|
Why do you insist on being an asshole by continuing the argument of
this thread on rec.norm. honestly, Abe plaid wooddoctor and bon vivant |
On 18 Feb 2005 20:01:16 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which Church do you go to? Not relevant. The points I make aren't related to membership or attendance at a church. That's my point - you're assuming something that (a) doesn't relate, and (b) doesn't matter, based on a disagreement that we apparently have. So you dun belong to any church nor do you go to one, right? Do you believe in God and do you talk to him or he talk to him? |
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:59:31 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote: Bye.. |
Abe Normranson wrote: Why do you insist on being an asshole by continuing the argument of this thread on rec.norm. honestly, Abe plaid wooddoctor and bon vivant Lame as it is, here's my excuse, up near the top: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e?dmode=source -- FF |
|
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201... Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers. Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change your paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the majority of the population that reelected him knows something that you clueless to? dwhite |
Dave Hinz wrote in
: On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:59:21 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: Dave Hinz wrote in news:37k1niF5e7r24U3 @individual.net: _IF_ he got rid of them. A dozen years is a long time, and Iraq is a very large place. Yeah, and Elvis is still alive, too. Riiiight, because that's exactly the same thing as a deranged dictator with a stash of weapons he's happy to use, being given a dozen years to hide something he's not supposed to have. The weapons aren't there. Bush's own chief inspectors concluded they were all destroyed shortly after Gulf War I. There's nothing to find. Get over it. |
Rick Cook wrote in
k.net: Doug Miller wrote: In article 1, Nate Perkins wrote: "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in : Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you can understand that the UN had mandated that Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point. Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly that, shortly after the first Gulf War. Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed. That did *not* happen. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? Actually Doug, it's worse than that. Whether this is lack of knowledge or historical revisionism toward a domestic political goal, I can't say. What some folks are ignoring is that Saddam did _not_ dismantle his WMD program after the Gulf War. He continued his biological weapons programs under the noses of the UN inspectors, all the while swearing up and down he had dismantled them. Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94, "Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents at Al Hakam" (Sept 91). http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ This came to light when Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, defected in 1995 and blew the whistle on him. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...erts/defectors .. html Too bad we don't have a dollar for every Iraqi defector who told us what we wanted to hear. Take for example the case of Ahmed Chalabi http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...004%2F02%2F19% 2 Fwirq19.xml http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040607fa_fact1 The UN inspectors were completely hoodwinked. That included the inspector in charge of the program -- a guy by the name of Hans Blix. You may have heard of him. Evidence, please. In fact most of the BW inspectors were concluding something was there when the Duelfer report concludes it had already been destroyed (e.g., see the timeline in the report). This also ignores the 9/11 Commission's conclusion that Saddam intended to re-start his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted. Is there any evidence to this effect ... directives, etc? Or is it just a lot of maybes? Besides, nobody ever advocated giving Saddam a free rein. Those of us who weren't in favor of rushing to war were in favor of continuing inspections. Oh yeah, about that Sarin gas shell used as a roadside bomb. Two significant facts that seem to have eluded the critics are 1) all those shells were reported to the UN inspectors as destroyed. 2) the shell was not marked as a chemical weapon at all. In fact it was unmarked. One twenty year old unmarked shell, that's all you've got? That's the reason to go to war? In his UN speech, Colin Powell claimed that there were 65 active chemical munitions bunkers, and showed a photo of what he said was one such bunker. In the same speech, Powell says there are missile brigades outside Baghdad disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations. Heck, if you listen to the administration the whole country of Iraq is overflowing with WMDs. You'd think they ought to be easy to find, eh? Fundamentally as far as I can see, almost none of the criticism is about our real failings in Iraq. It is instead about domestic politics and the fact that these are the policies of a president who is roundly, thoroughly hated. As a result most of the criticism is either profoundly ignorant or very much beside the point. Our mistakes in Iraq have been many and severe, notably not using enough troops, but you'd be hard put to learn about them by reading most of the critics. You admit that "many and severe" mistakes have been made, but at the same time you claim that anyone (but you) who criticizes policy and performance is driven by a "domestic" political agenda and "hatred" of the president. Seems like a fairly inconsistent position to me. |
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote: Nate Perkins wrote: SNIP ... I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due. Really? Do you seriously think the post-Yassar regime' would be negotiating were it not for US pressure. I think the death of Yassar Arafat was probably more beneficial than any US 'pressure'. More than putting pressure on anyone in particular If it were that simple the Israelis could have killed him at any time and things would have improved. I think the Bush administration enabled everyone to rachet up the violence. Yeah - it was *really* peaceful before Bush came into office. As I said, I am no fan of Bush, but this is the kind of Lib frothing that cost you guys the election. Bush is not the center of evil. He did not cause all the problems in the world - or any of them actually. He is merely responding to the world as he found it and as he believes will work. He may be right, he may be wrong, but blaming him for the various stupidities around the world that precede him by many years is simply assinine. The Dems/Left/Libs got shellacked over the last several election cycles at most levels of government for two reasons: This kind of "blame our opponent" mentality, and their general sense of elitism coupled with a palpable contempt for Everyman. And they richly deserved to lose. Note that there isn't much pressure on Russia or Turkmenistan to move toward, nor on Pakistan to move back to Democracy these days. Presumably because they do not, at the moment, represent any large or meaningful threat to the US. SNIP So, just who was iraq going to invade next? Syria? Turkey? They might have been able to take on Jordan. But I think Saddam Hussein knew the US wouldn't let them get away with that either. He wasn't terribly bright, but he wasn't suicidely stupid either. No - he was arrogantly stupid. His failure to open his kimono to a superpower making threats on his front porch was pure ego and hubris. The invasion was entirely avoidable up until the last moment. Setting aside the prudence of the war generally, I think Bush was sincere in his willingness to stand down our military had SH cooperated as we wished. One of the fascinating psychological profiles of Bush-bashers is that they inevitably use a double standard when assessing his actions in contrast with, say, mass-murdering psychopaths. Where was the Left hue and cry *before* Bush came into office as regards to SH's human rights atrocities, for example. Bill Maher said it very well tonite on his inaugural show of the season: Disagree with Bush all you like, but go after the *facts* not the *man*. ... Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous. This is the disease of the neo-cons. They have some weird religious version of Manifest Destiny running around in their heads. I think Manifest destiny is merely a secular presentation of the Protestant Doctrine of Predestination, similar to how 'Intelligent Very few Protestant denominations hold a doctrine of Predestination as firmly as you suggest. Only those in the strict Calvinist tradition - orthodox Presbyterians, the various Reformed movements, and a very few of the Reformed-influenced fundamentalist groups. The neo-cons large do not spring from these intellectual roots. To the extent that you can detect it, they seem most aligned in their theology with the various Baptist and IFCA groups. Design' is simply a secular presentation of the Protestant Doctrine of Creationism. Consider the contrast between the Protestant Baloney. My undergrad was in technology at a *very* Fundamentalist school. My graduate degree is in the math/sciences from a nominally Catholic school. Without resurrecting the entire ID v. Evolution debate (a truly stupid debate with neither side properly equipped to understand the other's point of view - both have some merits and both have some serious flaws), the idea that Intelligent Design equals Creationism is at least overstated, and more usually pure paranoia from the scientific establishment (that always needs a swift kick in the butt to ever make any progress). Colonization of Eastern North America and the Catholic colonization of Western North America. The Protestants simply supplanted the Native Americans, driving them out. The Catholics herded them into missions to convert them into Catholics and assimilate them into the Colonial society. Around the world you'll find various Protestant sects established in part on the doctrine that the local natives had no souls. Another vast overstatement, absent any historical context, and utterly flawed logically. To whit: 1) The actions of these various religious groups was, on average, no worse, and often much better, than their secular counterparts of the same era. How many secular institutions of those times ever brought large scale food, medicine, and humanitarian aid the way the missionaries did, for instance? 2) The statement, as written, utterly ignores the human rights atrocities and abuses practiced by the indigenous peoples like the Amerinds. These abuses, in part, are likely why some groups were led to conclude that the "natives had no souls." 3) Bad practice does not invalidate a given worldview. The fact that some missionaries abused the natives does not inherently disprove their religious position. Similarly, the lously philosophy of science that surrounds much of the theory of Evolution does not, in and of itself, discredit the theory. The good thing is that their deep religiosity makes it natural for them to be able to spot and name Evil - something the Libs largely don't even believe exists. Open your eyes man! I challenge you to find a Liberal that doesn't quickly agree that Saddam Hussein is evil or a neo-con who will admit to any evilness Ward Churchill leaps to mind. Teddy Kennedy is implictly in the same group, though he may be so consistently drunk these days that nothing he says can be held seriously. in Falwell, Robinson, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Limbacher or Gonzales. I agree or disagree in varying degrees with each of the people you have named. But you use the term "evil' in context with them in the same breath that you named Sadaam as "evil". The implication, of course, is that their "evilness" is of a similar degree to Sadaam's. These people may be wrong, misguided, overly enthusiastic, mindless ideologues, and so forth, but their wrongness (when they are wrong) does not begin to remotely approach that of Sadaam's. And you wonder why fewer and fewer of us take the Left seriously? Lots of liberals will freely admit that perjury about a blow-job is perjury, even if it's not 'bad enough' to justify throwing the President out of office. But try to find a neo-con that thinks torturing prisoners is worth even appointing a special prosecutor. They weren't "tortured" except in the lexicon of the Left. They were *humiliated* and placed under *duress*. No permanent physical harm came to any of them as best as I have read. And "they" in this case, were almost entirely non-uniformed combatants operating during a time of war *which means the Geneva conventions do NOT apply to them*. At the same time we made these people get naked and blush, their counterparts were *beheading* uniformed soldiers and civilians. Once again, your inability to practice that great Lefty skill of "nuance" in assessing degrees of severity is breathtaking. Far from being able to spot evil the neo-cons by and large are either bland to or (given that they aren't ALL stupid) happy to deny the most dangerous of evil men in their midst, those that attack the moral priciples themselves I don't agree that the Left, however defined (personally I find such characterisations as Left, Right, Liberal, and neo-con to be not particularly useful) Another fascinating thing I have noted in many such debates, both here on the Net in F2F, is that the Left has suddenly decided it doesn't like "labels". It used to be that the Left was proudly so, had a point of view that was clear and identifiable, and clung to some bedrock of asserted principles. Now you don't even like the name... Which is why I fight them. I oppose them as a matter of moral principle. Deceit and dishonesty are wrong. Torture and murder I have no idea why you fight them, but "moral principle" cannot be it - at least no consistent moral principle. If it were, the Left would have been screaming for years about resolving the human rights abuses in Iraq, the Palestinian suicide bombings, and so forth. One of the reasons I have finally had it with the Left (which used to be semi-useful in matters of civil liberties and free speech) is that its "morality" is quite variable, and the Free Democratic West is held to some impossibly high standard, but actual despots and tin pot dictators mostly get a pass. Jimmy Carter - who I think then and now is a well-intentioned, decent person - condems US actions on a regular basis, but goes to Cuba and makes common cause with a murderous despot who has caused the misery of countless people in his own country. He is a poster child for what I'm describing... Lefties that lie, cheat, and steal are wrong too. They typically do not engage in torture or murder though. That they leave to No - they usually make nice with the people who *are* torturers and murderers. As long ago as the FDR administration the US political Left was openly in bed with avowed Communists. The KGB had people operating in government with the tacit knowledge of the FDR folks (this is documented in excruciating detail in "The Mitrokhin Archive"). Communism in its various 