, but who knows.
This epitomizes the difficulty of your position as a 'sensible liberal.' That is an altogether reasonable and well-spoken position. But I'm sure you are aware that your voice is drowned in a cacaphony of people on 'your side' screaming - BUSH LIED! PEOPLE DIED!

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 01:16 PM
Herein lies the analytical problem, and the source of debate. It is not a matter of analyzing any one reason, but rather making a prospective decision based on all of the indications. This is why the after the fact "no WMD" mantra espoused by others (no broad paintbrush here!) carries so little weight.

I honestly think that if Bush had gotten up in front of the American people and talked about these 6 items above, instead of WMD, WMD, WMD and WMD, we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

It may be from a macro-policy point of view (or however you want to call it) that invading Iraq made sense because of these 6 items, but I don't think you could have sold the American people on it.

I'm also personally of the opinion that those 6 reasons, alone, weren't enough to justify the invasion, but I know that reasonable minds may differ on this score.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 01:22 PM
Post Gulf War I, our military was dismantled. We have had to invest quite a bit of $ to get it back into operational shape. At the same time, we've applied new theories to our warfare.

That's a joke right? Dismantled? Dismantled is what happened after WWI and WWII. Our military, which was ridiculously bloated as a result of years of Cold War spending, was brought back a bit more in line with the realities of the world situation.

Our "dismantled" military could, at ANY point in time from the end of the Cold War, kick the ass of any other country in the world. How can you call it dismantled when it's the world's best military??? It's absurd.

I strongly disagree here. You may not take the fight against Islamafascism as serious as I do, but make no mistake about it: our enemies certainly wish to destroy you, me, our children, and our nation. We ARE in a global war against a group of evil motherf*ckers. I, for one, am DAMN glad our administration sees it as I do: we're in a fight for our existence.

I agree with just about all these things, but that doesn't make it World War III. A "world war" is when the entire world is at war. When unbelievable numbers of people are dying, fighting and suffering. When tremendous sacrifices are made on the homefront. I don't consider the war on terror to be a "world war" of the kind of magnitude that that term connotes.

Also, NOTE WELL, that Iraq was NEVER an "Islamafacist" regime, to borrow your phrase. Iraq is a sideshow on the war against terror.


The DoE is a waste of taxpayer $; it has done more harm than good. Since its inception, the quality of public education in this nation has declined. I'd be eccstatic if the federal beuracracy were dismantled.

I honestly don't know enough about the DoE and what it does to speak intelligently on this. I do know that there's no higher priority than educating our children, and that if the DoE helps achieve that goal (and I dunno if it does or doesn't), then I'm all for it.

Not likely. The RP has the majority in both the House and the Senate. There are working models in-place which prove priavatization works. Most polls indicate citizens under the age of 55 not only approve of privatization, but encourage it. If the DP tries to stand in the way, the backlash will be huge.

The Republican party is facing mid-term elections in a mere 18 or so months, and isn't full of lame ducks, like Mr. President. I actually would approve of SS reform, so I'm with you on this, but I fear that the "third rail" of politics may still have too much current for Congress to touch it.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 01:27 PM
Yes he did. Powel mentioned the conection to Al-Quada in is speach to the UN, then IIRC Bush repeated it in his SotU address.
What they didn’t claim was any connection from Saddam’s Iraq to the Sept. 11th attacks.

You're correct. The Al-queda contacts were minimal, however.

I’ll agree with most of this but you’ve left some out. (7) Eliminating a source of money and refuge for terrorists including those that had attacked us. (8) Eliminating the possibility that he might give those WMDs that are still unaccounted for to terrorists for use against us. (9) Taking the fight to the enemy.
It’s quite obvious to me that sitting on our collective thumbs is what brought foreign terrorism to our shores. I don’t know whether Bush’s policy of confronting terrorists where they live is the correct one or not but it’s different. We’ll just have to wait and see how effective it is.

This is one element that doesn't necessarily get enough attention. It's also impossible to prove. But if, at least hypothetically speaking, terrorist elements that would normally be focusing on how to get to the US and fight us here are instead going to Iraq and fighting our troops there, then that alone would be a good reason for us to be there. Stated differently -- if our troops in Iraq are a magnet drawing would-be terrorists to Iraq rather than having them come here, then that's a very good thing indeed.

What I fear is instead true is that there are 10x as many "potential terrorists" as would otherwise have been the case, because many in the Islamic world who ordinarily would not bother to oppose us or our interests are instead motivated to actively oppose us. And this could be true not just now, but for generations.

I can't quantify these things, but they are interesting to consider.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 01:30 PM
This epitomizes the difficulty of your position as a 'sensible liberal.' That is an altogether reasonable and well-spoken position. But I'm sure you are aware that your voice is drowned in a cacaphony of people on 'your side' screaming - BUSH LIED! PEOPLE DIED!

:shrug: All I can do is what I can do. Radical elements on both sides bring out the worst in the other side.

Just consider me the token voice for sane liberalism. Progressive values are, in my opinion, admirable and worthy of focus and effort, but they need to be undertaken gradually and incrementally. People who try to turn the world upside down in a heartbeat, or who are more interested in hysterical tantrums aren't accomplishing anything other than undermining their own agendas.

