's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Ponder this(25 posts)

Ponder thisLive Steam
Jan 11, 2004 5:33 PM
The Democrats are complaining on how long the war is taking but consider this:

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!!!
Our military is amazing!
More democrat obsession huh?dr hoo
Jan 12, 2004 7:00 AM
You are like a puritan obsessed with sex.

At least you are broadening your scope past the Clintons. Where did you did this list up? Fox, conservative web page, Rush's listserv? Or did you sit down and come up with it on your own? Is that the best you can come up with after a long weekend of indocrination by the reactionary right?

"The Democrats are complaining on how long the war is taking... "

Who is? The vast majority of democrats know we are in for a long haul, and say so.

Many DO say we should NOT be where we are FORCED to stay there for the long haul, and that is a result of the Bush administration. Well, other than Kucinich that is, who would bring all our troops home 6 months after he takes office, which is approximately 8 months after hell freezes over.

Oh, and by the way, the war is over. It's an occupation now. And the training our troops receive is NOT to teach them how to be occupiers. I've already said that June is my evaluation date for violence in Iraq, but there are plenty of signs that the occupation is NOT going well. It is CERTAINLY not going to the administration's pre war plan (such as it was).

Now, let me ask you: What would have to happen in Iraq and/or the middle east for you to declare the invasion of Iraq a failure? A certain number of troop deaths? Civil war between kurds, shi'a and sunnis? A fundamentalist islamic regime? What?

Also, why do you think "nation building" is a good WORKABLE idea? Did you not parrot the republican party line of "nation building bad" just a few years ago? It seems to me that all the process arguments AGAINST nation building still stand. We may WANT to nation build more, but what makes you think we CAN do so?

I know, I am asking you to do some thinking, reflection, and analysis. It goes against your ranting nature, but give it a shot. You might suprise yourself.
Me thinks you are the one rantingLive Steam
Jan 12, 2004 7:57 AM
I am still doing some housecleaning and came across this tidbit of info that someone sent to me. I checked it's veracity and then posted it as I believed there to be some interest. The facts are the facts. It is interesting that an entire nation could be "occupied" and yet it took so long for Reno and company to screw up a simple hostage situation.

So now you are responding for the Democrats? Funny I thought you wouldn't shackle yourself with ties to any party. I thought you fancied yourself as an Independent! LOL!!!

Failure? Failure would be returning to a state that is similar to the Hussein rule or an Islamic Fundamentalist state. Or a state full of chaos. That's about it. That hasn't happened. For the most part it is reported that life is now better for the Iraqi people than it was under Saddam. Well everyone except the Bathists and loyalists in Tikrit.

Oh how about this for "News Bias" - Sixty Minutes story on disgraced Paul O'Neil. He writes a book full of opinions and they treat it as news. No bias there? Sixty Minutes has been running "stories" like that for the last few months and they're getting worse in their slant and tone.
LOL! He 'wrote it? LOL!OldEdScott
Jan 12, 2004 8:12 AM
Thuis gets better and better. The greedy bastard 'wrote' it!
LOL! He 'wrote it? LOL!Live Steam
Jan 12, 2004 8:55 AM
"But the main source of the book was Paul O'Neill. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports."
Being a source, which means you were interviewed,OldEdScott
Jan 12, 2004 9:04 AM
and being a writer, which means you wrote the story, are two vastly different things. Plus many others were interviewed, so this isn't just 'The Paul O'Neill story.'

Let's wait and hear what Sean Hannity has to say. He'll get it right! LOL!
You're not that naive my friendLive Steam
Jan 12, 2004 9:20 AM
Without O'Neil's input and the massive amounts of documents he provided, there wouldn't be a book. The media is treating this like it's gospel. It is just his opinion on how things progressed.

It is also fairly obvious what the mainstream media wants to do with this. In the end it won't matter. Your party is pulling itself apart on it's own. Dean et al have revealed their true colors. They have shown that they cannot tell the truth about anything. They have also revealed themselves for what they are - politicians willing to say anything in order to get elected. No convictions other than what may be perceived as opposite of what the current administration is doing. That isn't a platform. That is childish banter.

We hope yall keep it up. You are our best weapon against weakening this countries ability to protect itself in a new World of danger! The terrorist's best friend - a liberal!
Right on. The Dumo implosion is good entertainmentNo_sprint
Jan 12, 2004 9:30 AM
Here today, gone tomorrow, yawn. Another nothing.

If the current administration is just so horrid as the stooges relentlessly contend, what's the big holdup on drawing up articles? Why so much spew and just no action? Lotsa talk but it doesn't appear that any of them can get it up. No balls. Eunuchism. LOL!

If the Dumo implosion were a TV show, it'd be right there with the Anna Nicole show. Watching train wrecks is good entertainment.
Steam, one of these daysOldEdScott
Jan 12, 2004 9:48 AM
I'm going to take grave offense at some of the things you say that you wouldn't dream of saying if you stopped to think before you typed.
No offense intended. Just two ....Live Steam
Jan 12, 2004 10:05 AM
differing opinions on what is and what isn't good for our nation. I believe that the liberal agenda is dangerous to our national security and you believe that the conservative agenda (neocon fascists - your words) is dangerous to World congruence. I don't take offense at your suppositions. I don't understand why you take offense at mine. The difference in idologies demands that we see things from different perspectives. You want to read my point as saying you are unpatriotic. I didn't say that. I did say that liberal thinking in terms of World affairs, in this current age of terrorism, is dangerous to our security. Very different and just my opinion of course :O) Man you're a touchy one lately!
I said 'one of these days.'OldEdScott
Jan 12, 2004 10:23 AM
Sometimes I'm just surprised at how casually you say things like 'liberals are a terrorist's best friend,'which is libel and quite different from saying 'liberal thinking ... is dangerous to our security,' which is a defensible public policy position.

I know you're just being enthusiastic. It surprises me just the same.
It's only libel if you admit to being a liberal :O) nmLive Steam
Jan 12, 2004 10:29 AM
Talk about loaded language!OldEdScott
Jan 12, 2004 10:59 AM

It's a badge of honor I proclaim proudly, my misguided friend.
LOL. I heard that exact bit of B.S. of Fox this morning. nmczardonic
Jan 12, 2004 11:12 AM
I find it quite amusing that ...Live Steam
Jan 12, 2004 12:19 PM
many of you that cite Fox News and Rush as illegitimate and biased, often admit to viewing and listening to both regardless of your opinions. Very funny indeed!
It is very amusing. That is why I watch it.czardonic
Jan 12, 2004 12:34 PM
And then I can log on to RBR and be amused all over again by the people who think it is serious news. Hilarious!
Ummmm, Steam...shawndoggy
Jan 12, 2004 1:20 PM
Isn't that the only way someone could reasonably draw such a conclusion? For me to claim that Rush is nutty, I've got to listen to him to draw that conclusion. Otherwise I'm just spouting somebody else's "liberal hogwash," no?

You aren't saying that your view of the "liberal media bias" is formed by people telling you that it exists rather than by consuming information from the offending outlets and drawing the conclusion yourself, are you?
Hannity and O'Reilly wouldn't lead him astray.czardonic
Jan 12, 2004 1:26 PM
They are respected journalists with millions of viewers.
Point taken, but ...Live Steam
Jan 12, 2004 3:13 PM
I don't need to go out of my way to listen/see/read mainstream media as one needs to, to listen/see/read Rush, Fox News, Hannity, etc. I probably listen to Rush less than most of the liberals on this board. I don't watch or listen to Hannity - or I should say even less than Rush. I do watch Fox News at 6 whith Brit Hume. I think he is inciteful and presents alternative points of view. I think he has a good sense of humor too as does Tony Snow. I just thought it was interesting how many here deride the sources of topic, yet watch and listen to them none the less.
I go waaaaay out of my way to watch Fox.czardonic
Jan 12, 2004 3:20 PM
But it is well worth pressing the button on my remote one extra time.

You say "point taken", but you very obviously don't take his point.
I LOVE Rush! He's funny as hellOldEdScott
Jan 12, 2004 1:52 PM
and actually has some interesting political insights. Hannity's another matter. No humor, no insight, just vitriol. I watch him whenever I need to remind myself what we're fighting against. He's a motivational tool.
just pointing out your strawperson argument.dr hoo
Jan 12, 2004 10:31 AM
It's easy to argue against things that no one is saying, isn't it?

Your failure measure is very similar to mine. I would throw in an increase in terrorist activity though. What is your time frame? I have said it will take at least 5 years to decide on the effectiveness of the war. I do see bad signs though, see the post on the Kurds getting uppity further down the page. Destabilization of the middle east is a very possible outcome, and the jury is still out.

If in 5 years there is a peaceful civil society in Iraq, that will be victory. I'm not betting on it at the moment.

You still have to respond as to why you think nation building is possible. Did you argue against nation building in the past? What makes you think it will work in Iraq? It sure isn't working in Afganistan so far.

War is easy. Peace is hard.
I agree with your last statementLive Steam
Jan 12, 2004 10:46 AM
I also agree it's way too soon to determine success or failure. The problem is that the left has decried failure without waiting for the outcome.

Is nation building possible? Ask the British, the French and the Dutch that question. They did it quite often with some success and some failure. I do know that placing our military in the middle of the middle east is not by accident. It has a purpose other than the merely obvious.

Afghanistan is much different than Iraq in many respects. To begin with it is a virtual wasteland that has been under the siege of war for decades. It's like the wild west. Iraq on the other hand is westernized in many respects. It has many more resources for the people to draw upon. By nature, people want to live and prosper. I hope that is the theme of the day in Iraq and for the Iraqi people. Outside influences will try to disrupt that, but that must be seen for what it is. Those that desire chaos, desire it for selfish reasons. They shouldn't be allowed to succeed.
And don't forget: Reagan made the world in six days. (nm)Cory
Jan 12, 2004 9:34 AM
Awe, you're givin' him too much credit :O) nmLive Steam
Jan 12, 2004 9:49 AM