20th Century incarnations was responsible for literally millions of deaths and many more cases of vast human rights abuses ... but the Left was always in love with it in varying degrees. The Left also has - at various times - been in love with the human rights paradises in Cuba, North Viet Nam, Maoist China, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. No, they don't actually *do* the torture and murder - they (in some degree) enable the hitmen who do it ... the craven cowards and pucilinious wimps among the neo-cons. The "neo-cons" are neither conservatives nor are they new in any real sense. They are also not craven - the are ideologues, they operate from a consistent set of declared principles. At least you can have a fair debate with a neo-con - you know their point of view without a lot of guessing. But Lefthink is the "morality of the moment, the "principle" of the day, the "whatever gets us into power" movement of the era. Bush bet his Presidency on this war and on the bet that a free society of some kind could emerge - he may be right or wrong, but at least we all know where he stands. The Left stands wherever the footing is best at the moment - in the case of Teddy Kennedy, he staggers on whatever footing is available... Tonight on Bill Maher's show, no less a leading light of the Left than Sen. Joe Biden from DE admitted that while there are Rightwingers who oppose anyone on the Left, there are just as many Lefties in government who hate Bush so much they oppose him, even when what he suggests is good for the country. To Biden's great credit, he stipulated that the elections in Iraq were a clear win for Bush policy. We need more people in government willing to step outside their narrowly defined ideologies and speak in the interest of Freedom like this - and I do *not* in general care much for anything Biden has to say. Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. And that, of course, was not happening under previous administrations right? Under the previous administration the North Korean program was stopped dead in its tracks. Dunno about Iran. But, no evidence of NPT violations by Iran has emrged. Thus far if Iran has any violations, they have kept them well-hidden while being quite bold about their actions within the NPT limitations. Another logical fallacy. The absence of proof is not the same thing as the absence of the action in question. It is impossible to believe that the Koreans were "stopped dead in their tracks" under the previous administration - this would mean that they spooled up an entire nuclear weapons program from whole cloth in only the last 4 years - this is very unlikely. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
"Dan White" wrote in
: "Nate Perkins" wrote in message 25.201... Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers. Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change your paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the majority of the population that reelected him knows something that you clueless to? You mean the same majority that has insights like this? http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=508 |
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
: Nate Perkins wrote: SNIP Nonsense. You guys go off and engineer an ill-advised war with a There's no "you guys" about it - I am not a Republican. I just don't want to get vaporized by flaming JP-6 because *you guys* want to wait until the flames are rising to declare that perhaps, just maybe, we ought to do something. I favor prevention, not after-the-fact responses. Even hardcore ideological Libs like Christopher Hitchins agree with this - that's why he very huffily departed the Left after the 9/11 murders. Right, who wants to get vaporized by flaming JP-6? I'm all for dispensing swift military justice to the people who committed and sponsored the 9/11 attacks. But I am not in favor of trotting off and attacking countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. There's a knee-jerk reaction after 9/11 to kick some ass, any ass. But recklessness leads to failure. Judgement, deliberation, and intelligence lead to success. country that had no WMDs and no links to 9/11, and then when somebody We had NO way to know they did not have WMDs ... unless you are joining the Leftie keening that Bush knew there were none, lied about it, and invaded anyway. You cannot have it both ways: Either we did not know and had to act like there were WMDs, or we did know and Bush lied. In the former case, we did the right thing. The latter, I'd just like to see proof - if you provide proof, I'll be first in line to demand impeachment. I'm not prepared to say that he out and out lied. I think he thought he knew better than the rest of us, and that he felt like he had to exaggerate the truth to make his case. Let's call it "elasticity of the truth." But to me it doesn't matter if he knew or not. The Presidency is a big job and it should have high standards. I expect that the leader of the Free World should have excellent judgement. He should make competent policy and he shouldn't need to use a bagful of excuses to cover his failures. points out that maybe that was a stupid thing to do you all cry "Oh, the Liberals don't want to let the US defend itself!" What was stupid about it was believing there would ever be peace in the region in some simple/short period of time. We never actually needed boots on the ground there to neutralize the threat. We could just have bombed, day in and day out, and kept the country in a permanent state of rubble until Sadaam turned himself in. Our boots on the ground are because of this incomprehnsible need we Americans (of all stripes) have to try and do the right thing and bring some measure if liberty to the people of the region while we're at it. Stupid us. Right. But a lot of us did not see the advantage of putting our troops in to spread liberty to the region. The idea that the Middle East would fall like dominoes in a wave of spreading democracy is a particularly stupid neocon idea. Few people would have supported the invasion if the stated reason was to "spread freedom." Most people supported it because they were told things about WMD and 9/11 that we now know not to be true. I, for one, would prefer to see a policy of strategic bombing (military and government targets) if we need to do more of this. A couple of targets per day for a year or so would keep people out of their government jobs in, say, Syria and Iran, and let them know we tired of their nonsense without ever putting an American shoe in that sand... But I'm pretty non-PC myself. Keep em scrambling for cover and see how much time or energy they have for exporting terror. Plus, its good practice for our pilots... I'd like to see a good reason to go to war in Syria and Iran. Backed by good evidence. Especially since we seem to have had a problem in this area before. I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due. Really? Do you seriously think the post-Yassar regime' would be negotiating were it not for US pressure. What the Arab world seems not to get is that we have our hand on Israel's collar a good deal of the time. If we had exited the arena years ago (which all the Darlings of the Left keep advocating in subtle ways) they'd be speaking Hebrew from Teheran to Tripoli. Come to think of it, that's not such a bad plan. We get out and let the Israelis clean up the mess their way ... which is rather effective. Israeli-Palestinian prospects have little or nothing to do with Iraq. They have a lot more to do with the death of Arafat and the remarkable ability (however temporary) of Abbas to restrain the more radical Palestinian terrorist elements. In recent years it's been Sharon's government that has taken the hard line toward negotiations with the Palestinians. Sharon has been quite aggressive in his expansion of settlements and in military incursions and occupations of the Gaza and West Bank. Sharon has no incentive to look for a peaceful solution, and he has every incentive to continue his existing stance with the Palestinians. The problem is that neither Arafat nor Abbas really controls Hamas and the other terrorist groups, and Israel will always use the terrorism of a few to keep all the Palestinians under their thumb. It's a nasty cycle. If Bush really wanted to do something for peace in Israel he'd withhold foreign aid from Israel until the settlements stop, and maintain aid only as long as Israel is actively negotiating for peace with the Palestinians. With respect to Iraq, I hope you are right that it ends up being a free democracy. And I hope I am wrong when I fear that it ends up either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government (a la Iran). The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous dictator, was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of WMDs was halted. There was no active WMD program. And you exaggerate the strength of his army -- all of which had weapons that were 15 years out of date, had no spares, and was 1/3 the size it had been during Gulf War I. OK - so it was the 8th or 9th or Whatever-Makes-You-Happy largest army in the world. Nitpicking at minor details doesn't change the larger point - we neutralized one of the top N military threats in the world. Iraq's army was fairly weak and certainly no threat to us. Witness how quickly it caved when we invaded. Said brutal dictator is now in irons. Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was the *real* reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle East peace and Jesus. But what is mostly needed there, is a deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US. It worked in Libya - go research the conversation between Kaddaffi and Burlusconi in the early days of this war - it is instructive reading. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to develop a healthy fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This is the one and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite himself... Yeah, everyone is getting nervous. A bunch of us here in the US are getting nervous, too. And when you claim that Bush wants to "bring the And most of you have never lived anywhere else and seen real oppression. I have - well, I've seen the results of the oppression after the fact. Americans - I am proudly one of you now - especially those born and raised here, are immensely naive' about how most of the rest of the world actually works. The political Right in this country is silly, and sometimes stupid, but the Left is flatly dangerous. It embraces the secular version of "Jesus and peace" and hopes if you sing enough choruses of Kumbaya, everyone will just get along. Peace comes (eventually) from winning armed conflict, not from negotiation or listening to Babs Streisand (or Alec Baldwin, or ....) englightening the world with the oh-so-learned observations on geopolitics. There is something between Left and Right. They are the moderates, and usually they favor the policy that is the most pragmatic and effective. Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous. This is the disease of the neo-cons. They have some weird religious version of Manifest Destiny running around in their heads. The good thing is that their deep religiosity makes it natural for them to be able to spot and name Evil - something the Libs largely don't even believe exists. At the heart of the Leftie soul is this deeply held belief that people are good and that circumstances make them bad. It is the inverse of the religious doctrine of Original Sin. This cripples the Left when it comes time to try and name something as Bad, Evil, or Wrong. Look at the walking rectal passage at CU and his utterances about 9/11 for a pungent example. Yes, he's an extreme example, but his views differ (mostly) only in degree not kind from the "mainstream" Left. In a country of 300 million, you will always find one of those. That one will be found and broadcast every night on Fox and Clear Channel -- good for ratings of course. You'll even find one person in a hundred that agrees Churchill. But you'll find five in a hundred who want to ship him off to Gitmo. Those five scare me more than the one. I used to despise the Left and Right equally - they both want to screw people out of their lives, money, and freedom to apply it to their pet causes. But the events of the past 4 years have demonstrated that the Left is considerably worse and more dangerous. In addition to wanting to "screw people out of ..." they also wish to impose their secular version of Right and Wrong which is essentially a denial that the latter innately exists. Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. And that, of course, was not happening under previous administrations right? You need to go rent a clue on the difference between correlation and causality. Korea, Iran, and the rest are doing what they do *because they are totalitarian states* - they have always done some version of this stuff and they can only be permitted to go so far before they get swatted. As I said, my preference is continuous bombing of key targets until they implode ... but, That's Not Very Nice (tm) ... Yes, Iran and North Korea have accelerated their pursuit of nuclear programs under Bush compared to the previous administration. Lots of countries have nuclear weapons that are not totalitarian states. |
Dave Hinz wrote in
: "Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here", Nate. Dave, you are starting to look desperate in your denial. The primary pretext for going to war with Iraq was WMDs, but they had none prior to the invasion. Of course he had them 20 years earlier. At the time Saddam was using chemical weapons, we were rooting for him in his war with Iran. What about the Sarin shell that injured our guys, Nate? Don't they count? Did it not exist? Couple liters of Sarin, what, that's not enough M to be a W of MD? No, one twenty year old leftover sarin shell from the Iran-Iraq war is not enough for me to want to go into a war that costs thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. "Nominally", yes. In actual fact, not really. A US invasion could have been averted at any time up to the moment of the actual commencement of hostilities had Sadaam made real inspections (unfettered, unmonitored, without threat to the Iraqi participants) happen. He did not, he got tossed out of power. At the end, under pressure of force, the inspectors were going anywhere they wanted within 10 minutes notice. Palaces, military installations, government offices. Yeah. "Um, no, you can't come in yet...wait, couple more years... (scramble scramble) - OK, (everything hidden? Yup, I think so...), all right, come on in." You're a fool if you don't think that's what was going on when the UN was pussyfooting around saying "Oh, pleeeeease let us come in? Come on, Pleeeeease?". At the end the UNMOVIC guys were going anywhere they wanted with no notice. You know that. So I think you are intentionally exaggerating. And still nothing was found. It's not that easy to move large quantities of WMDs, as Iraq was supposed to have. We had surveillance overflights, satellites, etc etc looking for just that. Yeah, he wasn't eager about having that done. Who would be? Someone who was still hiding or moving things he wanted to not be found. It's always problematic to prove a negative but the simplest explanation that fits all available facts is that they simply didn't exist at the time of the invasion. Sure you are. You're only willing to have the US defend itself *sometimes* and then only *after* its been attacked. By analogy, if we were in a bar fight, and the guy at the end of the bar paid me to poke you in the nose, your argument, roughly would be: 1) You can't hit the guy at the end of the bar because he did nothing directly to you and 2) You can't hit me until I actually poke you in the nose. i.e., You cannot interdict while my arm is in motion swinging at you. Nonsense. You guys go off and engineer an ill-advised war with a country that had no WMDs and no links to 9/11, We know they _HAD_ WMDs. We know we haven't found much of them yet. "no links to 9/11" is arguable at best. Why did he have those bio-lab trailers buried, I wonder? What _is_ with those uranium enhancing centrifuge parts? How many more sarin shells are still "wups, forgot that one too" buried? Bio lab trailers? That was really laughable. Do you know anything about science ... chemical, biological, or nuclear materials? Ever seen a chemical plant or a pharmaceutical plant? Do you suppose that companies like Dow and Amgen spend hundreds of millions of dollars building manufacturing plants when they could just as easily do it in a "mobile tractor trailer?" What centrifuge parts do you mean? The incomplete parts buried in some guy's backyard in 1991? You're really reaching. Relying on "evidence" that's already been thoroughly discredited. What's next? Yellow cake? Aluminum tubes? Drones? and then when somebody points out that maybe that was a stupid thing to do you all cry "Oh, the Liberals don't want to let the US defend itself!" I personally think we should have kicked ass, set up the new guy (or not), and got the hell out. But, going in needed to be done. Yeah, a bunch of you guys on the right want to get out now that the going is messy. Unfortunately leaving now creates a much bigger mess than if we had done nothing. So we have to stay and clean up the problem that was created. There have been free elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine for the first time ever (or at least in many years). It is rather doubtful this would have happened without the US projecting force in these regions, directly or otherwise. I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due. You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of Bush's decisions either, I suppose. No, I don't. Libya had been trying to rejoin the international community since 1998, when it turned over the two terror suspects for the Lockerbie bombing. In early 2001, Libya was lobbying through Britain for lifting of UN sanctions. With respect to Iraq, I hope you are right that it ends up being a free democracy. And I hope I am wrong when I fear that it ends up either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government (a la Iran). Long as they're no longer a threat to us, sorry, but they can (and will) go on killing each other without hurting my feelings. We're not going to change their little thousand-year grudge, but we can limit the scope of how it threatens us or our allies. Do you really think there will be less threat to us if one of the largest countries in the Middle East is either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government? The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous dictator, was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of WMDs was halted. There was no active WMD program. ^^^^^^ Active being the operative word. Now, it'll hopefully be harder for them to restart their WMD programs as well. Do they need WMDs? Where are those, what, 330 tons of high grade plastic explosives that went missing? Do you suppose any of that ended up with Al Zaqari, and through him over to Osama? Yeah, we are definitely safer now. Said brutal dictator is now in irons. Funny how your type seems to think that's not important. Brutal dictators are a dime a dozen in the world. And he's not much different from some of the brutal dictators that we are calling allies today. Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was the *real* reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle East peace and Jesus. But what is mostly needed there, is a deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US. It worked in Libya Damn right it did. But, he won't give Bush any credit for that, watch. I'll give Bush plenty of credit for ****ing off the Middle East. - go research the conversation between Kaddaffi and Burlusconi in the early days of this war - it is instructive reading. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to develop a healthy fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This is the one and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite himself... Yeah, everyone is getting nervous. A bunch of us here in the US are getting nervous, too. And when you claim that Bush wants to "bring the Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous. I don't give a damn about what religion someone practices. I get a tad twitchy when they have shown ability and willingness to use WMD on people, and make aggressive noises towards my country. SH bluffed. We called his bluff. He lost. Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. So, do you think that's wise of them, all things considered? Seems to be effective so far. You think we can take them all on at once? You suppose we'll invade them once they have nukes? |
Dave Hinz wrote in
: .... But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_ direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word "problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong direction. .... The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his plan will cause more harm than good. |
Dave Hinz wrote in
: On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:56:12 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: For 14 months the US told Saddam to come clean and disclose his WMDs. He said he didn't have them. We didn't believe him. We invaded. Turns out he didn't have any. Turns out we didn't find any. Someplace, somewhere, you can probably find someone who still believes that the earth is flat, too. Doesn't mean it is. |
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think he should have done at the moment. Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1. Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore? AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that What's your source? Or do you need one? Bush knew he was the less competent of the two. I'm glad that when the chips were down he stepped aside and let the more competent person take over. I'm not happy to have a President who is not competent to be Comander-in-Chief. I see things differently. The fact that there's not been a repeat occurance is evidence of competency. |
"Nate Perkins" Rick Cook Doug Miller wrote: , Nate Perkins "Fletis Humplebacker" Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you can understand that the UN had mandated that Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point. Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly that, shortly after the first Gulf War. Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed. That did *not* happen. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? Actually Doug, it's worse than that. Whether this is lack of knowledge or historical revisionism toward a domestic political goal, I can't say. What some folks are ignoring is that Saddam did _not_ dismantle his WMD program after the Gulf War. He continued his biological weapons programs under the noses of the UN inspectors, all the while swearing up and down he had dismantled them. Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94, "Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents at Al Hakam" (Sept 91). http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Odd. I searched the page with the quoted words and didn't find those comments. However, you are still missing the point. The Iraqi were to destroy their WMDs under UN inspector supervision. Had they done that there have been no need to make any claims at all. It would have been documented. Why you and some others can't grasp that particular point is peculiar. |
Nate Perkins wrote:
The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his plan will cause more harm than good. In what way(s)? |
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in m: In article 1, Nate Perkins wrote: "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in : Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you can understand that the UN had mandated that Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point. Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly that, shortly after the first Gulf War. Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed. That did *not* happen. So now you admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier. But you want to claim that the invasion was still justified because the i's weren't dotted correctly and the t's weren't crossed right? Geez, Nate, your reading comprehension just gets worse and worse. I did *not* "admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier". I acknowledged the possibility that they might have been, while emphasizing that there was *no* UN verification of that fact. And you completely missed the larger point of my comment, which is that your claim that Saddam destroyed those weapons under UN supervision is a great, fat, thumping LIE. From the letter of submission from Charles Duelfer's final report: "It now appears clear that Saddam, despite internal reluctance, particularly on the part of the head of Iraq’s military industries, Husayn Kamil, resolved to eliminate the existing stocks of WMD weapons during the course of the summer of 1991 in support of the prime objective of getting rid of sanctions. The goal was to do enough to be able to argue that they had complied with UN requirements." So on your planet, "resolved to eliminate" is the same as "actually did eliminate". Readthat Duelfer quote again. As often as necessary to understand it. Especially the last sentence. That makes it very clear that the former Iraqi government was not to actually comply with the UN requirements, but simply to *appear* to do so. Si I have to wonder if it really worth thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars just because you don't like the way the paperwork was done??? It seems to me that this is an ideal justification for pushing continuing inspections, but not for launching a war. You persistently miss the point. The problem is not with "the way the paperwork was done". The problem is that, although the former Iraqi government *claimed* to have destroyed the WMDs, there was, and is, *no* independent verification that they actually did so, and hence no way of knowing that those weapons were actually destroyed, other than taking Saddam's word for it. Bottom line: We know he had WMDs at one point, because he actually used them. He claimed to have gotten rid of them. Nobody can verify that claim. It's illogical to assume that the claim is true. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94, "Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents at Al Hakam" (Sept 91). "as later claimed by the regime." "according to ... Iraqi claims." And of course we *all* know that Saddam Hussein *always* told the truth. What planet have you been living on for the last fifteen years, Nate? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think he should have done at the moment. Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1. Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore? According to all the documentaries about the attacks. For example, it was Cheney who gave the order to shoot down Flight 93, after receiving authorization from Bush to make the decision. AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that What's your source? Or do you need one? Documentaries on AF1. Bush knew he was the less competent of the two. I'm glad that when the chips were down he stepped aside and let the more competent person take over. I'm not happy to have a President who is not competent to be Comander-in-Chief. I see things differently. The fact that there's not been a repeat occurance is evidence of competency. Check your calendar. In March 1993, two months after Clinton took office AL Queda attacked the WTC. There were no significant domestic attacks by foreign paramilitary groups during the remainder of Clinton's two terms of office. The perpetrator's of the 1993 attack were tried, convicted, sentenced and in prison befor Clinton was re-elected in 1996. Al Queda turned to attacking AMerican interests on foreign soil, most particularly in Saudi Arabia and the embassy bombings in East Africa. The perpetartors of the East African bombings were aprehended, tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned. It was eight (8) years after the 1993 attack before Al Queda struck again in the US, this time eight months after Bush took office. IOW, Al Queda struck very early during the Clinton Administration, befor Clinton had time ot get his national security policies in place, and struck again during the bush administration just after Bush had HIS national security policies in place. That may just be coincidence but it sure as hell isn't evidence of competency. If Al Queda sticks to their history, the next domestic attack will be in 2009. Meanwhile, they'll attack us aborad. Bush has yet to bring any perpetrator of the 2001 attacks to trial. Although he was able to take effective military action in Afghanistan as the Republicans have dropped their previous objections to the use of military force against Al Queda assets abroad. As you will recal the Republicans called his use of force in the Sudan and Afghanistan 'wag the dog' and George Will called Clinton a murderer. -- FF |
Dan White wrote:
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message 25.201... Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers. Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change your paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the majority of the population that reelected him knows something that you clueless to? I think the accuracy of polling is overstated. That said, polls have indicated that a majority of people who cliam to support Bush also take positions on major issues that the opposite of the position Bush espouses, AND also thought that Bush's position was the same as theirs. IOW, they didn't vote for Bush because of what they knew about him, they voted for Bush because of what they didn't know about him. E.g. the triumph of image over substance is the key to winning an election. Other recent examples include Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. No surprise, that certainly does not distinguish Bush from any other successful politician. -- FF |
Doug Miller wrote:
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94, "Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents at Al Hakam" (Sept 91). "as later claimed by the regime." "according to ... Iraqi claims." And of course we *all* know that Saddam Hussein *always* told the truth. What planet have you been living on for the last fifteen years, Nate? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? Perhaps more to the point -- it ignores the testimony of Saddam's son-in-law, as backed up by the mass of stuff the Iraqis claimed to have found on his chicken farm. The fact is Saddam continued to hide stuff long after he claimed to have destroyed it or turned it over the the UN. --RC |