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 01:33 PM
Also, NOTE WELL, that Iraq was NEVER an "Islamafacist" regime, to borrow your phrase. Iraq is a sideshow on the war against terror.


Oh it is? So that isn’t Al Zarqawi, a self-proclaimed Al Quada operative, over there sawing heads off? Saddam never gave money to the families of Hamas homicide bombers? He wasn’t providing refuge to Ansar al-Islam? The list can go on.
I know that some have to “de-link” Iraq from the WOT in order to maintain there belief structure, but that doesn’t make it the truth.

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 01:44 PM
Oh it is? So that isn’t Al Zarqawi, a self-proclaimed Al Quada operative, over there sawing heads off?

Now, not then.

Saddam never gave money to the families of Hamas homicide bombers? He wasn’t providing refuge to Ansar al-Islam? The list can go on.
I know that some have to “de-link” Iraq from the WOT in order to maintain there belief structure, but that doesn’t make it the truth.

Let me put it this way -- no one has yet proven any significant link between Iraq and Al-Queda, or that Iraq was a significant contributor to terrorist activities aimed at the United States.

Not that I've seen anyway.

Note that you argue that I need to de-link it to "maintain my belief structure". Similarly, those on the right who support Bush and this Iraq adventure of his throw every kernel of fact, supposition, hyperbole and random guesswork in to draw firm connections between Hussein and Al-Queda or any other terrorist network they can.

Iraq was a small-time player in terms of supporting terrorists, *at best*. Not that that is irrelevant, but don't tell me that Al Queda and Hussein were working hand-in-glove. It's not reality.

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 01:48 PM
Our military, which was ridiculously bloated as a result of years of Cold War spending, was brought back a bit more in line with the realities of the world situation.

Our "dismantled" military could, at ANY point in time from the end of the Cold War, kick the ass of any other country in the world. How can you call it dismantled when it's the world's best military??? It's absurd.

And yet all of the bitching & moaning about spreading our troops too thin and not enough armor and no armored vehicles and so on & so forth. After we ejected Iraq from Kuwait, congress went on a slashing spree. Military funding was cut as were troop numbers. Pre-9/11, we had a relatively tiny army in comparison to the militaries of potential enemies. True, our Airforce and Navy are incredibly advanced, and could, for all intents and purposes, obliterate any challengers, our 'ground game' was sorely lacking. Heck, it still is. We've spent the last four years trying to rebuild our troop strength and supplies. The logistics alone are dizzying. We still don't have enough armor, nor do we have enough replacement troops. We have to extend deployments and dip into reserves because of our slashes during the 90s. IMO if we have to struggle mightly for years to get our military up to streght to fight in the manner in which we WISH to fight, then yes, I say we dismantled our armed forces.

I agree with just about all these things, but that doesn't make it World War III. A "world war" is when the entire world is at war. When unbelievable numbers of people are dying, fighting and suffering. When tremendous sacrifices are made on the homefront. I don't consider the war on terror to be a "world war" of the kind of magnitude that that term connotes.

Is this not a global war? Do we not have Islamafascist enemies in nearly every global region? Hundreds of thousands of people ARE dying - look no further than the Sudan, where an Islamist government is 'ethnically cleansing' its populace of all non-muslims. Look at the murderous bombers in Israel, Iraq, Syria, various African nations, Yemen, and SE Asia. Just because you and I can sit comfortably on our soft, fat asses debating world politics does not mean millions of our fellow contrymen aren't making HUGE sacrifices fighting this war. I choose to honor their sacrifice, rather than look down upon it because it does not affect me, personally.

Also, NOTE WELL, that Iraq was NEVER an "Islamafacist" regime, to borrow your phrase. Iraq is a sideshow on the war against terror.

The Ba'athists were secular, as far as ME regimes are concerned, but still harbored ancient religious prejudices. The Shi'ites were second-class citizens in Iraq; treated as dogs and cannon fodder. You deny this? The Ba'ath Party was definitely fascist; and applied Islamic hatred to their reasoning for mudering thousands of Shi'ia and Kurds. Though not a theocracy, they still fit the profile IMO. Iraq is most certainly NOT a 'sideshow' - it's the main stage. It is the main theatre of operations in the war on terrorism. Where else in the world is there such a concentration of Islamafascists. It's where we drew them in, rather than let them simmer in their bases of operation, planning attacks on our homeland.

I fear that the "third rail" of politics may still have too much current for Congress to touch it.

I don't... I have a much more optomistic view on the issue: thus far, when Bush has wanted something done, he has been able to push it through, no matter what opposition. With the additional support gained in recent elections, I see no reason to assume he won't get this portion of his agenda passed as well. Especially when you consider how important he is deeming it (watch the SOTU address)

Joe Seahawk
02-01-2005, 01:52 PM
www.drudgereport.com

ROFL

Donger
02-01-2005, 01:55 PM
www.drudgereport.com

ROFL

Heh. What a bunch of assclowns...

A statement posted with the picture suggested the group was holding other soldiers.

"Our mujahadeen heroes of Iraq's Jihadi Battalion were able to capture American military man John Adam after killing a number of his comrades and capturing the rest," said the statement, signed by the "Mujahedeen Brigades."

Amnorix
02-01-2005, 02:10 PM
And yet all of the bitching & moaning about spreading our troops too thin and not enough armor and no armored vehicles and so on & so forth. After we ejected Iraq from Kuwait, congress went on a slashing spree. Military funding was cut as were troop numbers. Pre-9/11, we had a relatively tiny army in comparison to the militaries of potential enemies. True, our Airforce and Navy are incredibly advanced, and could, for all intents and purposes, obliterate any challengers, our 'ground game' was sorely lacking. Heck, it still is. We've spent the last four years trying to rebuild our troop strength and supplies. The logistics alone are dizzying. We still don't have enough armor, nor do we have enough replacement troops. We have to extend deployments and dip into reserves because of our slashes during the 90s. IMO if we have to struggle mightly for years to get our military up to streght to fight in the manner in which we WISH to fight, then yes, I say we dismantled our armed forces.


I'm out of time to debate everything, but I did look this one up.

US military spending as a percentage of world military spending CONSISTENTLY remained in the low 30 percentage range throughout the 90s. i.e. out of every dollar spent ANYWHERE in the world on military stuff, the US was spending 33 or so cents of it.

Our military spending historically has dwarfed that of EVERY other country, and EVERY other potential combatant, since the end of the cold war.

If you're saying we didn't have as many troops as some other countries -- you're comparing apples and oranges. We can't field a 200 million man army the way China could. Nor would we need to in order to bring hte Chinese government to its knees.

Being able to beat ANY country in the world seems to me to indicate that our military is plenty good enough, and was plenty good enough, throughout the 90s.

Honestly, it's absurd to say we need to spend MORE on the military. We spend hundreds of billions more than ANYONE else. If the military wants to reallocate its force structure, then it needs to do it within its already more-than-sufficient budget.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.php#graph-1

HC_Chief
02-01-2005, 02:25 PM
Honestly, it's absurd to say we need to spend MORE on the military.

If we're supposed to suddenly start welding armor plate into HumVees, a vehicle not orignially intended to be heavily armored but all the dem congressmen and senators keep railing on the point, we either have to reallocate funding, or spend more. So which is it?

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 02:32 PM
Now, not then.


Bzzt, wrong. Al Zarqawi had been in Iraq for nearly a year pre-invasion and was reportedly running a training camp in the northern portion of Iraq teaching others the proper use of chemical weapons. This camp supposedly included Ansar al-Islam, an Al Quada affiliate, along with other foreign terrorists.

Let me put it this way -- no one has yet proven any significant link between Iraq and Al-Queda, or that Iraq was a significant contributor to terrorist activities aimed at the United States.

Not that I've seen anyway.

I’ll agree with that somewhat, but add that I’m sure it was in future plans.
It’d be silly of us to sit around and hope the best for them both seeing as how Saddam was still in control of large sums of money, plus still unaccounted for WMDS, and had a major bone to pick with us since we’re the main roadblock to his ambitions.

Note that you argue that I need to de-link it to "maintain my belief structure". Similarly, those on the right who support Bush and this Iraq adventure of his throw every kernel of fact, supposition, hyperbole and random guesswork in to draw firm connections between Hussein and Al-Queda or any other terrorist network they can.

That’s also true enough. Some will throw out any factoid they can find on Drudge to substantiate their argument, that’s why I try to work from what we know.
Example: take al-Zarqawi. We know he was in Iraq pre-invasion because he received medical assistance for wounds from fighting our guys in Afghanistan. The extent of injuries and treatment is up for debate but his being there isn’t.
Also his affiliation with Al Quada has been debated but I look at it like this. He trained with Al Quada, fought us along side Al Quada and the Taliban and now embraces the Al Quada operative title. If it looks, walks, flies and quacks like a duck, must be a duck.

Iraq was a small-time player in terms of supporting terrorists, *at best*. Not that that is irrelevant, but don't tell me that Al Queda and Hussein were working hand-in-glove. It's not reality.

“Small time player”? I don’t know for sure, but considering his hatred of us, his working openly with other terrorist groups and the multiple communications between him and Al Quada, including an offer of asylum to bin Laden, do you really think it’d take long for them to be merged? I don’t.

Radar Chief
02-01-2005, 02:53 PM
I'm out of time to debate everything

I understand, look forward to yak’n at’cha later. :thumb:

RINGLEADER
02-02-2005, 12:21 PM
I like the fact that Al Jazeera was pimping the solider-hostage story all day yesterday. Now they've got Jaz's Vietnam voter turnout story up there.

I love it when the Dems end up finding their "message" on Al Jazeera or coming out of the mouth of Usama bin Laden.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

SBK
02-02-2005, 01:40 PM
I like the fact that Al Jazeera was pimping the solider-hostage story all day yesterday. Now they've got Jaz's Vietnam voter turnout story up there.

I love it when the Dems end up finding their "message" on Al Jazeera or coming out of the mouth of Usama bin Laden.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Once, it's chance, more than that you really need to change your position. :clap: