Anti-war Iraq vets banned from Veterans Day parade.
By on Nov 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Anti-war Iraq vets banned from Veterans Day parade.
Anti-war Iraq veterans were banned from participating in a Veterans Day parade in Long Beach, CA, because “we do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops withdrawal from Iraq,” said one organizer. Brandon Friedman notes that the organizers seem to have no problems with groups advocating staying in Iraq, however.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
295 Responses to “Anti-war Iraq vets banned from Veterans Day parade.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
American Legion & VFW's struggled with Viet Nam Vets joining their service clubs after that war.
These prim & proper crewcut vets couldn't get used to us 'Nam Vets. We looked different, acted outlandish & outlawish, and weren't into the pomp & circumstance associated with these memberships.
You know what brought the two opposites together? MIAs.
We saw a lot of resistance to honoring our Missing In Action brothers at first, but the older regimes didn't take long to admit that anyone standing up for soldiers missing in action can't be 'all bad'.
I still get a charge out of seeing crewcuts & ponytails together to this day. We could all use a little sensitivity in accepting other's differences; it's what makes America great.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pmHooray for "freedom of speech" and "honoring the troops" ...
November 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pmThis seems to be quite fair, if you want to sustain the image of a military that is keen on fulfilling the desires of its Commander in Chief. After all, the folks who don't agree with him needn't enlist and/or can quit. No excuse for being there anf then whining about not liking it. It was your choice - too bad.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:29 pmAgain, THANK YOU, Lt. Ehren Watada, a PATRIOT brave enough to stand up to Chickenhawks like AWOL coward Bush and Cheney.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ehren+watada&btnG=Google+Search
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pmWow. I wonder if there will be a lawsuit? Can there be a privately organized observation of a National holiday that bans people with standing to participate?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:31 pmdesires of its Commander in Chief
Yeah, a little AWOL coward TRAITOR coxucker PUNK who didn't fulfill his own military service.
his "desires"??
What does "Jeff Gannon" have to do with it???
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pmOn this issue, I can see the point of the organizers -- sort of. Having an event focusing solely on thanking veterans for their service with NO political overtones whatsoever is a worthy (if difficult) thing to do.
However, if this is their goal, they should have stayed true to it across the board by banning ALL groups with a political statement to make -- both pro-Iraq war and anti-Iraq war. The organizer should have said, "We do not want groups of a political nature, either advocating the troop withdrawal OR maintaining or escalating the occupation of Iraq. That isn't what this is about."
November 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pmmissmolly,
November 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pmYou're always a voice of reason in a sea of turmoil...thanks.
This seems to be quite fair, if you want to sustain the image of a military that is keen on fulfilling the desires of its Commander in Chief. Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
That's funny... I thought they joined in order to defend the country, not to mindlessly do whatever the Chimp-in-charge asks of them. That's your job.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm"hits" sez:
Actually, the purpose of the nation's armed forces is not to fulfill the "desires" of the Commander-in-Chief.
Actually, many of them were enlisted prior to his demented "War on Terror". Many of them enlisted when he was still pushing the lie that we were actually going to go after the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, instead of invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with the attack.
Actually, they can't "quit". Google "stop loss".
Even by your dismal standards, Jake, this was pathetic.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pmAfter all, the folks who don’t agree with him needn’t enlist and/or can quit. No excuse for being there anf then whining about not liking it. It was your choice - too bad.
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Actually, once you enlist you CAN'T quit. You volunteer for a specific length of time and you take an oath to serve for that time.
And when that length of time gets extended because there aren't enough people to replace you, that's called a "backdoor draft" and you are no longer a volunteer.
But to your point about people who volunteer and then find they are sent to fight a war they find immoral -- you're right, they're stuck. It's one of the risks associating with volunteering. And it's because of this risk that recruiting is way down.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:43 pmThree cowardly trolls had to rush in to justify their existence.
And Keltoi, how does the City of Long Beach stage a "privately" organized parade? No police, no city officials, what?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pmLuis M,
The troops are ultimately sworn in to the chain of command. They do bend to the President's wishes - even if they seem unreasonable. Teasing out the "unreasonable desires" among the President's wishes is not their job. That's left to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and ultimately to the people
Hits
November 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pmAnd Dreamcrush, who said the VFW "held" the parade. Having reading comprehension problems?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:46 pmTripMaster Monkey,
Yes, they can always quit. If they are not willing to assume the cost of "stop loss", that's their decision too, ain't it?
Hits
November 12th, 2007 at 12:46 pmComment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
you loser! you ran away last night when your troll buddies needed you most. coward!
November 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pmmissmolly,
They can quit. There is a cost to quitting. That's all. And you are correct - recruiting can go down under the situation you describe.
Hits
November 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pmhits, these are veterans, Ve-Te-Rans. They have already served this country in the armed forces, and their service is done. That service should be honored, as should theiur right to exercise the rights of U.S. citizens to criticize the Government.
You seem to have them confused with people in active military service.
And the military should never be 'keen on fulfilling the desires of the Commander-In-Chief.' They should be zealous in the defense of thhis country and the support of the Constitution. In monarchies, dictatorships and fascist states, the military's loyalty is to their commander. In a democracy their loyalty is to the people.
It depresses me that I should have to lecture a fellow American on the principles that should be graven in his heart. But I guess in some it doesn't take.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:48 pmComment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
and you! you're worse than dc, call yourself a troll?! as dick cheney once said: "winners never quit and quitters never win"
get it?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pmDreamCrusher sez:
Wrong, DC. It's not a "bait and switch" at all.
By pointing out the past politicization of the American Legion and the VFW, Brandon Friedman puts the lie to the claim that the IVAW was barred because of 501c3 concerns.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pmpbg,
It's called ex-tra-pol-ation. You should look it up. They have a right to criticize, just as the organizers of the rally have a right to choose who to allow in the parade.
Hits
November 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pmComment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
ps - you traitor. how are things in sydney?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:52 pm"hits" sez:
I'm not going to play these sophomoric word games with you, Jake.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:54 pmIt’s called ex-tra-pol-ation. You should look it up. They have a right to criticize, just as the organizers of the rally have a right to choose who to allow in the parade.
Hits
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
gee that comment's been cut about a thousand times... do some original work for a change. stop embarrassing yourself.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:54 pmAnd Keltoi, how does the City of Long Beach stage a “privately†organized parade? No police, no city officials, what?
Comment by Shayne — November 12, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
It was a QUESTION. It wasn't clear from the article who organized the march. I did not see that the government was involved in making it happen, if they were they would be wide open to a lawsuit on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds if they banned Vets because of a political viewpoint. Providing security is a seperate issue, government does that for privately led events all the time.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:54 pmWell, according to drug addict Rush Limbaugh, the anti-war vets are all "phony soldiers" anyways. They don't deserve their freedom of speech according to the radical right. They fought to defend those rights so that people can take them away when they come home.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pmI’m not going to play these sophomoric word games with you, Jake.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — November 12, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
of course you aren't because you always lose... why can't you be more like dc?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pmand you! you’re worse than dc, call yourself a troll?! as dick cheney once said: “winners never quit and quitters never winâ€
get it?
Comment by joe cantwell — November 12, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
"Winners never quit, quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit, are idiots."
November 12th, 2007 at 12:56 pm(from Larry Kersten)
joe cantwell,
An accurate unoriginal comment is any day preferable to an inaccurate original one.
Hits
November 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pmWow...so much for all that "free speech" they fought for, eh...?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pmjoe cantwell sez:
???
November 12th, 2007 at 12:58 pmAnd how about this?:
Among the veterans being turned away, Jason Lemieux, a Marine who served three tours in Iraq, told Puente he was under the impression that free speech is one of the freedoms for which he fought.
"It feels like I've been betrayed by the very people I fought to serve," he said. "They should be embarrassed by themselves."
Explaining why the groups are not being allowed to march, Thuente said, "They just don't fit the spirit of our parade."
She also added that parade organizers are "not allowed to take a political stance." Actually, they took one the moment they decided who could and could not take part in the parade.
Adrian Novotny, who heads the Long Beach Chapter of Veterans for Peace, finds the organizers' action absurd. He notes that the group was allowed to march last year.
Thuente says parade coordinators failed to fully check the group's application before last year's parade. If they had, she says, Veterans for Peace may have been banned then.
But what about "Military Families Against the War?" What part of that title did the parade coordinators not understand. You don't have to comb through its agenda, by-laws or parade application to know what it stands for. Yet, it, too, was allowed to march last year.
"Military Families" is what it says it is: a support group for those with family members in the war. Does that make them somehow un-American, disloyal, or treasonous? As the parent of a soldier who has served in Iraq, I like to think it does not.
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_7411756
November 12th, 2007 at 12:58 pmmissmolly,
However, if this is their goal, they should have stayed true to it across the board by banning ALL groups with a political statement to make — both pro-Iraq war and anti-Iraq war.
Can you find any evidence that this isn’t the case? DailyKos simply pointed to the organization advocating on behalf of the war in other instances, not in connection with the Veterans Day Parade. It’s called a bait and switch.
Comment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
I didn't check the DailyKos item, I read the San Jose Mercury News article.
In that article was the following quote: "They do not fit the spirit of the parade, the spirit being one of gratitude for what the veterans have done," said Martha Thuente, coordinator for the nonprofit Veterans Day Parade Committee. "We do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops' withdrawal from Iraq," she added.
Nothing was said about banning groups from EITHER side who wanted to use the occasion to make a political statement. I was objecting to the lack of neutrality.
I have no evidence that any pro-war group who wanted to make statements in support of the war was allowed in the parade by the organizers, nor did I indicate in my earlier post any claim this actually happened.
Even though I personally think the best thing we can do to "support the troops" is to get them out of Iraq, I did speak up for the parade organizers in my earlier post and their right to have a non-political event. I just said I hoped that their ban on political statements extended to both sides.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pmWhat a slap in the face to our veterans.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThey have a right to criticize, just as the organizers of the rally have a right to choose who to allow in the parade.
Hits
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
You're correct, the organizers of the parade have a right to be hypocritical d!cks, bald-faced liars, and disrepectful to troops on Veterans' Day. None of this seems illegal. However, it speaks volumes that you are willing to defend this conduct.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:00 pm'There is a cost to quitting.'
November 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pmYes. It's called the firing squad. 'Quitting' is also called 'desertion.'
When people are pointing guns at you and will shoot you if you do something, that is not called being free to do something. By that definition the people of the Soviet Union and the Jews in Nazi Germany were free, too. They could do all sorts of things--they just had a price, and the price was death.
you don't understand America, so it's not surprising you don't understand freedom.
joe cantwell,
An accurate unoriginal comment is any day preferable to an inaccurate original one.
Hits
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
well when you're high on drugs there's just no reasoning with you... come back when you sober up. and for the love of god practice your rw troll skills, your argumentation and fact points are really weak.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pmComment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Did you bother to read the DailyKos article, DC?
The VFW has officially taken political positions in the past. Therefore, their rationale to bar IVAW on the basis of 501c3 concerns is invalid, your amusing attempts to restrict the debate to the parade notwithstanding.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThey can quit. There is a cost to quitting. That’s all.
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Yes, and I can rob a liquor store -- but there's a cost to doing that, too. Jail, and a criminal record for the rest of my life.
Quitting without being properly discharged is called Absent Without Leave, or AWOL. People get jailed for that, too (unless, of course, their last name is Bush).
November 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pmpbg,
"America" is nothing to understand. It's the sum total of a variety of realities. You attempt to obfuscate a simple reality doesn't mask the apparent lack of understanding of the matter at hand.
Hits
November 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pmBrianFL,
Well, according to drug addict Rush Limbaugh, the anti-war vets are all “phony soldiers†anyways.
That’s not what he said. Always the ad hominem attacks…
Comment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
well that was worth waiting for. not! c'mon tell "BrainFL" what old pimple ass really said.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pmDC - it is EXACTLY what he said. Read the friggin' transcript, you moron!!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pmWell Keltoi and DC one would assume that the city was holding a veterans day parade the way cities do. I guess if they don't respect all veterans regardless of their views then they shouldn't have a Veterans' Day Parade. Maybe they should just have a Fourth of July or Flag Day or Columbus Day parade if they can't handle it.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:06 pmComment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
well when you’re high on drugs there’s just no reasoning with you… come back when you sober up. and for the love of god practice your rw troll skills, your argumentation and fact points are really weak.
Comment by joe cantwell — November 12, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
So... are you implying that there is a time when it is possible to reason with "sh!ts"?
I gotta spend more time here. I keep missing those moments.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:06 pm“America†is nothing to understand. It’s the sum total of a variety of realities. You attempt to obfuscate a simple reality doesn’t mask the apparent lack of understanding of the matter at hand.
Hits
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
i want you to read that to a man who works for a living. don't forget to duck after you read it because he's gonna punch you in the mouth for being such an elite pussy!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pmEx-tra-po-la-tion means extending a description from where it belongs to where it doesn't belong.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:10 pmLike: things which apply to active duty service men are applicable to people whose service is done.
Like: Obedience to legitimate orders can be extended to fulfilling the desires of the Commander.
Got it.
You don't know English either.
I gotta spend more time here. I keep missing those moments.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
can we reason with a person who's a perpetual and hopeless mental masturbator? perhaps not. but shouldn't we carry on and try?
hits, what are your thoughts?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:10 pmDenver has also banned anti-war veterans:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/644621,CST-CONT-vet11.article
"The Denver United Veterans Council's take: "If the vets for peace had just marched and kept their mouths shut last year they would have been invited back," member Andy Gried told Denver's Fox31. "But because they didn't, we voted to exclude them this year."
"A Vietnam War Marine's take: "I think that is sad," Mike Bundgaard told the station. "That is the reason we went to war -- freedom of speech." "
November 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pmOrganizers said the groups were trying to push a political agenda at an event to honor veterans.
From this it is clear that IVAW was excluded because they showed up trying to make a political statement. It was their actions at the event that caused them to be excluded, not what kind of organization they were.
Comment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
It is not clear at all. It is the word of the organizers with zero proof of anything untoward.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:13 pmmissmolly,
Check this from the article:
Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out were prevented from joining the annual parade down Atlantic Avenue and restricted to a nearby parking lot, officials said. Organizers said the groups were trying to push a political agenda at an event to honor veterans.
From this it is clear that IVAW was excluded because they showed up trying to make a political statement. It was their actions at the event that caused them to be excluded, not what kind of organization they were.
Comment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
--------------------------------------------------
Are you actually READING my posts??? I'm not arguing against any of this. All I am saying is that the organizers of this parade appeared to be trying to hold an event without political statements. They banned some groups who wanted to make political statements for this reason. I SUPPORTED THIS; did you miss that? Furthermore, I made NO claims that any group vocal in their support for the Iraq war was allowed to be in the parade -- I just voiced my hope that a ban on political statements applied across the board.
The point I was making was that when the organizers said "We do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops' withdrawal from Iraq, " they SHOULD HAVE SAID, "We do not want groups of a political nature, either advocating the troop withdrawal OR maintaining or escalating the occupation of Iraq. That isn’t what this is about."
If you're going to rebut my posts, I only ask that you read them first. And then don't rebut arguments I haven't made.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:14 pmOT, sorry..The Onion has a posting about russian ship's sinking on the Black sea...One full of oil, one sulfer.....Several sailor's dead and many missing....Storm caused......Seem's to me there need's to be heavier standard's in ship building and shipping time's considering the spill in San Fran. Calif because of fog or pilot errors and now in russia.....Covering our planet with black goo, killing wildlife and human's for oil will bring a quick end to all life, along with personal war's and bomb's...Blessings
November 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pmcan we reason with a person who’s a perpetual and hopeless mental masturbator? perhaps not. but shouldn’t we carry on and try?
Comment by joe cantwell — November 12, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I'm with you there, Joe. Yet it's such a delicate balance, trying to determine the point at which the fruitlessness of the attempt overtakes any potential benefit.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pmofficials said. Organizers said the groups were trying to push a political agenda at an event to honor veterans.
From this it is clear that IVAW was excluded because they showed up trying to make a political statement. It was their actions at the event that caused them to be excluded, not what kind of organization they were.
Comment by DreamCrusher
Wow you glean a lot by what is not said. Perhaps the organizers felt that the name of the group meant they were pushing a political agenda. This comment says NOTHING about any actions this group took that were political. Read much?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pmGreat post's missmolly, I agree and thank you..Blessings
November 12th, 2007 at 1:16 pmIf you’re going to rebut my posts, I only ask that you read them first. And then don’t rebut arguments I haven’t made.
Comment by missmolly — November 12, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Good luck with that, missmolly.
You may get a better response from Dreamcrusher than we're used to from typical "dissenting voices", but for most of the trolls, misrepresenting liberal arguments is the only way they can possibly get any foothold on a rebuttal. Well, that and just making sh!t up.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:18 pmComment by joe cantwell — November 12, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
So… are you implying that there is a time when it is possible to reason with “sh!ts�
I gotta spend more time here. I keep missing those moments.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Sorry JC but I've got to agree with Ralph here. When exactly does the "shits" say anything coherent? Being drug addled for shits is just icing on the stupid cake.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pmWRT Limbaugh:
He said “phony soldiers†alright, but about whom?
It was in response to:
No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
Limbaugh thereby referred to “not real soldiers†that “come up out of the blueâ€, when saying “phony soldiersâ€.
Come on guys. Everyone knows what “out of the blue†means, and can see that the caller explicitly said that the soldiers they were referring to were not real soldiers.
Grasping at straws comes to mind.
Comment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
You're right, and this exchange directly followed a caller named "Mike from Chicago" whose claims to be a Republican and a veteran were dismissed by Limbaugh because he was anti-war.
There's no proof that he was either, but Limbaugh had no cause for making that judgment other than the caller's attitude on the war.
To anyone who knows that the truth is found between the lines, it's crystal clear that Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark referred to anyone who claims to be a veteran yet thinks this war is a mistake.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:23 pmAs Country Joe McDonald said....
"And it's 1,2,3, what ARE we fighting for?"
November 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pmDreamCrusher sez:
Let me know when you've finished trying to split hairs, DC.
Because of the VFW's engagement in partisan politics in the past, they have no right to fall back on the 501c3 argument.
Or perhaps you think that a parade is an official function, while a statement to Congress isn't?
I realize, that as a neocon watercarrier, you're inured to hypocrisy to the point where you may honestly not even notice it anymore, but I'm patient.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pmLimbaugh thereby referred to “not real soldiers†that “come up out of the blueâ€, when saying “phony soldiersâ€.
Comment by DreamCrusher — November 12, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
gee dc when you put that way... you sound like a commie commissar explaining the smashing success of the latest "five year plan" to a bunch of starving peasants who know better. give back your troll card, you putz!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pmFirst and foremost, a big Thank You and happy Veteran's Day to all those that have served (Wayne, Spudge_Boy, and others I've forgotten).
You will always be appreciated.
Now, on topic. I don't care about a veteran's political or religious belief. I don't care about his/her support or opposition of this war, or any war. If you've served, and you're not a criminal, you should always be welcomed to march. ALWAYS!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:27 pmAnd to those that prevented these brave men and women from marching, shame on you. How very anti-American, and anti-support the troops. Your last grasps at political injustice and hypocrisy is just about over!!!!
Sorry JC but I’ve got to agree with Ralph here. When exactly does the “shits†say anything coherent? Being drug addled for shits is just icing on the stupid cake.
Comment by Shayne — November 12, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
my feeling is that as long as he's here we know he isn't out with dc loading up a truck with fertilizer and an ignition device getting ready to murder kids at a day care center like their heros mcviegh and nichols. it's a safety concern with me.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:29 pmThis is no surprise.
All of the talk about 'supporting the troops' etc. coming from this government is just that, talk.
They couldn't care less about our troops or the people of this country or the people of any other country.
They care about one thing, keeping the war machine running.
Someone on an earlier thread posted a link to: War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (2007).
November 12th, 2007 at 1:32 pmThe way it pieces things together it's pretty easy to see where this country has been on the subject of war for a long long time.
OK JC as long as we don't expect anything of any importance to come from hits we won't be disappointed when he's here for a long time and all that comes out is crap.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pmSomeone must tell the organizers that the US has lost the war when it comes to IRAQ. We were told that it would last weeks, we were told that "mission was acomplished", we were told that iraquis were going to receive the "terrorists" (USA) as liberators, we were told it is not an occupation... five years later, the only progress you got is the number of american casualities! IMPEACH, INDICT AND IMPRISON BUSH AND CHENNEY!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:38 pmWell at least DreamCrusher uses an appropriate handle...Bush supporters have crushed all dreams and futures for our military who believed his lies.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pmhits, I have to wonder if you're even in college.
'Variety of realities' is incoherent babble. It isn't? Name two varieties of reality.
Fulminating abstraction is what scared high-school debaters do.
I'll make it plain. America is an organizing principle of this corner of this vast and multifarious reality. It is an ordering, on a set, one-to-one and onto. It turns a set into a topological space.
The orrdering of America is the principles and tenets of the nation's founding. besides categorization, it is also how we exist as a governmeent and a society.
Big and complec things ccan be talked about and understood, and America is no different from the phase space of chemical reaction or the interior of a star.
America can be understood in terms of its organizing principles, and that is what we are doing here.
We are asserting that banning veterans from a parade honoring veterans is a violation of American principles. Not only the right of free speech but the right of assembly are being violated in a public space, at the ordering of unelected 'organizers.' I object to the honoring of some abstract version of veteraniness at the expense of the reality of the people who served. It is not 'Military Service Day', and it is not 'Parade Organizers Day.'
November 12th, 2007 at 1:45 pmIt's their day, and it's undemocratic arrogance to tell them what they should do with it. And that's even before we talk about poitical bias.
America. freedom. You steadfastly argue against both.
#71 Comment by Shayne — November 12, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
dude someday at an oxycotton support group "hits" might stand up, no, make that will stand up and say:
"my eyes are open,
my mind is free,
it's time for me to start thinking
progressively"
group hug.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pmWell said pbg. We are way too sanitized.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:51 pmgroup hug.
Comment by joe cantwell — November 12, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
I hate for you to be disappointed jc, but "you can't fix stupid". Hits will never see the light.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pmI have to say, I understand what the organizers of the parade were trying to do; however, I would say that not allowing veterans to march solely BECAUSE of their views is dishonoring them and all others who have gone before. All those that gave their lives and sacrificed throughout history to stand up for an ideal.
This is VETERANS day. Not "VETERANS THAT DON'T HAVE AN OPINION DAY". If veterans want to participate in the parade and show what this day means to them; they should be allowed.
I spoke at a peace rally in Madison, WI. I was torn about what to say, or even if I should speak there for the very same reason being discussed. I came to a labored conclusion that the biggest insult to those that have fought, and those continuing to fight for this country and its ideals, was to be silent.
The parade should be for ALL VETERANS. If you don't like the message of one veteran group, then don't join them and just appreciate the parade for what it is. A celebration of ALL OF OUR VETERANS, whether you agree with them or not. That is how you make it apolitical.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pmAll you reTHUGlican morons need to go out and buy yourself another made-in-China magnetic "Support our Troops" ribbon, slap it on your 8 mile-per-gallon SUV and tell yourself that you're the REAL patriotic Americans.
The rest of us will fight to bring our troops home, get them the medical care they need and the jobs they deserve.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pmI hate for you to be disappointed jc, but “you can’t fix stupidâ€. Hits will never see the light.
Comment by Shayne — November 12, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
sure he will. then he'll go into it. then he'll be gone.
no one here gets out alive.
- jim morrison
November 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pmLuis M,
The troops are ultimately sworn in to the chain of command. They do bend to the President’s wishes - even if they seem unreasonable. Teasing out the “unreasonable desires†among the President’s wishes is not their job. That’s left to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and ultimately to the people
Hits
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
That's the same excuse used at Nuremberg, by the men we convicted for not stopping torture and illegal wars...
pbg,
It’s called ex-tra-pol-ation. You should look it up. They have a right to criticize, just as the organizers of the rally have a right to choose who to allow in the parade.
Hits
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
They also have the right to be hypocrites, and you have the right to be an ignorant fool just as we have the right to criticize them for being one. You should look it up. When troops came home from vietnam that were pro-vietnam they whined about being excluded from parades and events. Now they do this themselves to others. It's typical hypocrisy of the wingnuts - and we're exercising our first amendment rights to criticize this - look it up 'tard!
joe cantwell,
An accurate unoriginal comment is any day preferable to an inaccurate original one.
Hits
Comment by hits — November 12, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Then how does an inaccurate unoriginal comment like yours have any place your - fool?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pmI believe the far left is destroying the dreams and future of the soldiers.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
sure you do but you didn't mention anything about believing in a man called jesus...
have you forgotten him?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:03 pmSorry to be off topic - there is no think fast thread today.
This is a one-click vote for impeachment investigations to the judiciary.
http://www.democrats.com/topelosiandjudiciary
November 12th, 2007 at 2:03 pmSouthern Man said:
I believe the far left is destroying the dreams and future of the soldiers.
Then he followed with:
Whenever there is progress, and there is a lot of progress, it gets put on page seventeen. It’s always ignored here for some strange reason.
Please, SM, explain two things:
1) how is this the doings of "the far left"?
2) how does this "destroy the dreams and future" of our soldiers? Seems to me like their dreams and futures are destroyed far more efficiently by placing them in the middle of sectarian civil war with no clear military objective.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:05 pmPlease tell?
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
no, you please tell...
this is your soul we're talking about pal.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:06 pmDo you want to win the war first and then go home? Or do you want to lose the war and go home? Please tell?
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
First you tell us what "win the war" means, then we'll answer.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:07 pmMy dreams and future have not been harmed by those trying to end the war, in fact, it is quite the opposite. And you are basing your opinion on what? Anything else you would like to say is harming me?
I would say that the 3900 KIA can't have much more damage done to their future, and the 50,000 + who have been physically wounded as well as the scores of thousands who have lasting psychological scars would disagree with who is harming their futures.
I am glad that bombs and mortar attacks are at a 22 month low (if that is true, I did not see a citation of the information); however, do you realize how many are still happening? Since most of the mortar attacks and IEDs are set for US troops, how much do you think it would decline if we gave the Iraqi citizens what they want, and left?
The Iraqis want us out. PERIOD. That is reason enough to end the suffering and loss of life of our troops. Support the troops is more than a talking point.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:07 pmSouthern man - what about the promises of the 3856 who were led into a war on false premises? Or the 28,000 severly wounded and the 47,000 with emotional problems that will follow them forever?
We did not need to go into Iraq and you and Bush are responsible for cheating these young men and women of life. Sleep on that for the rest of your life !
Go volunteer at a VA hospital and see how righteous YOUR war seems now. Hold a vet's hand if he still has one. You war mongers make me sick.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:07 pmComment by Rovian Stormtrooper Commander — November 12, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
you're right, if you want to get in touch with the vets who served their country with honor and dignity then tp is indeed the place to be!
(after all you're here, aren't you?)
November 12th, 2007 at 2:14 pmThere should be no pro-Iraq statements, no anti-Iraq statements on this day.
It's a day of thanks and respect.
People can shove all other commentary up their ass.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:14 pmProgress, progress ! Progress wasn't even needed until you war mongers destroyed this poor country and its people. Where is your shame for following this arrogant little dictator?
If those of us that fought against going into a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 3856 men and women would be alive today. As I said, remember who sent our young to die and try to live with that Southern Man
November 12th, 2007 at 2:15 pmSo from me, thanks vets, and a special recognition for all the swabbies out there from a former Bos’n Mate.
Comment by Rovian Stormtrooper Commander — November 12, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
I would like to thank the vets that came home and told the truth: war is hell, soldiers are cannon fodder, and nobody should join the military under a Republican administration. I would like to thank the vets against war for their service and patriotism. phonies like RSC are very busy claiming service that they never saw, and riding on the backs of those that actually did serve, while they worship at the anus of their Deserter-In-Chief, a cowardly drunk who no soldier should be ordered to follow. Iraq vets banned from a Veterans Day parade is all we need to know about the false patriotism of those such as RSC, a chickenhawk liar if there ever was one.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI'd be rather interested in knowing how the parade organizers aren't opening themselves up for one gigantic lawsuit ?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pmPeople can shove all other commentary up their ass.
Comment by DaveRywall — November 12, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
As you have a right to say that the vets have a right to say otherwise. Go F yourself pinhead.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pmPeople can shove all other commentary up their ass.
Comment by DaveRywall — November 12, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
From where you got yours, obviously. Nice of you to try to suspend the Constitution on your own, but no takers here, except the pathetic rovot with the gay nym.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:20 pmPreznit Bush AWOL
VPreznit and 4th Branch Cheney 5 deferments
Wonderful example to the vets thes? Right? And they get to make speeches on Vets Day.
PATHETIC!
November 12th, 2007 at 2:21 pmdave can say whatever he wants to say. so can rsc. and thebobh. and lefty patriot.
that's what america means to me.
happy veterans day everyone!
November 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pmWe do not really know enough about the event to determine why these groups were excluded. We are given a conclusion from the event organizers. The very name of the group would be enough to make some conservatives assume the worse. At the same time, I agree that the event should not be used to push a political point on either end of the spectrum.
Indeed, it would seem that both sides missed an opportunity to bring people together. A parade supporting veterans from all past wars and honoring their sacrifice for this nation without political comment in favor or or against the current conflict can help in the healing of the hyper partisanship so wrongfully created by Bush and the conservatives.
I do not believe in this latest military adventure. However, I am sick and tired of being accused of not supporting the troops because I disagree with the mission on which the troops were sent.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pmps - southern man, check out this link:
http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/
they can help.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pmAssumptions are like liberals’; Almost always wrong!
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
pretty weak, like the rest of your whining. southern pansy should be your nym.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:24 pmOur soldiers have won "Bush's war" They fulfilled every changing goal Bush/Cheny have set. They need to come home and Iraq needs to pay Blackwater or defend themselves. Bush's only agenda is to try and control the oil in Iraq and Iran.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhat? Because of my name, you bring up Jesus? Because of my comment you bring up Jesus? You’re a smart one JC. 1+1=Jesus
Assumptions are like liberals’; Almost always wrong!
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
calm down, calm down. he loves you. not in the carnal way. but in the divine, spiritual way that will save your hate-filled soul.
amen.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pmShhh.
Soldiers should be seen and not heard.
We don't want them to ruin the idea that they are only good for confiscating oil fields and as a bargaining chip for furthering the political agendas of others.
On a side note, yeah, that freedom you were fighting for....
November 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pmYeah Lefty Patriot, I'm trying to "suspend the Constitution".
Go be an ass and protest the Iraq war at a V Day event. In fact, go scream your head off beside a 90 year old vet. Your grace, maturity, respect and tact will be most appreciated.
Have a nice day.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pmI do not believe in this latest military adventure. However, I am sick and tired of being accused of not supporting the troops because I disagree with the mission on which the troops were sent.
Comment by JMOHR — November 12, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
I attended a WW2 Memorial dedication event yesterday, and every Repuke cheap-suit pol used the occasion to try to bash liberals, in spite of the fact that FDR won that war. It's just pure Nazi tactics; the right wing cares less about freedom then power, and less about people than profits. We may have to adopt some of their techniques in order to purge them from our democracy, before they ruin it entirely. the right wing loses every war every time, but the left is too evolved to destroy them so they can't come back and poison humanity again. it's a real problem, as evidenced by the lockstep nazi "thinking" of our wingnut trolls.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pmHave a nice day.
Comment by DaveRywall — November 12, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Enlisted yet, coward? or just wrapping yourself conveniently in a flag everybody else gets to fight and die for?
Have a shitty day.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pmCommenter #3 "hits" is a crack-up ... remember his type ... the Love it or leave nimrods. They're still out there. Gotta love his logic that they either didn't enlist or they can quit ... how do you QUIT the military when that coward-in-chief won't even let them come home after 3 tours??? Hey "hits" ... grow a brain. Sheez.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:30 pmHave a nice day.
Comment by DaveRywall — November 12, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
dave, is this a day for sarcasm...?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:30 pmDo you want to win the UNWINABLE war first and then go home? Or do you want to lose the UNWINABLE war and go home? Please tell?
Comment by Southern Man
So you don't have the brains to understand that the War is UNWINABLE?
Besides why worry, we are never gonna leave the Middle East, oil drives the economy and when you don't have oil you are gonna have riots and anarchy.
Americans will not support each other, they will kill their neighbors for food and energy when society completely falls apart.
Which is just what the conservative christofascist want, the end times crap.
Man I just hate all of you scum bags.
Buck Fush
November 12th, 2007 at 2:31 pmShits-some of us antiwar vets were DRAFTED! WTF is your excuse?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pmHave a shitty day.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 12, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
now, now, no "shitty" days for anyone today, ok? except for "southern man" and that's only because he's trying to resolve a spiritual crisis i'm trying to help him with. let's be nice with each other.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:33 pmNot that I owe anybody anything, but for all of you twisted, pathetic rightwing cowards, I just want you to know that i attended the WW2 memorial dedication ceremony yesterday because I am a fundraiser for the project. A major fundraiser. It was the last war America needed to fight, which is why we won. It should be memorialized and remembered, as the true meaning of American patriotism, as opposed to the mass-murder called for by Bush, and the accompanying cowardice of Bush followers. I can imagine that the pussies trolling today would also have avoided service in WW2, being bone-deep cowards.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:34 pmhits KNOWS they can quit! His king, preznit Bush the 2nd, quit. Remember: AWOL. Quit and let his daddy fix it for him
November 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThat is the definition of win. This came from my 7 year olds elementary dictionary. I would have used mine, but this short definition is more your speed.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
"short"?
ps - didja check out that link yet? really dude, they can help you!
November 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThat is the definition of win. This came from my 7 year olds elementary dictionary. I would have used mine, but this short definition is more your speed.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
and just as completely irrelevant. Even by your 7-year-old's dictionary the "war" is already won. maybe you need the 3-year-old's dictionary. Have your 7-year-old explain it to you.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:36 pmWhat are we acquiring then Southern Man? (besides a monstrous debt)
What are we gaining? (besides the ill will of the world) Etc.
Your child's dictionary didn't seem to really get into that.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pmAhhh, Lefty Patriot, thanks for the tired and irrelevant "grab a gun and man a post or stfu" drivel.
I'm sure you're quite anxious to get back to watching Cl. Jessep's Few Good Men speech in your underpants (again), so don't let us hold you up.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pmWe hate you to. Please don’t ever forget that.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
come on, get to that dictionary, you moron. Of course you hate us, we beat the tar out of you in 1865. Get over it, and learn to live with being a loser. Bush has. condi has. Rove ran away to learn that lesson, zs did Powell. Follow your leaders and quit your pathetic whining!
November 12th, 2007 at 2:39 pmComment by DaveRywall — November 12, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
"tired and irrelevant" is a veru imaginative way to excuse your cowardice and lack of patriotism, Dave, points for that. Otherwise, enlist or shut up.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pmThat dude spent 33 years and 4 months in active service and as best I can tell he is the one and ONLY DOUBLE recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. He said, "War is a rackett". Which commenter here is a more qualified expert on the subject? "Bring-it-on". http://www.warisaracket.org/
November 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pmTypical progressive answer to a question †What does win meanâ€.
Since I read that stupid answer to a question a lot here,
win (win), v.i. [p.t. and p.p. won, pr.p winning] to acquire by effort or gain by superiority; to be succesful, triumph;to be victorious in, as to win a game; to obtain as to win consent.
That is the definition of win. This came from my 7 year olds elementary dictionary. I would have used mine, but this short definition is more your speed.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Thanks for responding. I was beginning to suspect that you were a "typical regressive troll" who only answers questions for which he has ready talking pooints, and only then with invective, misdirection and lies. Thank goodness you're not one of those.
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
What does "win the war" mean in the context of Iraq?
What is the objective in Iraq that we can "acquire by effort or superiority"? (Or that meets any of the other definitions you offered?)
A stable government? Our military has no control over that.
Control of the oil reserves? Nope, can't be that, President Cheney said this was about freedom, not oil.
"Freedom for Iraqis"? Our military has no control over that, either.
So do tell us, Southern Man, what does "win the war" mean in the context of IRAQ?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI know this is Veterans Day, but people need to remember that America didn't win WWII by itself - all the Allies did. A little less Americentricness with the we won, FDR won etc etc, and a little more historical accuracy, pls thx.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pmSmedley Butler, disgusted with warring for American corporations, died in the hopes that wingnuts like dave the coward and hits the moron would learn some lessons from his writings, but nothing has changed. Rich fat white men sending poor desperate kids to war for corporate profits. Shame on America for putting up with this.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pmA little less Americentricness with the we won, FDR won etc etc, and a little more historical accuracy, pls thx.
Comment by DaveRywall — November 12, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
As long as you recognize that Bush would have lost it, fine.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pmPosters like SM and DC are not worth the time to argue with them. They have no feelings for their fellow man, or woman. They are selfish, empty shells pretending to be human beings. They really are just space takers.
It makes them happy when they see real humans react to the loss of life and the destruction of our wonderful country even if they can't understand the words honor, compassion and respect.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:45 pmCan you imagine how WW 2 would have gone with Bush as CIC?! Shudder.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:46 pmQ: Cookie Monster, why did you eat the cookie?
CM: I didn't eat cookie. Cookie Monster don't eat cookie.
Q: But Cookie Monster, you've got the cookie right in your hand. There's cookie crumbs all over your fur.
CM: But I didn't eat cookie. Cookie Monster does not eat cookies. Period.
Q: So what is that in your hand?
CM: What?
Q: That thing that looks like a cookie in your hand?
CM: Oh this. This am not cookie.
Q: It's not.
CM: No. Media is mistaken. Biased. Left-wing. Cookie Monster could not be holding a cookie because Cookie Monster, as previously stated, do not eat cookie!
Q: So what is it?
CM: Freedom.
Q: It's not a cookie, it's "Freedom".
CM: That is right. Cookie Monster redefine "cookie" as "freedom", so when Cookie Monster eat cookie, Cookie Monster can lie right to your face and say Cookie Monster don't eat cookie. He eat FREEDOM.
Q: Seriously?
CM: 9/11 changed everything.
Bush redefined Peace as War. Sweet, the republiidots are taking it hook line and sinker.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:46 pmComment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
I love when you miss the points of a reply, as well as the humor and irony. Makes you look real stupid, and yet you continue to embarrass yourself. You are very much like Bush, are you also a fake southerner like him?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:46 pmSomebody needs to point this out:
I love when you type inâ€calm down†when someone responds to your BS. Makes you look real stupid.....calm down little progressive.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
November 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pmyeah that assboy bush wasnt even born south fo the mason dixon line.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pmI love when you type inâ€calm down†when someone responds to your BS. Makes you look real stupid…..calm down little progressive.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
November 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pm...............................................................................................................
Drinking all that kool-aid let to an irony deficiency.
Bush would've lost WWII, but his family's pre-war Nazi ties would have ensured the family fortune would be safe.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pmcorrection:
November 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pmDrinking all that kool-aid led to an irony deficiency.
People seem to have forgotten that the VFW and American Legion are today and have been for the last 100 years extremist right wing organizations. These guys in the early years of the last century were used as antiunion goons and strikebreakers. They are a self selected bunch. Eight of my uncles and father fought in WWII and not one of them would have anything to do with these groups. In Germany, Italy and England it was similar groups after WWI that provided the initial support for the fascists parties.
We should just keep this in mind when dealing with them. The Iraq vets should have forced the issue and just marched in the parade. It is not worth debating these cretins.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pmBlack enlistments down Yo' 'hits' ... looks like Black-folk be catchin' on ... your boy Bush better round up all those Hispanic illegals next and get 'em in uniform before he has to resort to putting Jenna in uniform. We all know he'd send her before going himself!
November 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pmAnd please tell where I am whining? Pathetic responses!
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
"We hate you to. Please don't ever forget that."
That isn't whining like a 5-year-old?
Please, give it up. You're over your head here, out of your league, outclassed, outgunned, outsmarted. Go on over to redstate or lgf, where you can bask in the collective room-temperature IQ.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:54 pmWow....who's the latest troll? "Southern Man" seems to be going out of his way to make himself look stupid...
November 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pmWe should just keep this in mind when dealing with them. The Iraq vets should have forced the issue and just marched in the parade. It is not worth debating these cretins.
Comment by syvanen — November 12, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Good points, s. My dad is a WW2 vet and would have nothing to do with them, either. A bunch of drunken crybabies, he thought.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pmThe new breed of vets will have a much different look upon their country than the ones described by syvanen.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pmLefty Patriot; thanks for fundraising for the WWII memorial. My grandfather and father-in-law were WWII vets.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm"Wow….who’s the latest troll? “Southern Man†seems to be going out of his way to make himself look stupid…"
November 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm...............................................................................................................
Usual leftist/John Kerry/Rovian Stormtrooper Commander
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Why won't you answer the question TROLL?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:01 pmSouthern Man sez:
I call bullsh!t. If victory was as simple and obvious as you would like us to think, you'd have no problem laying out the requirements for us.
Tell us, SM, how do you define "victory" in the case of Iraq, especially given that it's not a 'war'....it's an occupation. How exactly does one "win" an occupation, SM?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:03 pmSo do tell us, Southern Man, what does “win the war†mean in the context of IRAQ?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
It means what I asked? Do you or don’t you want to win the war? I am not going waste my time on someone such as yourself arguing what “win†means. This talking point that the left adopts is childish. But it is the left, so…ironic!
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Seriously? This is your answer? Wow. I thought maybe you had a bit more game than this.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pmHey Southern Man ... Save Your Dixie Cups, the South will Rise again [NOT!]. My Great Great Grand Father fought for the 15th Virginia Cavalry and his sword is stashed here at the house. I'm a son of the Confederacy, but sooner or later you need to grow-up and recognize
1) the south was wrong,
2) the south lost the war, and
3) the war ended a very, very long time ago.
But hangers-on like you and Bushie miss it sooo much ya have to go involve us in Iraq's civil war. 9 of the 15 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis ... when ya gonna get around to invading Saudi Arabia? Gotta love these Bush lemmings and sheep.
Yeah but, I'm sure all these good 'CONS in here all know better than Teddy, right? Fools ;-)
November 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pmSo do tell us, Southern Man, what does “win the war†mean in the context of IRAQ?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 2:41
November 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pm..............................................................................................................
Why are you afraid to answer this questionTROLL?
The day I’m in over my head here is the day I vote Clinton.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
It's a good thing SM can breathe underwater. He'll never have to face the truth of his delusions. It's probably the greatest kindness God has ever done for him.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pmThere is no "war". There is the AUMF and the Iraqi resolution but Bush isn't keeping up with the goals of these.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pmhellinabucket: You missed my point when your wrote "The new breed of vets will have a much different look upon their country than the ones described by syvanen." The VFW and the Am Legion are not representative of vets in any war -- they are a self-selected group of right-wing crybabies. Most served in behind the line support services, I know a few veterans who saw front line combat and they avoided these guys as a bunch of bullshit artists.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pmDo you want to win the war first and then go home? Or do you want to lose the war and go home? Please tell?
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
We've already lost the war, you idiot, thanks to your hero, GDumbya.
I want our troops home NOW. They shouldn't have to pay with their lives for Dubya's IDIOCY and VANITY.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pmWe're still waiting for an answer to the question, Southern Man.
A confession that terms like "victory" and "winning" are inapplicable to an occupation will also be acceptable.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:12 pmI support this group
November 12th, 2007 at 3:13 pmSM has yet to explain his and Bush's meaning of "win". Do you want Saddam to write and apology? Oops can't do that. Do you want to own the country? Well you do and your taxes and mine are buying it daily.
Our military did EVERY CHANGING GOAL Bush kept raising....time to come home.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pmI agreed with you syvanen. I've stayed away from these groups for that reason.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pmWhere's southern pansy? Off to whine about being out of Colt 45? Well, good, he was making the thread soggy.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pmSouthern (wo)man: So tell us, just what are YOU doing to help "win" the Iraq war? Are you going to enlist?
Didn't think so, coward.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pmBush would’ve lost WWII, but his family’s pre-war Nazi ties would have ensured the family fortune would be safe.
Comment by DaveRywall — November 12, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Dave, did you put down the koolaid? You're making sense.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:18 pmLefty Patriot & mary; if W was prez in WWII, we'd be speaking German now. And our flag would the the swastika--oops, that already is, under THIS administration.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm171 - Huh...??
WTF are you babbling about? "Obtaining large masses of land"...? Dude, we are now squatting on the 2nd largest oil reserve in the ME.
Or don't you get that...?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:23 pmIf we cannot win the war in your opinion, how can we lose? If it’s not a war to be won, then it technically is not a war to lose by your arguments.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Hey everybody, watch Southern Man attempt sophistry! He's not very good at it, but it's kind of cute, like watching a kitten try to catch a crow.
How about answering the question? Should be pretty simple. How do you define "victory" in Iraq?
Oh, and "how can we lose"? I'd say pouring more billions every month into a quagmire and getting more young Americans killed or maimed for no good outcome would pretty much be a losing proposition, wouldn't you?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:25 pmSM - large masses well 14 bases one of which is 300 acres so that could be a start.
The main question was win or not win....76% of us say we have succeeded in the agenda so it is time to leave. Bush can't come up with another lie to stay so bring them home.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pmSouthern Man sez:
Congratulations, dolt. You just managed to restate the same flawed argument three times in three sentences. Unfortunately, it's no better the third time than it was the first.
We "lose" every time an American soldier gives up their life in vain. We "lose" every time an Iraqi citizen is murdered in the cesspool of anarchy we've created. We "lose" every time we spend a dollar for bullets, instead of bread to fill hungry mouths.
We started losing the moment we invaded a sovereign nation without provocation or cause. And we're still losing today.
Is that clear enough to you?
Specious argument. The acquisition of "large masses of land" is not the defining characteristic of an occupation.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:27 pmSM, technically it never was a war. Why don't you get that? Iraq is a large mass of land, so what's with you? Are you really that stupid? I was having fun with you before, but it seems that maybe you are shamefully ill-informed.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:27 pmIf SM read a little history he could find a few examples of colonial powers defeating insurrections. The classic example is the American victory over the Phillipine insurgents. We did win that one but it was necessary to kill 10% of the native population. This requires killing noncombatant relatives of the insurgents. It tends to demoralize them after a point. The US has lost the blood lust needed to do the job.
So SM this is how to define victory. Kill 2 to 3 million Iraqis and then watch the survivors submit to our rule. If they do not submit, then we have lost. Simple as that.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:28 pmSo do tell us, Southern Man, what does “win the war†mean in the context of IRAQ?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 2:41
Hey little TROLL
November 12th, 2007 at 3:29 pmo do tell us, Southern Man, what does “win the war†mean in the context of IRAQ?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 2:41
Hey little TROLL
November 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pmIt's been almost an hour and we are still waiting for you to answer the question.
SM is having lunch and then a nap so it will be awhile before he can answer what is his and Bush's meaning of win.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:33 pmWow. Has it been almost an hour? Those trolls can chew up some time, can't they?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:34 pmsyvanen sez:
We'll, we're a good third-to-half of the way there...
November 12th, 2007 at 3:36 pmStill waiting for an answer to the question, Southern Man.
Define "victory" in the context of the Iraq Occupation.
A confession that terms like “victory†and “winning†are inapplicable to an occupation will also be acceptable.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pmGod Bless American PATRIOTS like Lt. Ehren Watada, who are BRAVE enough to stand up to AWOL coward TRAITOR coxucker PUNKS like
MURDERER and LIAR Bush!!!
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pmIt depresses me that I should have to lecture a fellow American on the principles that should be graven in his heart. But I guess in some it doesn’t take.
Comment by pbg — November 12, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
That's what happens when the morally bankrupt, and intellectually stunted, insist on being the sole "educators" of their children. Most call it "home schooling". "Institutionalized ignorance" may be a more accurate definition.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:42 pmStill waiting for an answer to the question, Southern Man.
Define “victory†in the context of the Iraq Occupation.
A confession that terms like “victory†and “winning†are inapplicable to an occupation will also be acceptable.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — November 12, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
I don't know about you, TMM, but I'd think that if SM had a good answer for us, he'd have thrown it out there by now.
I mean, it would seem to be much more satisfying to express a strong, clear objective (if he had one) than to dodge and dissemble the way he's doing. Am I wrong?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pmSouthern Pansy has no answers for us, people, time to set phasors to "ignore", like the hits moron treatment.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pmComment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
November 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pmWhy can't you answer a simple questionLITTLE TROLL?
wouldn’t say a word to for fear of getting his ass kicked.
Comment by Southern Punk
Ha ha, look punk, I served in Vietnam (4 years) have been kick boxing for 26 years - bring it on, my biceps are bigger than your thighs unless of course you are a FAT SOUTHERN. You would last past the first punch, punk.
Buck Fush
November 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pmand it's 1...2...3... What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn.
Neither do the Long Beach, CA Veterans Parade organizers.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pmBetter question:
WHY wouldn't Bush and Cheney TESTIFY UNDER OATH to the 9/11 Commission, which they resisted forming for OVER A YEAR.
In other words, TELL THE TRUTH to the Commission and the American
Public about their involvement with the Bin Ladens and the Saudi FINANCIERS of Al Queda?
Isn't it AMAZING how Bin Laden is in Pakistan, a country that had (and HAS) nuclear weapons, but we invaded Iraq??
TRAITORS Bush and Cheney need to be waterboarded until they DROP DEAD and go to their MASTER Satan, who will SMASH Bush's
face in EVERY SECOND for ETERNITY!!
Which he DESERVES!!
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 3:51 pmSouthern Man sez:
You'll forgive me if I have my doubts...
I did answer your question, dolt. Your turn.
(Wow...the wheels are really coming off, aren't they?)
OK, SM, if you place so much faith in Lieberman, surely you'll have no problem outlining his criteria for "victory" in Iraq.
In other words, nice dodge, but the question still stands.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:52 pmI have a life outside of this place, unlike a lot of you. You won’t answer my question about losing so why should I waste my time with winning.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Okay, 1) I answered your question about losing. Here's what I said at 3:25:
I’d say pouring billions every month into a quagmire and getting more young Americans killed or maimed for no good outcome would pretty much be a losing proposition, wouldn’t you?
So your excuse that You won’t answer my question about losing so why should I waste my time with winning. doesn't hold water.
And 2) that's a curious excuse anyway. Why would someone who had a strong, clear answer to a question in a contentious debate withhold that answer? It should be ammunition for you, not a reward for the other guy, so withholding it makes no sense. -- Oh, wait -- you're on the side who believe that Saddam moved his WMDs to Syria rather than waste them on a hated invading army.
So maybe to you, it DOES make sense.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:53 pmwin? lose? what?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:53 pmThers my argument. Joe said so!!!
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
can't win without jesus sm.
and you have turned your back on him.
"ye shall reap the whirlwind and find no parking space at the piggly wiggly"
amen.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:54 pmI think he is a lot smarter than all of you. He’s an independent right? Thers my argument. Joe said so!!!
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
that says it all. You think turncoat Joe, Senator from Israel, is smarter than we? he has proven that not to be true, as we have lost in Iraq. We lost. LOST! It's over except for an exit strategy, which Bush, cowardly deserter that he has always been, will dump in the lap of the next president. WE LOST, you idiot. And yo don't have a life outside this blog, you have a miserable little existence, a coward hiding behind bullies. That's not a life.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:54 pm(Wow…the wheels are really coming off, aren’t they?)
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — November 12, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
TMM
November 12th, 2007 at 3:55 pm(Wow…the wheels are really coming off, aren’t they?)
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — November 12, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
TMM, I think the wheels came off long ago. I think the wheels are in the creek by now.
(Sorry for the mis-post)
November 12th, 2007 at 3:56 pmBush: But waterboardin ain't torture!
Satan: SMASH! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bush: But wtrbrdn an't trtr!
Satan: SMASH! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bush: But wtrbrdn an't trtr!
Satan: SMASH! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bush: But wtrbrdn an't trtr!
Satan: SMASH! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bush: But wtrbrdn an't trtr!
Satan: SMASH! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bush: But wtrbrdn an't trtr!
Satan: SMASH! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bush: But wtrbrdn an't trtr!
Satan: SMASH! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bush: But wtrbrdn an't trtr!
Satan: SMASH! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 3:57 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
???
November 12th, 2007 at 3:57 pmI think he is a lot smarter than all of you. He’s an independent right? Thers my argument. Joe said so!!!
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Yeah..makes perfect sense. He must know much more than General Batiste. Why would a General (who is a long time Republican Conservative) have a valid argument? I am sure Lieberman knows much more than General Newbold.
Let's not forget General Shinseki, General Zinni, and at least 4-5 other Generals that were either force out, retired in protest, or are just plain retired and don't like the direction our country is going.
Even your favorite General Petreaus has a manual on how to fight this if we REALLY wanted to "win". We would need 1 troop for EVERY civilian. That was in his own counter insurgency manual, but apparently this threat isn't as important as they think or else they would have instituted a draft to get the correct amount of troops.
I don't know what I am thinking. I am sure Lieberman is much more "independent" and intelligent than all those Generals.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pmsorry...I meant 1 troop for EVERY 40 Civilians.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pmSouthern Pansy has an answer for everything; unfortunately, all wrong answers. You're not helping your case, SM, but that case may be far beyond help.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:05 pmI come in here to learn about you, and you do not dissapoint. Thank you for a fun lunch time.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
and yet you learn nothing. Good riddance.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:06 pmhate in your heart for fellow Americans like me-
Comment by Southern Punk
We hate Fascist Brownshirt Lockstep Pigs, thought I would define that better for you.
Buck Fush
November 12th, 2007 at 4:07 pmSM can't answer the question if America won or lost in Iraq because they have no definition of what to win is. Wish they would just say we want to occupy indefinitely so we have our fingers on the oil. Now that would be a rare moment of truth for Bush and his loyal 24%ers.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:09 pmI'll ask you Southern man, What would be your definition of a win in Iraq? What is your definition of losing in Iraq? What would be unacceptable treatment of our vets in your opinion? Why do you use the term "war"?
No insults, no slurs, no attacks on intelligence. Just honest questions.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:10 pmI just don't get it, I tell ya. I addressed the substance (such as it were) of Southern Man's arguments, I didn't call him a "troll" (which apparently is the same thing as calling a black man the N-word) and I asked him a simple question.
He saw fit to respond to other posts, but ignored mine.
What gives? Didn't he want respectful dialogue?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#208 To learn means opening your mind, next time try to open your mind with fact based comments, that would be refreshing.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pmComment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Hey TROLL, you still haven't answered the question and it have been an hour and a half?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pmSouthern Man,
I have responded to the substance of many of your posts. You still avoid my posts. So here is just a simple question.
Why do you think Lieberman is so much more informed and correct than the Generals I mentioned as well as over 60-70% (depending on polls) of the country?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:13 pmIn order to "win" anything one must first identify the opposition. So far as I can tell, the "enemy", in the GWOT has not been identified. And don't try to make the "Muslim Extremist" argument fly. That description could include Cassius Clay, who took the "extreme" position of a conscientious objector because his Muslim beliefs extolled pacifism.
Maybe we should fire a couple Tomahawk missiles at Muhammad Ali's house? He has taken some pretty "extreme" positions and can't explain himself very well.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:14 pmCorrection: it has been an hour and a half
November 12th, 2007 at 4:15 pmComment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
.................................................................................................................
Thank you for a fun lunch time.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Shows up before two and still having lunch at four. Gives a whole new meaning to the expression "out to lunch".
November 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pmThen, of course, we must examine our "allies". Actually one example should suffice. Prez. Musharraf.
In what way does blind support of, arguably, the worst despot in the "nuclear world" fight "Muslim extremism"? It seems, to me and most international observers, that Musharraf is oppressing the least "extreme" elements of his society. Unless you consider the educated, professional, class (who have everything to loose should "terrorists" take over Pakistan) to be "extremists".
November 12th, 2007 at 4:25 pmSo do tell us, Southern Man, what does “win the war†mean in the context of IRAQ?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 2:41
Southern man, why won't you answer that simple question?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:26 pmComment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
That same poll included "American Universities" in the top ten as well. Why does education scare the "Psyco-Christians"?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:27 pmInteresting how Southern Man disappears under the weight of a single simple question, then he shows up twenty minutes later to address some perceived insults, but not the simple question.
Curious.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:29 pmSouthern "man"'s not a "troll". Nor a "man", similar to GWB.
No, Southern "man" is a DoD PSYOPS, folks. PLEASE get a clue.
REAL conservatives would not keep on throwing out BS with no FACTS to back them up, like "michael", etc...
They are PAID to "muddy the waters" and obfuscate the TRUTH about what TRAITORS Bush and his PNAC WAR CRIMINALS are.
PLEASE read the DECLASSIFIED DoD documents, especially the "Information Operations Roadmap".
Then realize who the "trolls" REALLY are...
http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 4:31 pmREAL conservatives would not keep on throwing out BS with no FACTS to back them up, like “michaelâ€, etc…
Comment by Arn Gunnutes — November 12, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
So... you're saying that Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume are all DoD PSYOPS? Not to mention Limbaugh, O'Lielly, Mann Coulter...?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Morally bankrupt and intellectually stunted? It's just an educated guess but it fits the available facts. Of course, no one, on the dark side, can answer ANY question honestly. Especially simple ones like:
1. Who are we fighting?
2. Why are we fighting them?
3. What do we have to do to "win"? (BTW, no less a person than Winston Churchill said, "No one wins a war through victory. One wins a war by surviving.")
4. When will we know we have reached the threshold of declaring "victory"?
sarc on/ Other than those "unimportant" (neocon TM) questions, every thing should be obvious. sarc off
November 12th, 2007 at 4:38 pmSouthern (wo)man still has not responded to the simple question of what (s)he is doing to "win" the Iraq war. Enlisting? Nope. Probably only has a magnetic yellow ribbon (made in China) that say-"support the troops".
November 12th, 2007 at 4:44 pmHappy Veterans Day,
TCDon
Comment by TCDon — November 12, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Actually, Veterans Day, for me, is a day of mourning and somber reflection. If more people shared this view there may be more promising young people alive.
BTW, what does everyone think of the Chiperror "hiding out" in Crawford rather than paying his respects at Arlington? Ah. That's right. No respect there.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pmProbably only has a magnetic yellow ribbon (made in China) that say-â€support the troopsâ€.
Comment by Uncle Ho — November 12, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Every time I see one, I want to break out the spray paint and add, "Bring Them Home". Of course, not being a vandal, I restrain myself. But it's hard.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:49 pmpete- how can a deserter pay respect to soldiers who did their duty? It makes no sense that he could.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:50 pmYeah, I wish I had the luxury of not caring about my Brothers In Arms that don't get to "go on vacation" and have no choice but to neglect "somebody or thing". I truly wish I didn't CARE.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:51 pmOops, TCDon is on duty. We missed our window to get some sense from Southern Man until tomorrow's shift.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pmMethinks it's strange that Cheney, the artful draft-dodger, was selected to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldiers, and legitimate protesters are not allowed to attend a Veteran's Day parade.
What has this country come to?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pmpete- how can a deserter pay respect to soldiers who did their duty? It makes no sense that he could.
Comment by Uncle Ho — November 12, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Precisely! Though one still hopes he wouldn't sh!t on their memory.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:53 pmComment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
i thought you said your lunch hour was over and you had to go back to work?
you lied.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:57 pmComment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
you lied on veterans day, man.
damn you to hell.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:00 pmHaven't read all these post's, in case it was missed....Common Dream's just posted and sent me an up date..In Boston 18 vet's were arrested from a parade for being against the war.......Damn this f****ng administration and all the shit head's that support them.Blessings to every one else.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:00 pmA win would be access to their oil at fair market value over the next twenty plus years or so. Not free oil, but a supply. Also access to certain parts of Iraq(air bases, training areas,etc)
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Forgive me for shortening your answer; it now makes sense why you couldn't give a strong, clear answer to our question -- you didn't have one.
In the absence of that, I'll excerpt the relevant parts of your extended paragraph.
Oil. Oil and access to air bases so that we can launch other military actions in the region in the future.
That's what you'd ask our soldiers to die for? At least you're more honest about it than the Bush Administration.
So... how does our military secure those things? Stay there for the next twenty years? Sounds like an occupation to me.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:01 pmThe war on terrorism(fundamentalist Muslim Extremist), and the war for oil.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Leaving aside the ridiculous argument that WE have a right to ANYTHING in ANY foreign nation or that WE have the RIGHT to demand access to ANYONE'S natural resources; please identify PRECISELY who these "Muslim Extremists" are. Seriously, I have no idea what litmus test to apply.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pmComment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
So, you would be ok with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq having Air bases in our country? How about access (at a fair trade value) to any of our natural resources?
What you are saying is that we should go to war with any nation that has things we want? I know it is simplifying it; however, you can't give them "freedom and democracy" on the condition that they do what we want. Freedom and democracy is mutually exclusive with forcing them to comply with our demands.
We wouldn't need to fight over oil if we spent the 600+ BILLION dollars on research and development of alternate fuels. The world only has a MAXIMUM of less than a century (probably more like 35 - 40 years) of Oil. What will we do then? You would rather kill others to delay the inevitable rather than do the right thing and find a solution. The sun sends more than enough energy to solve our energy needs, but who cares - blood is cheaper than innovation.
You must at least be for a draft to get the necessary troops, since we don't have enough to continue the occupation as it is let alone what is SHOULD be if you truly wanted to fight a counter-insurgency.Are you for a draft? What have YOU done or sacrificed for this essential cause?
Feel free to ignore me like you have on every other question I posed.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:06 pmFantastic article on Alternet today
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/67573/?page=1
on this very topic, which strangely seems to bridge the gap between Southern Man and many TPers - I think most people here, regardless of ideology, could read it and agree.
Thanks to all Veterans here.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:06 pmOh, now you silly Southern Man - *everybody* knows that this war is NOT about OIL or silly old air bases!!!!
Our Dear Leader has said so many times, along with every single Repukelickin' pundit spewing on the airwaves!!
It's about "freedom" and "liberation" for the Iraqi people!
*BIG eyeroll*
So....we have to conquer militarily and occupy their country in order to have them "sell us" their oil - at a "reasonable" price...?
Sounds to me like a bank teller honoring your withdrawal slip - with a gun pointed in her face...and you calling it a "banking transaction"!!
Sorry, son, that's a pathetic attempt to describe our imperial conquest of Iraq as a diplomatic mission.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:10 pmSorry guys, but PSYOPS Central didn’t schedule me for a shift today.
Happy Veterans Day,
TCDon
Comment by TCDon — November 12, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
So TCDon you're Southern Man. Did you get tired of us talking about you billing clients for the time you spent with us. We were just kidding, nobody here believed for a minute you were actually an attorney. Dumbass.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pmWe wouldn’t need to fight over oil if we spent the 600+ BILLION dollars on research and development of alternate fuels. The world only has a MAXIMUM of less than a century (probably more like 35 - 40 years) of Oil. What will we do then?
Comment by DanCaveman — November 12, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Full agreement to this sentiment. Who is the leader that will solve this problem? I do not see a single person with a snowballs chance in hell of becoming President with a solution. And it is so obviously THE problem. Iraq and our involvement there is a symptom of the larger disease called oil dependency.
JFK challenged us to put a man on the moon and we did it, in an era where computers took up entire rooms and were inferior to slide rules. Our collective stupidity on this issue is infuriating, and neither party is one damn bit different from the other.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pmWell we have 14 bases in Iraq...so that takes care of keeping an eye on the Middle East with LESS troops.
We are already using alternative fuel just need to push harder for it. Bush said in 2004 he was going to do that. Iowa is abundant in corn for ethyenol and already corn buring furnaces are operating in Iowa. Diesel engines can be converted to bio fuels.. There you have it.
Interesting isn't it after all the hype of freeing the Iraqis it really was about oil. All these lives destroyed for oil. Now that is an honorable legacy for Bush to live down.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pm18 vet's arrested in Boston for being against the war.....Disgusting....Miserable traitorous administration..Impeach, jail and seize all assets..
November 12th, 2007 at 5:19 pmA win would be access to their oil at fair market value over the next twenty plus years or so. Not free oil, but a supply. Also access to certain parts of Iraq(air bases, training areas,etc) whenever needed when the middle east errupts with any problem that we will always stick our nose into, Iran, Syria.
Screw the oil. We should be investing in alternatives. No American or Iraqi should lose their life or a limb for oil companies.
Also access to certain parts of Iraq(air bases, training areas,etc) whenever needed when the middle east errupts with any problem that we will always stick our nose into, Iran, Syria. I believed from day one that having access to air bases was one of the important reasons we went in and should have used as an argument for war.
You're begging for more 9/11s.
Democracy was a great idea, but we will have to wait and see if it works there. I believe it can.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Democracy is not the goal. Oil is what the Bush administration cherishes.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:20 pmSouthern Man,
You define victory as:
1. Access to an oil supply at fair market prices for 20 yrs or so.
2. Establishment of air bases in Iraq.
3. Democracy would be nice.
4. "a few other things." Probably inconsequential since not worth mentioning.
I don't recall these goals being at the forefront when the drumbeats started sounding for invasion.
IMHO access to the oil supply should not be gained by force but rather by negotiation in good faith. This can only be achieved through mutual respect between the parties to aid in establishing the symbiotic relationship in which both parties have their needs filled. How can a "fair market" price be established if it is being held artificially low by force. This discourages research into alternative fuels and better conservation methods. Oh yeah. It might hurt the oil company's profits.
We have already established the air bases you desire, so we don't have to occupy the country any longer on that account. Besides, we can hit any target in the world from our air base in Missouri.
We are all for democracy, unless of course the democratically elected leaders turn against US policy. Again, elections have been held, time to leave.
I suppose the only other reason we are staying is that we are still trying to accomplish those pesky yet unnamed "few other things" that you referred to.
Otherwise, please get our brave soldiers out of danger and bring them home, safe and sound.
Just what would happen if cold fusion engines became feasible in the next 10 to 20 years? There goes your war over crude oil. Oh yeah, we must prop up the oil companies.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pmAnti-war Iraq vets banned from Veterans Day parade
November 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pmVets are denied the right, the fight of freedom, they personally fought for???? Now how patriotic is this?
So wanting an airbase is a valid reason for going to war?
November 12th, 2007 at 5:22 pmPerhaps the Middle East doesn't want democracy? Maybe they like their way of life. Who gave America the right to decide?
November 12th, 2007 at 5:23 pmI sure don't see us invading Saudi and trying to get them to allow women to drive. Now that is disgraceful.
REAL conservatives would not keep on throwing out BS with no FACTS to back them up, like “michaelâ€, etc…
Comment by Arn Gunnutes — November 12, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
So… you’re saying that Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume are all DoD PSYOPS? Not to mention Limbaugh, O’Lielly, Mann Coulter…?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
No, Krauthammer, Kristol, don't post here. They get paid to lie NATIONALLY and INTERNATIONALLY.
I AM saying that the "trolls" that post HERE ARE DoD PSYOPS, get it?
http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 5:25 pmI was not able to enlist because of a previous childhood ailment. I did however try to join the Army reserves in 2004, at the age of 36, where I was denied because of it and age. And as far as yellow magnetic sticker, no. I fly my flag proudly everyday in front of my house. I also volunteer for the Vietnam Veterans of America passing out clothes and food. My father died in vietnam. He was drafted in 1968, the year I was born and died three months later. I was a few months old.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
i salute you and especially your father on this veterans day. you're a fun troll and i hope you come back and comment here often. you may not think so but i believe you do a lot to help the progressive cause. god bless you.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:25 pmVeterans Day is just a feel good day for chicken hawks who didn't serve and want to send someone else's kids to war.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:25 pmCommon Dreams.org..18 vet's arrested for being against the war..Hello is any one here besides had enough and me?.....Wake the F*** up people.The very people that brought you your freedom, the one's you say you support are being banned and jailed for speaking out.....Oh hell, never mind go and buy another china magnet and wait for these ass holes to come after you next.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:26 pmSorry guys, but PSYOPS Central didn’t schedule me for a shift today.
Happy Veterans Day,
TCDon
Comment by TCDon — November 12, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
And God Bless American PATRIOTS like Lt. Ehren Watada, who have the guts to stand up to AWOL coward WAR CRIMINALS
like TRAITORS Bush and Cheney.
Happy Veterans Day!!
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 5:27 pm18 vet’s arrested in Boston for being against the war…..Disgusting….Miserable traitorous administration..Impeach, jail and seize all assets..
Comment by Witch1 — November 12, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
This is from the article:
"When Boston police asked the demonstrators to move from the front of the podium so that the Veterans Day services could continue, they refused. As the Boston Firemen’s Band played The Marine Hymn, several protesters were placed in plastic handcuffs and led away."
I agree with you, Witch1, this situation sucks and there must have been a better, more honorable way to handle it, but just this once I don't think it is actually Bush's fault. I would go with overzealous Boston police as the bad guys here.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:27 pmIf the government of Iraq, or ant nation, decides that they will never sell us a drop of oil; THAT IS THEIR RIGHT!!!
Assuring access to others property by violence is, at the very best, Robbery. While it's been awhile, since I escaped the demise of public education, I don't recall ever hearing that our Nation include Robbery among it's ideals.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pmDo I make those decisions? NO!! Get ready for it though! Maybe this country will finally come together when it needs it the most.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
yes you do make "those decisions"! we all do. it's called being a citizen and a patriot. and if you leave it to others you get what we have now. a deadly and dangerous mess. get back in the game and start finding out the truth before it's too late.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pmSo would Iran be justified in invading Canada so it can secure an airbase there?
November 12th, 2007 at 5:29 pmIf the government of Iraq, or ant nation, decides that they will never sell us a drop of oil; THAT IS THEIR RIGHT!!!
Oops! ANY nation, though I have no doubt that neocons consider all other nations on a par with ants.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pm#255 We can stop sending pension money through Asia ending up in dictator controlled countries. We can secure our ports land and air with OUR military. We can become financially independent not borrowing from China. Then we have a negotiating argument.
If America becomes a nation to look up to strong militarily, financially we will have a bargaining tool. America needs to be an example not a bully.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pmOops! ANY nation, though I have no doubt that neocons consider all other nations on a par with ants.
Comment by pete — November 12, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
we'd better be careful or we'll have
ants in our pants!
November 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pmNo matter the direct fault Keltol the underline fault and cancer is this administration and our country fall's at cheney, bush's and all this administration's feet for starting this terrible war and all the bull shit that goe's with it..Any one that sit's still for this is an enabeler....Just as guilty.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pmAfter each war, many of us say NO MORE , we swear to appreciate the ones who deserve it most. And each time, we let them down. At least in San Antonio a rehab hospital was built soley by contributions and is doing great work.
Does anyone know of other medical facilities being built and helping? Too bad those spending $5.00 on a car sticker don't donate that $5. to a government free hospital for our people.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:38 pmComment by TCDon — November 12, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
sure and when we run out of our own oil we can drill your brain for gas.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:39 pmWar is inevitable.
Really?? FKCV YOU and TRAITOR Bush and his PNAC WAR CRIMINALS.
The Saudis were the 9/11 perpetrators.
TRAITOR Bush's FRIENDS.
The Saudi Bin Ladens FINANCED Bush's failed oil businesses.
IF war is "inevitable", then YOU and TRAITOR Bush should be there.
And DIE.
God Bless American PATRIOTS like Lt. Ehren Watada!!
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 5:39 pm(Edited)
War is inevitable. You can play cute all you wantâ€Who is this Fundamentalist Muslim group you bring up?†please. We are going to be at war for decades to come. We are going to go to war for oil and there is nothingh you can do about it. Maybe this country will finally come together when it needs it the most.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Statements like these cause the USA to lose the respect and goodwill that you received on 9/11. Not like you care about them, of course. The only respect you understand, litte TROLL, is the one gained by having the biggest gun around.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pm#274 - What a sad mindset SM has, when one accepts gloom and doom they can't see possibilities. War is not inevitable with a good government who can balance corporate interests and the will of the people. The scale is off with Bush in power...it needs resetting and sure wish we didn't have to wait so long.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:44 pmWar is inevitable.
It is if we keep on electing warmongers.
We are going to be at war for decades to come. Do we need bases in the middle east? Damn right we do.
You're begging for more 9/11s.
When a republican is in office, we become the world police.
Nah. We become imperialists attacking countries that pose no threat to us.
What happens if Iran gets the bomb?
Tell us what you have imagined?
Do I want war? NO!!
You made a mistake and typed "NO!!".
Maybe this country will finally come together when it needs it the most.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
We can come together now if you and the other dead-enders renounce this corrupt regime in the White House.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:48 pmWe don’t need Iraq’s oil. We have plenty of our own in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Cuba is already planning to drill in the Gulf with the help of China.
http://money.cnn.com/ 2006/ 05/ 09/ news/ economy/ oil_cuba/ index.htm.
Let’s become more energy independent and start drilling and refining our own oil; and at the same time, increase our alternative fuel initiatives so that we gradually become less dependent on oil, especially on foreign oil.
Comment by TCDon — November 12, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
And, in fact, this very thing will probably happen now that the neocon's adventure has made domestic oil a fiscally responsible (profitable to the oil industry) proposition.
Of course, this will all be squandered so long as we continue to sink resources in the occupation of foreign countries.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:50 pmThere has to be some intelligent conservatives out there that can see how badly this administration has run every government program. One incredible mistake after another and yet, it is my party right or wrong? Hey, I can certainly see the screw ups on the Dem side too bad our choice in 2008 is who is lying the least.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:53 pmWar is inevitable.
Hmmm? When's the last time Sweden got wrapped up in a war (though they were occupied with little violence in WW2)? Switzerland? Portugal? Do I really need to continue? War is only "inevitable" to those who seek war. Sheesh! No wonder we are in such a mess.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:55 pmAfter the second "gas crisis" in 1978, Carter earmarked research money for solar, fusion, hydrogen technology, and synfuels.
When TRAITOR Reagan got into office with the help of Big OIL, ALL of these were cut, and only subsidies for OIL and NUCLEAR remained.
And OIL owns the MAJORITY of the nuclear material...
28 YEARS later, and we would have had the technology that was SUPPRESSED from being developed.
The Scandanavian countries are now in the lead, and will be oil-independent in the next 10 years.
We should have been, too, but the TRAITORS like Reagan and the Bushes and Cheneys, wouldn't ALLOW it.
They'd rather DIE. Or actually, let our SOLDIERS die for THEM.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
November 12th, 2007 at 5:56 pmThere has to be some intelligent conservatives out there that can see how badly this administration has run every government program.
There are many of us. BillO, and his ilk, call us: "leftists", "libruls" and "secular progressives".
November 12th, 2007 at 5:57 pmWhen a republican is in office, we become the world police.
I thought the shrub accused Clinton of "policing the world" and vowed not to repeat the "mistake". You really should start paying attention to what your Masters say. Lord knows they don't.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:59 pmEasy to say coming from someone who is too weak to serve and has nothing on the line.
War is inevitable - great argument. So who cares why we do it. You don't need a valid reason or a noble cause because it is going to happen, so who cares about doing the right thing.
I am SOOOOOOOOOO angry right now. Murder, rape, theft....all that is pretty much inevitable; however, we don' t let it happen, nor are we excused when we do it. We do our best to prevent it. The same goes for "War" and "WAR CRIMES". This administration has gone to "War" unnecessarily as well as committed war crimes (torture comes to mind). Since you said it is a war, the Geneva Convention DOES apply.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:00 pmMaybe this country will finally come together when it needs it the most.
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
It's a virtual certainty. Barring catastrophe the neocons will be rendered impotent in American Politics. Indeed, the Republican Party may cease to exist. Pissed off people tend to react with harsh measures.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:02 pmOne sad fact and result of the Pro-war tactics (not implementing a draft), is that the only way a 25%- minority can make the decisions for the rest of the 75% + is because the 75% are largely silent. They are not directly affected, which is the current administration's strategy.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:07 pmWe're keeping them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pmComment by DanCaveman — November 12, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Very well said, DanCaveman.
The sh*t posted by trolls on this thread is unbelievable.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pmSo wanting an airbase is a valid reason for going to war?
Comment by Wilco — November 12, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Well, we had better watch out - the Ecuadoreans are due to attack us any day now. ;o)
November 12th, 2007 at 6:10 pmWe did not fight them there after 1993 and we were not attacked here until 2001. Also the blind guy behind the attack is in jail.
Maybe if America, no Bush, didn't alienate every ally we wouldn't have to worry so much. France tried to warn us before 2001 and we, no Bush, wouldn't listen.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:20 pmHow about instead of voting by party try to vote for intelligence this time. I really don't care if I could drink a beer with the next President I just want someone who cares about making us strong, not wasting our people and resources.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:23 pmAw hell, texaslady. You're making too much sense. ;)
November 12th, 2007 at 6:32 pmZooey, see some of us living here do read. Maybe because I am transplanted.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:34 pmThere has to be some intelligent conservatives out there that can see how badly this administration has run every government program.
There are many of us. BillO, and his ilk, call us: “leftistsâ€, “libruls†and “secular progressivesâ€.
Comment by pete — November 12, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Dunno about the O'Reilley angle, I am a conservative who sees the Bush Admin's warts and don't fit his description of secular progressive. You consider yourself a conservative, Pete?
While Bush has many many faults and his Admin has shown astonishing incompetence at times, the world is never so black and white that you can say he has screwed up everything he has touched. That type of hyperbole is common but inaccurate IMHO. It is also counter-productive to actually solving the problems since "intelligent conservatives" have to be part of the solution and hyper-partisan rhetoric makes compromise tougher.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pmhyper-partisan rhetoric makes compromise tougher.
...taken directly from the Karl Rove manual, Shrub's been working his A$$ off keeping things uber-partison.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:54 pmYou consider yourself a conservative, Pete?
From sole to crown.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:08 pmhyper-partisan rhetoric makes compromise tougher.
…taken directly from the Karl Rove manual, Shrub’s been working his A$$ off keeping things uber-partison.
Comment by DieNowForPeace — November 12, 2007 @ 6:54
Yeah, well, Bush is pretty much done, I can't forsee any real compromise while he is at the helm. And it is for this same reason I rejoice at every mistake Hillary makes and every advance Obama makes. If Hillary wins we are damned to repeat the 90s and the polarizing, it is as inevitable as gravity.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm#293 - Trying to be objective could you enlighten me to what has been improved in the last 6 years with this administration?
Everything is either underfunded or an incompetent has been put in charge and then it is ill run. We have fewer allies than before even with paying them off, 15 million to Pakistan, how much to North Korea. So, truly without being snide what has been accomplished with this administration?
November 12th, 2007 at 7:17 pmComment 255: Southern Man
Your comment seems irresponsible. War is indeed inevitable. However, we try to reduce the number of wars that occur and we try to fight wars only for appropriate reasons. The stories of most failed world powers is one of attempting too much militarily. The strain on our military and the loss of reputation that the US suffered because of Iraq proves that point. There was no imminent need to fight this war.
Your comment would also seem to justify genocide, dictatorship and murder. All of these are unfortunate but inevitable actions in our world. Does that make them right?
I hope that we did not invade Iraq just to secure an oil supply. If so, it has sorely backfired. Iraqi production is below prewar levels. The instability in the Middle East has driven up oil prices. China and Russia are making inroads and long term deals for Iranian oil.
We invaded for air bases? I thought this was not an imperialist war. However, AQ really rallies support for its cause when we make these claims. Turkey was our greatest ally in the Middle East (now 92% of the population hates us ) and would not support the Iraqi invasion. Do you really believe that any regieme that would arise in Iraq would actually permit such air bases and permit their use against other middle east countries?
Iran serves as an excellent example of when militaristic action can be counter productive. In the aftermath of 9/11, Iran had a reform government. Iran provided information and support for action against AQ. Iran had demonstrations condemning the attacks in NY. However, the president delivered his axis of evil speech and invaded Iraq. This undercut the reform government, sidelined talks for opening relations with the United States and led to the election of a new, conservative government that promptly thought nuclear power was really important. (N. Korea-another member of the axis of evil- which had a sub rosa but ineffective nuclear program resented the Bush failure to continue the Clinton agreements. The N. Koreans went full speed ahead, left the nonproliferation treaty and exploded a nuke. Only after the US went through protracted six party negotiations was the issue resolved with the US essentially going back to the Clinton agreement) We could have moved Iran's government in our direction, certainly kept its nuclear program at a far lower level of effort than when it was targeted as a member of the axis of terror, and have actually bent it towards helping to deal with its own enemy, Iraq.
Some wars are forced on us. Others arise from a lack of imagination on the part of our leaders. Iraq was one such example.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:23 pmSo, truly without being snide what has been accomplished with this administration?
Comment by texaslady — November 12, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Oh....what a long birdwalk it would be, Good Texaslady. I don't know if I have the heart for it, either, I don't have any interest in defending Bush, I think he is not a good President, the only chance he has in the history books is if this Iraq thing actually turns into something good in the next 10-20 years.
Anything I say good about him will be pounced on and in my Keltoi at Night personna I have less time and patience for the blow by blow. My at home connection sucks and the family distracts me.
I'd say the tax cuts were a good thing, money belongs to the people who make it, not the government. There was the moment on the rubble pile with the bullhorn - it is pure emotion, but that was a pretty tough time, I think he gets props for that. (Admitably, when the high point of an 8 year tenure comes in the first year, the luster dims) The economy, at least as it has always been measured, has been good, though even that seems to be coming to a close.
The decision to respond to 9-11 in a military instead of a law enforcement manner was good. The Taliban were utter bastards and needed to go.
Iraq......we'll chew it over on a gajillion threads for as long as we live.
Um....yeah. See why I don't want to defend him? But my point was, he is irrelevant now. And as Obi-Wan said, only the Sith believe in Absolutes. Nothing in this world is all one way or another. Bush isn't Satan, he isn't Hitler, he isn't even Nixon, he is more like a Harding or a Carter or a Grant.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:47 pmWhile Bush has many many faults and his Admin has shown astonishing incompetence at times, the world is never so black and white that you can say he has screwed up everything he has touched.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Interesting statement, Keltoi. I know you're not one of those Manichean conservatives, but you have to acknowledge the "black and white" duality thing infects many, many more of your comrades than it does progressives. "You're either with us or against us," comes immediately to mind.
In fact, I don't think what you're describing is so much "black and white" as it is exaggeration born out of frustration. Frustration not just with the widespread incompetence of the administration, but also with the arrogance and high-handed disdain with which this president refers to the opposition. A man with that much failure on his résumé has no business treating anyone with arrogance and disdain.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:52 pmIf Hillary wins we are damned to repeat the 90s and the polarizing, it is as inevitable as gravity.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
You say this as if the Clintons were the cause of the polarizing, rather than the targets.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:54 pmBut my point was, he is irrelevant now.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
I wish I could believe that. In my estimation, a leader who initiates a war based on, admittedly, inaccurate and incomplete information (notice I don't include fabricated even though there is considerable evidence) is always capable of greater harm.
P.S. The decision to use military force to seek revenge for a criminal act (regardless of the accuracy of intelligence) is, in my estimation, the greatest error a leader can make. It's why I am a FORMER Republican and why I won't even consider supporting my FORMER party until the last of the neocons are discredited, imprisoned, or dead.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:56 pmP.S. The decision to use military force to seek revenge for a criminal act (regardless of the accuracy of intelligence) is, in my estimation, the greatest error a leader can make.
Comment by pete — November 12, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Did you think invading Afghanistan was not a legitimate use of force?
November 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pmDo you want to win the war first and then go home? Or do you want to lose the war and go home? Please tell?
Comment by Southern Man — November 12, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
November 12th, 2007 at 8:03 pmWould you or someone please tell me what winning this insane illegal massacre is? If it is genocide, then let's call it for what it is.
I’d say the tax cuts were a good thing, money belongs to the people who make it, not the government.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
At the risk of pouncing on any thing you say to defend Bush (your disclaimer was well composed) I'd like to take issue with this pretty broad statement and let the others lie.
The logical extension of this is that the government has no right to tax people. The problem is that defense has to be paid for (even more if you rely on contractors rather than the military). And we spend far more per captia on our military than any other nation on Earth even imagines.
The economic conventional wisdom for tax policy has it that tax cuts are useful in their time, and deficit spending is necessary -- when the economy is in recession or slow-down. In prosperous times, the government is well advised to accumulate a deficit.
What we've had for the past six years is a false prosperity, buoyed by debt (both government and individual) and the conditions that led to this facade -- housing boom fueled by risky loans to unqualified borrowers, massive government borrowing, etc -- are reaching their tipping points all at once.
Even though the economy has been expanding, the govenrment has been accumulating debt, not paying it down. What the Republicans have invented is a non-cyclical economy, where tax cuts inevitably lead to growth and never have to be paid for. It's folly, and I have a feeling that its source is the kind of sentiment you expressed above: "money belongs to the people who make it, not the government".
November 12th, 2007 at 8:08 pmDid you think invading Afghanistan was not a legitimate use of force?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
I don't want to presume to speak for Pete, but it was clear to me that he was speaking of Iraq, not Afghanistan.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:09 pm>> but you have to acknowledge the “black and white†duality thing infects many, many more of your comrades than it does progressives.
Oh, I dunno, read some of Republicans Hate Facts, Lefty Patriot etc posts. I don't know how to quantify the numbers or percents of both sides extremists. The Right attracts the religious freaks, so they probably have more numerous Black and White types, I'll grant you that.
In fact, I don’t think what you’re describing is so much “black and white†as it is exaggeration born out of frustration.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 7:
I agree with this. As far as your comment about the Clintons being the victims rather than the perpetrators of polarizing politics - it almost makes my point for me. We start at the baseline of arguing over past battles. I have seen this movie. Go, Barack, Go! There is no one in the Democratic primary I wouldn't vote for over Hillary.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:10 pmThe money went to the corporations... multinational corporations, not here and now our dollar is dropping fast. This is a good thing?
November 12th, 2007 at 8:13 pmIt’s folly, and I have a feeling that its source is the kind of sentiment you expressed above: “money belongs to the people who make it, not the governmentâ€.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 12, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Too close to Monday Night Football for an economics debate, but I will say this: The tax cuts led to greater tax revenues taken in by the government due to increased economic activity. That is a potent argument for supply side economics. Second, the Republican congress betrayed every conservative principle by spending as they did and were rightly punished for it.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:15 pmDid you think invading Afghanistan was not a legitimate use of force?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
When my wish for revenge was fresh, Yes, it seemed legit. Now? Not so much.
I think that a limited action in concert with Pakistan (to cover AQ's escape route) would have been more reasonable. I have little doubt that it could have worked though I admit that direct conflict with the Taliban was likely. However, I think we should have tried a "measured response" which avoided all out invasion.
I don't think that the overthrow of a government, to get at a private group of criminals, is the best response. It seems akin to "killing the host to get the parasites". After all, we don't put down our dogs to kill their worms.
And, I have yet to see concrete evidence supporting the contention that the Taliban was an active participant, rhetoric notwithstanding. It may exist, but I haven't seen it.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:22 pm"As far as your comment about the Clintons being the victims rather than the perpetrators of polarizing politics - it almost makes my point for me. We start at the baseline of arguing over past battles.
Comment by Keltoi at Night —
This "past battle" was called the Arkansas Project, and was a concerted effort on the part of Righties to smear the Clintons since Bill took office. There was no precedent for the behavior of the Right in going after Clinton, so the "both sides do it" rationale falls flat.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:26 pmThe tax cuts led to greater tax revenues taken in by the government due to increased economic activity.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
That is what Her Majesties Navy calls, A LIE. (Python Monty TM)
The figures are readily available. Government revenue has decreased sinc Bushy's tax cut. It worked, once, for Reagan. Not so lucky this time around.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:26 pmThe tax cuts led to greater tax revenues taken in by the government due to increased economic activity.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
If that were true, then the recovery should have been greater than the Clinton recovery which followed tax increases. Woops!!! The OPPOSITE is true!
REAL ECONOMISTS (not the GOP whack jobs) point out that the decreased economic activity in this recovery is a direct result of the tax cuts producing deficit spending and competing for capital that would have otherwise been used in expanding the economy.
Sorry dum bass, but you TAX CUT WINGNUTS don't realize that SOMETIMES TAXES ARE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!!! As Bill Clinton showed!
Oh, I dunno, read some of Republicans Hate Facts, Lefty Patriot etc posts. I don’t know how to quantify the numbers or percents of both sides extremists. The Right attracts the religious freaks, so they probably have more numerous Black and White types, I’ll grant you that. Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
I'm an extremist, because I point out what an IDIOT YOU are? Sorry, but while you on occasion have an opinion that isn't 100% FRINGE LUNATIC, it's inevitably burried among ones that ARE!
I agree with this. As far as your comment about the Clintons being the victims rather than the perpetrators of polarizing politics - it almost makes my point for me. We start at the baseline of arguing over past battles. I have seen this movie. Go, Barack, Go! There is no one in the Democratic primary I wouldn’t vote for over Hillary.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
The Clintons were a big part of the DLC reaching out to you wingnuts - you just wanted Clinton out of office so you could appoint anti-abortionist federalist extremists to the Supreme court! Or at least the puppet masters you dance for did! I'm guessing you're too stupid to know this, or to know that the Republicans have spent over 400 million dollars in 'branding' Liberal as a bad word? Probably not...
See, you're so f***king extreme, you think everyone that points out your extremeness is extreme. HOW PATHETIC IS THAT - DUM BASS?
November 12th, 2007 at 8:37 pmI might add that the combination of record high oil prices, and record low dollar value, on international markets is not "disturbing". It's an impending disaster.
Given the neocon trick of disinformation (though they can't claim a monopoly!) I figure they will try to "finesse the numbers" to support their claim of a strong economy. Then, when the regime (I mean administration) changes, to the other side, they can acknowledge the true state of the economy and blame the newcomer for "wrecking the economy".
Some variation of this tactic has been used many times before.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:55 pmHere's a poser. Why are the neocons harping on Hillary, in particular. After all, she's, far and away, the most conservative of the Dem candidates. One would think she would be the most acceptable of the Dems. I can understand that they would attack the front runner but, calling her "far left" is patently untrue.
Ah yes. That pesky addiction to lying. Never mind.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:13 pmpete,
November 12th, 2007 at 10:29 pmIt appears the corporate media is pushing Hillary at us, maybe because she is the most corporate friendly and they know the dems will win. All progressive talk hosts and audiences do not like Hillary... some can not stand her. I am guessing corporate media along with corporate health care and big pharma are terrified of Kucinich, maybe Edwards and Obama and continue to put Hillary i our face as she IS bought by them.
It is very annoying the republican media machine appears to be choosing our primary candidate for us.
Hillary is Bush lite.
Why's everybody always picking on me?
like RHF, I'm now an extremist, because throughout my lifetime, Republicans have created a huge mess every chance they get, Democrats have to clean it up after trouncing the Republicnas, and the cycle repeats. The differences between the parties have always been the same: the idealistic dems versus the "f**k you , I've got mine" Repukes; the warmongering right vs. the diplomacy of say, JFK and the Cuban missile crisis, the tax cuts to the rich and the myth of supply-side economics (still a myth, by the way, keltoi, never has worked, never will) vs. the balanced budget of Clinton, etc., etc., etc. Karl Rove is without a doubt the most antiAmerican person alive in the US right now, and puposefully set us on a course of divisiveness and cruelty. George Bush is a sociopathic whack job, and comparing him to Jimmy Carter is completely ridiculous in every way. Dick Cheney belongs in prison, and should have been marginalized by any rightwing patriot many years ago, but are there any rightwing patriots left? i can;t see or hear any, through the lies and screaming of O'Lielyy and Limbaugh and the rest of the nattering nabobs of negativism, to borrow a phrase and apply it correctly. the USA is being weakened and destroyed from within, and it is a conscious plan, published and presented by the neocons, who have the very Lex Luthor-like domination of the world in mind. Afghanistan was foolish, and badly done. The Taliban had to go? Where did they go? They're still there selling opium and enslaving the populace. Bib Laden is untouched, 9/11 is unpunished and uninvestigated. Sure I'm an extremist, if that's what you call someone who has watched his country taken from his children and grandchildren by criminals and psychopaths, because that's where we're headed. Only by ignoring history can anybody excuse and soft-pedal what the Bush regime is doing and attempting, and as far as i'm concerned, it's nothing short of the destruction of democracy and freedom in the United States, all for a few bucks.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pmComment by Keltoi at Night — November 12, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Sorry dum bass, but you TAX CUT WINGNUTS don’t realize that SOMETIMES TAXES ARE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!!! As Bill Clinton showed!
I’m an extremist, because I point out what an IDIOT YOU are? Sorry, but while you on occasion have an opinion that isn’t 100% FRINGE LUNATIC, it’s inevitably burried among ones that ARE!
The Clintons were a big part of the DLC reaching out to you wingnuts - you just wanted Clinton out of office so you could appoint anti-abortionist federalist extremists to the Supreme court! Or at least the puppet masters you dance for did! I’m guessing you’re too stupid to know this, or to know that the Republicans have spent over 400 million dollars in ‘branding’ Liberal as a bad word? Probably not…See, you’re so f***king extreme, you think everyone that points out your extremeness is extreme. HOW PATHETIC IS THAT - DUM BASS?
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 12, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Texaslady? If I ever get down to Texas, Ma'am, the first round of longnecks is on you. :)
November 12th, 2007 at 10:45 pmLefty Patriot,
November 12th, 2007 at 10:58 pmthe worst part may be we will not survive this one. Could it be: The filthy rich are well invested in multinational corporations enough to step out of this mess untouched as the dollar continues to drop as We the People rot from within? I fear the looting is much worse than it presently appears. If and when we revolt, the camps are waiting.
Kleltoi: The concept of tax cuts increasing government revenue has been discredited completely. What I do see is the failure of supply side apologists to misuse statistics. The usual failure is to compare increase of dollars in tax revenue without adjusting for inflations. Suggest you check out Brad Delong or some other serious economists for a good look at the laffler curve. Indeed, even those who developed the laffler curve never said that there would be greater revenues as the result of tax cuts. The best they ever said is that tax revenues would increase in growth to almost recover revenue lost by the reductions. Please get it right.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:04 pmf and when we revolt, the camps are waiting.
Comment by had enough — November 12, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
well, there won't be enough camps, nor enough guards. this is the same shit throughout history, and these rich fatcats will lose their heads, homes and families if they try that crap.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pmHillary is Bush lite.
Comment by had enough — November 12, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Agreed. And she's, potentially, dangerous as heck. However, I'm willing to take the risk vs. ANY Republicriminal.
I'm just amused at the cries of "Hillary the liberal". They might as well rant about "Bush's powerful intellect". "Rudy's consistency". Or, "Edward's bad hair". I sincerely hope that their attacks, on her liberalism, will further confirm the fact that the Republicans have parted with any semblance of rationality.
And, with any luck, those Republicans running for office will continue in the same vein. ANYTHING that sheds light on "the man behind the curtain" will help us reclaim our country. Assuming it's not irrevocably lost.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pmthat IS the American spirit!
November 12th, 2007 at 11:13 pmthat IS the American spirit!
Comment by had enough — November 12, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
I'll take that as a compliment. Would now be a bad moment to mention how frightened I am?
November 12th, 2007 at 11:17 pmNothing says "support the troops" more than taking away a veterans' free speech and shutting them up.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:56 amKeltoi - Good morning ! Your one statement regarding money coming back to people rather than government is not what I am hearing from people in the $60 - $1,000,000 range. Employees and small business owners are telling me that taxes are killing their incentives. Over and over I hear of people closing small business because they can't afford the taxes. Perhaps it has been good for the medical field but not the average person trying to offer jobs to people.
November 13th, 2007 at 11:25 am