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think he should have done at the moment. Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1. Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore? That's certainly what Michael Moore would like us to believe. The evidence is otherwise, of course, but since Bush didn't do it in public, that can be safely ignored. AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that What's your source? Or do you need one? His source is one part ignorance and one part malice. While it's true that AF1 has some capability to manage national defense, it doesn't have _nearly_ the capability that Cheney's 'secure location' does. So rather than acting like an arrogant, power-hungry jerk in a national emergency, Bush did the smart thing and delegated command to someone better positioned to exercise it. That's pretty obviously good sense -- unless of course you hate George Bush so much you can't possibly give him credit for any positive action. --RC |
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:09:08 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote: wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote: Nate Perkins wrote: SNIP ... .... snip Tim, Very well reasoned and well-written response. Under the previous administration the North Korean program was stopped dead in its tracks. Dunno about Iran. But, no evidence of NPT violations by Iran has emrged. Thus far if Iran has any violations, they have kept them well-hidden while being quite bold about their actions within the NPT limitations. Another logical fallacy. The absence of proof is not the same thing as the absence of the action in question. It is impossible to believe that the Koreans were "stopped dead in their tracks" under the previous administration - this would mean that they spooled up an entire nuclear weapons program from whole cloth in only the last 4 years - this is very unlikely. Actually, it would have had to have happened even faster, they were already making rumblings about having nukes 2 years ago. Fact is, while the West was shipping food and aid and supporting the building of "non-weapon" capable nuclear facilities, the NK's were continuing their pursuit of nuclear weapons and improving their ballistic missile technology. They couldn't have spooled up their missile program in a short two years either (NoDong shot over Japan). +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:38:46 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote: "Dan White" wrote in : "Nate Perkins" wrote in message 25.201... Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers. Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change your paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the majority of the population that reelected him knows something that you clueless to? You mean the same majority that has insights like this? http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=508 Having just looked at that poll, the "majority" agreed with the following: " * 90 percent of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein would have made weapons of mass destruction if he could have. * 76 percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. * 63 percent believe that history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. * 63 percent believe that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious threat to U.S. security. * 62 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (a claim which Vice President Cheney has made more than President Bush)." Those are not unsupportable claims. Now, what you are continually railing about were *NOT* supported by the *majority* of those polled, i.e.: " * 41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. * 38 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded. * 37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis." Note to Nate: 41 percent is only a majority if you are President Clinton running for office. Now, more importantly, you continue to use this as an example of how the Republicans who voted for Bush are a bunch of morons and believed the above claims. Take a look further down in the poll where the population sample is identified: "a nationwide cross section of 1,016 adults (ages 18 and over) of whom 405 prefer George W. Bush and 362 prefer John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election." i.e., only 40% of the poll sample preferred Bush, and 36% preferred Kerry. So, if you are [mis]using this poll to bash Bush supporters, you better take another look. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:33:02 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote: I suppose you are right, Doug ... er, Fletis ... um, I mean Mark. ... Oral Roberston...er Rush ... er ....Muslim fundamentalist with a blond-haired, blue-eyed savior.... |
GregP wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:33:02 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: I suppose you are right, Doug ... er, Fletis ... um, I mean Mark. ... Oral Roberston...er Rush ... er ....Muslim fundamentalist with a blond-haired, blue-eyed savior.... The guy's name was Oral *Roberts*. Jeez, the least you can do is get the objects of your hate right. --RC |
|
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in :
Odd. I searched the page with the quoted words and didn't find those comments. However, you are still missing the point. The Iraqi were to destroy their WMDs under UN inspector supervision. Had they done that there have been no need to make any claims at all. It would have been documented. Why you and some others can't grasp that particular point is peculiar. The quotes are there on the lines mentioned. I think it is you that is missing the point. Not so long ago, it wasn't standard American foreign policy to launch preemptive wars, and certainly not without a clear and present danger. Now, we launch them at will, and rely on a postjustification of shifting rationales and technicalities. |
|
Rick Cook wrote in
nk.net: Perhaps more to the point -- it ignores the testimony of Saddam's son-in-law, as backed up by the mass of stuff the Iraqis claimed to have found on his chicken farm. All the defectors were eager to tell us what they wanted us to hear, as were most of the Iraqi expats. Look at the rise and fall of Ahmed Chalabi as a prime example. |
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:19:18 -0500, "Dan White"
wrote: "All these conservatives"? Politics 101 says that Repubs are strong on defense, and Dems are weak on it. Propaganda 101, you mean. The heavy lifting has always been done by the Democrats, WWI, WWII, Korea. The Vietnam mess is everyone's mess. The Republicans, on the other hand, have been the Brave Conquerors of Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (they were chased out of Lebanon). |
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:27:34 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote: The guy's name was Oral *Roberts*. Jeez, the least you can do is get the objects of your hate righ The guy's name is sleazebag, a True Christian Patriot, but let's not split hairs..... |
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
