Another blunder

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

When you're ready to argue points at an earthly level, let me know. Until then, I'll have to believe that you, like most loyal "Bushies", are out of ammo, and simply waiting... hoping... grasping for something positive to come out of all of this. Good luck with that.

Okay, since you've got it all figured out, what would you do? So far, the only things I've heard from those opposed to the war is Bush did it wrong or we would have done it differently or some variation. It's about time someone stepped up with a counter plan that holds water. So let's hear it.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

A huge task indeed. Hmmmm... you'd think the military planner guys & gals maybe would have thought about that before attacking, invading and subsequently occupying Iraq. They knew the country was "one big ammo dump". Heck, they "knew" Saddam had WMDs, right? They knew all this, yet didn't send a large enough military force to properly secure the country, costing countless (okay, hundreds of thousands) of lives?

I'd love to see the link for the hundreds of thousands of deaths. All we hear about is how many US soldiers have died, a number which isn't nearly as many as die as a result of drunk drivers every year and I don't hear Murtha wanting to re-deploy all the alcohol to Okinawa.

[Bill Shaw]

Got the same system. Stewart's on 249 @ 11pm. Just before Colbert, who's funnier, and wears much better suits. I almost never miss either.

I have no concern for Bush's future, or legacy.

Where I have a problem with the current war is that we most likely should have dedicated more resources sooner, harder, and longer.

Not that I am an oil profiteering warmonger.

Being selfless is a most honorable human pursuit. Not sure it would be so great to have the same level of threat ever present here, as it is in the Middle East to that end. I just find it hard to believe that mankind would benefit from a "hands off" perspective in this case. Didn't go well for a couple decades.

Has been going remarkably better since the War in Iraq began.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

Long term thinking - what's best for mankind in the long run, as opposed to what's best for us individually, right now.

And it is the unbelievable hatred for Bush that prevents so many from seeing that our side may be proporting what we think is best for mankind in the long run. Instead we are labeled war mongers, self serving, deceitful, liars, money-grubbers, etc. Add those to the accusations that we want to pollute the earth, force old people to choose between food and medicine, racists, biggots, homophobes, and on and on and on and it's a wonder we haven't mobalized the NRA to arrest you all, strip you down and put underwear on your heads.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by spoc22

To misguidedly suggest those supporting the current actions of our military have a lack of understanding or appreciation of the significance of those who have gone before us is, to put it plainly, B.S.

So we're back to the empty jingoism of "support the troops"?

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by spoc22

And it is the unbelievable hatred for Bush that prevents so many from seeing that our side may be proporting what we think is best for mankind in the long run. Instead we are labeled war mongers, self serving, deceitful, liars, money-grubbers, etc. Add those to the accusations that we want to pollute the earth, force old people to choose between food and medicine, racists, biggots, homophobes, and on and on and on and it's a wonder we haven't mobalized the NRA to arrest you all, strip you down and put underwear on your heads.

Says the person with an unbelievable hatred for Clinton.

[hork]

I don't find it hard to believe you've never chit chatted with those in power of oppressive regimes. In those societies, it doesn't matter what anyone you met thinks, or says, or feels very much. Not for a moment, most likely not for their lifetimes.

at least not if it contradicts the good ole' party line right? funny how quick folks are to discount anything that may contradict the politics of fear and hate that have become standard over the past few years. but thankfully the majority of Americans have started to awaken including those from your own state, kudos by the way for dumping that homophobic, unamerican cretin you guys passed off as a senator. by far one of the more wise moves of the last election.



Even as far as that goes, sniping at foreign policy may be your right. It does not, however, make it right.

and no more wrong than belittling the process by insinuating it is irresponsible or somehow unpatriotic to do so. and far less wrong then refusing to hold proven liars accountable for their actions. especially when one has the gall to cite past administrations as bad and call out things like perjury. more than just a little hypocritical i would think.



Something positive has come from this already. That whole crashing planes into skyscraper and landmark fad seems to have lost steam.

and which of the 9-11 attackers were iraqi? which attack on US soil was it that the Hussein regime carried out? oh i'm sorry just more of that solid and irrefutable rationale we've come to love. i agree that tracking down and wiping out those who have or would endanger our national security is a vital, and honorable course of action. fabricating enemies, lying to the world, and condoning such activity, not so much so.

[hork]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

So we're back to the empty jingoism of "support the troops"?

not to mention the complete assinine inability to recognize that disgust and opposition to policy has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with support and respect for the uniformed men and women in the armed forces.

but then to admit one might be able to respect and honor those folks while at the same time stand in opposition of oligarchists might discredit the last shred of hope one has to cling to with regard to justifying recent actions and policy since the facts surely don't support their position

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by hork

fabricating enemies, lying to the world, and condoning such activity, not so much so.

But Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

So we're back to the empty jingoism of "support the troops"?

It's only empty when you say it, because you obviously do not.

That you cherish ultra liberal jingoism is your choice. It is still an extreme perspective. No more or less valuable to anyone than the opposite extreme. Both are tragically flawed, and do more to support the existence of the other than diminish it. Perhaps a fate neither deserve.

Originally Posted by hork

at least not if it contradicts the good ole' party line right? funny how quick folks are to discount anything that may contradict the politics of fear and hate that have become standard over the past few years. but thankfully the majority of Americans have started to awaken including those from your own state, kudos by the way for dumping that homophobic, unamerican cretin you guys passed off as a senator. by far one of the more wise moves of the last election.

I could give a rat's --- about Santorum or Casey. Your motives and methods are solely political. There is a loooooooooooooong laundry list of politicians unsavory to a lot of people's sensibilities on both sides of the aisle.

You can dress it any way you like, you "opinions" are pretty much handcuffed to a (D) or (R).

Life without that restriction is actually pretty sweet.

Originally Posted by hork

and no more wrong than belittling the process by insinuating it is irresponsible or somehow unpatriotic to do so. and far less wrong then refusing to hold proven liars accountable for their actions. especially when one has the gall to cite past administrations as bad and call out things like perjury. more than just a little hypocritical i would think.

Only when it is done in an unpatriotic and irresponsible way.

Your liars / perjury line must refer to someone else. I've no idea where you are coming or going with that.

Originally Posted by hork

and which of the 9-11 attackers were iraqi? which attack on US soil was it that the Hussein regime carried out? oh i'm sorry just more of that solid and irrefutable rationale we've come to love. i agree that tracking down and wiping out those who have or would endanger our national security is a vital, and honorable course of action. fabricating enemies, lying to the world, and condoning such activity, not so much so.

You can avoid the reality of Salman Pak, and post links and counterposts from the edges of the Universe.

Let me know the next time you or one of your heroes track down and wipe anything out.

Originally Posted by hork

not to mention the complete assinine inability to recognize that disgust and opposition to policy has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with support and respect for the uniformed men and women in the armed forces.

but then to admit one might be able to respect and honor those folks while at the same time stand in opposition of oligarchists might discredit the last shred of hope one has to cling to with regard to justifying recent actions and policy since the facts surely don't support their position

The only problem you seem to have with oligarchy is that the flavor of your choice lost it's hold on it.

Perhaps because America does not support their positions.

[hork]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

But Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

and on this note, i think his quote in your profile is very applicable no?

[hork]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

The only problem you seem to have with oligarchy is that the flavor of your choice lost it's hold on it.

if by that you mean the flavor that stood for equality, liberty, freedom, and deomcracy then by all means i agree 100% with you.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by hork

and on this note, i think his quote in your profile is very applicable no?

Gotta' love quoting a fiction writer on "truth".

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by hork

if by that you mean the flavor that stood for equality, liberty, freedom, and deomcracy then by all means i agree 100% with you.

I really hope you don't believe any of that.

As if one or the other doesn't.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Says the person with an unbelievable hatred for Clinton.

Show me where I blamed Clinton for natural disasters. Show me where I accused him being responsible for any of the terrorist attacks that took place during his administration. As a matter of fact, show me where I accused him of anything other than lying to the country about having sex with that woman. The rest will be my opinions of him NOT accusations of guilt.