: wrote: I think the Bush administration enabled everyone to rachet up the violence. Yeah - it was *really* peaceful before Bush came into office. As I said, I am no fan of Bush, but this is the kind of Lib frothing that cost you guys the election. Bush is not the center of evil. Bush effectively disengaged from the peace process and only made a token effort at a "roadmap to peace." And when the Israelis sent tanks into the West Bank and Gaza, Bush did nothing diplomatically or financially to restrain them. By exerting no pressure or meaningful initiative for peace, Bush certainly did enable everyone in the conflict to ratchet up the violence. He did not cause all the problems in the world - or any of them actually. On the contrary, he directly caused our occupation of Iraq. He is merely responding to the world as he found it and as he believes will work. He may be right, he may be wrong, but blaming him for the various stupidities around the world that precede him by many years is simply assinine. Yes, he is seeing the world as he believes it will work. We don't blame him for the stupidities that precede him -- just the ones that he was involved in. The Dems/Left/Libs got shellacked over the last several election cycles at most levels of government for two reasons: This kind of "blame our opponent" mentality, and their general sense of elitism coupled with a palpable contempt for Everyman. And they richly deserved to lose. Bull****. The Dems got beat because the Bushies demonized anyone who was to the left of Jesse Helms. The Bushies made it seem like the progressives weren't for strong national defense, that we don't have family values, that we don't go to church, that we don't support the second amendment, etc etc. Well that's a lot of crap. We are all for strong defense, too -- we just don't like the reckless way it has been pursued by the neo-con nuts. You think progressives don't have wives and children, too? Yeah we do. And a lot of us even go to church. Shoot, I own several guns and am a lifelong hunter. And yet I am a Dem/Left/Lib. You guys think you represent the Everyman. Nonsense. The Everyman cares about leaving a decent legacy for their children. The Everyman realizes that hard work deserves fair compensation, and that everyone ought to have a fair opportunity to prove their skills. The Everyman will give his neighbor a hand if he's in a tight spot. On the other hand, you Bushies believe in a dog-eat-dog world where a helping hand is a waste of "your" tax money on the welfare "bums." You believe in a world where it doesn't matter if you saddle the next generation with a staggering debt, as long as your buddies get some tax cuts today. Where you don't need a real reason to preemptively invade other countries -- because everyone knows that might makes right and besides, they've got it coming to 'em anyway. Pretty soon the country is going to wake up and realize that the neo-cons aren't really representing the Everyman at all. And then we'll see who gets the shellacking. No - he was arrogantly stupid. His failure to open his kimono to a superpower making threats on his front porch was pure ego and hubris. The invasion was entirely avoidable up until the last moment. Setting aside the prudence of the war generally, I think Bush was sincere in his willingness to stand down our military had SH cooperated as we wished. The "everyone knows that he had it coming to him anyway" reasoning. (silly discussion of "intelligent design" snipped) .... I challenge you to find a Liberal that doesn't quickly agree that Saddam Hussein is evil or a neo-con who will admit to any evilness Ward Churchill leaps to mind. Teddy Kennedy is implictly in the same Ward Churchill leaps to mind because he's all over Fox News and Clear Channel. Without Fox and Clear Channel pushing the story, nobody would even know who Ward Churchill is. But by airing Churchill every night, they can pump up their ratings and stoke conservative indignation as well. With 300 million people in the country you are bound to find an oddity like Churchill. If you ask 100 people, you may even find one that agrees with Churchill. But you will probably find ten other people who are eager to send those people off to Gitmo. I worry more about the ten than I do about the one. Lots of liberals will freely admit that perjury about a blow-job is perjury, even if it's not 'bad enough' to justify throwing the President out of office. But try to find a neo-con that thinks torturing prisoners is worth even appointing a special prosecutor. They weren't "tortured" except in the lexicon of the Left. They were *humiliated* and placed under *duress*. No permanent physical harm came to any of them as best as I have read. And "they" in this case, were Are you serious? "Lexicon of the Left"? Here's just one example: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/ In May of 2004 the Army had 33 active probes going on for the deaths of a total of 32 detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May21.html .... Lefties that lie, cheat, and steal are wrong too. They typically do not engage in torture or murder though. That they leave to No - they usually make nice with the people who *are* torturers and murderers. As long ago as the FDR administration the US political Left was openly in bed with avowed Communists. The KGB had people operating in government with the tacit knowledge of the FDR folks (this is documented in excruciating detail in "The Mitrokhin Archive"). Communism in its various 20th Century incarnations was responsible for literally millions of deaths and many more cases of vast human rights abuses ... but the Left was always in love with it in varying degrees. The Left also has - at various times - been in love with the human rights paradises in Cuba, North Viet Nam, Maoist China, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. No, they don't actually *do* the torture and murder - they (in some degree) enable the hitmen who do it ... Similar arguments were used by the supporters of McCarthy to blacklist a lot of good Americans. I think that as a country, we have a short recollection of history. .... |
Mark & Juanita wrote in
: .... Now, what you are continually railing about were *NOT* supported by the *majority* of those polled, i.e.: " * 41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. * 38 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded. * 37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis." Look at the table. For the claim: "Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001" % of Bush supporters who believed it to be true: 52 percent % of Kerry supporters who believed it to be true: 23 percent For the claim: "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded" % of Bush supporters who believed it to be true: 58 percent % of Kerry supporters who believed it to be true: 16 percent The vote on election day was Bush by a 3% margin. |
Duane Bozarth wrote in
: Nate Perkins wrote: The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his plan will cause more harm than good. In what way(s)? It's the wrong direction because it increases the deficit, and in the short term the deficit is a far more pressing problem than is social security. Borrowing more money (a couple trillion) to finance the parallel privatization plan is risky because it increases the risk that foreign debtors will decrease confidence in our committment to fiscal discipline. There are a host of other problems as well: inconsistent projection basis for SS solvency vs privatization returns, unlikely projection of future stock values based on recent historical values, and erosion of return differences due to administrative fees. Privatizers like to accurately point out that SS revenues/expenditures are not practically separate from the general federal revenues/expenditures. With that being true, then the best thing to do to ease multiple problems is to restore fiscal discipline. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter