I completely understand, and captureing Saddam offered no glimps of hope or progress at the time he was captured...The truth is you all are chomping at the bit for failure in Iraq, any positive events that occur you call biased or irrelevent and any down turns you scream for heads, and jump fpr joy.Masques wrote:
Considering how events transpired following those developments I wasn't all that hopeful given that there was no (nor was there going to be) any kind of policy change. And, as late as last week Rumsfeld was going to stay and, in Cheney's words, the adminstration was going to go "full speed ahead" with more of the same.lowing wrote:
this doesn't explain your lack of excitement about the other events, as you have with this one.
This at least represents some hope for a policy change and, as per what was posted above, Rumsfeld has, so far, been the worst of all possible worlds, unable to work with even sympathetic partners in government and (even worse) unable to change.
Saddam at this point is a non-entity and his life (what's left of it anyway) is of no great importance to current events in Iraq. I wish his death would automagically solve Iraq's problems, but at this juncture the ethnic divisions within the country are just too great and rendering him past-tense is not going to stem the blood letting in the interim. As with the other events (or corners turned, if you will...) I'm always happy to be proven wrong in my predictions.
Thus far we've turned 6 corners and have reached the light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq.lowing wrote:
I completely understand, and captureing Saddam offered no glimps of hope or progress at the time he was captured...The truth is you all are chomping at the bit for failure in Iraq, any positive events that occur you call biased or irrelevent and any down turns you scream for heads, and jump fpr joy.
So interesting that you know exactly what's going on in my head. Like I said, events that don't produce any noticeable change aren't "positive" they are merely occurrances. If violence abates after Saddam's execution then, yes, that will be a positive development, but to the present the positives to similar events simply haven't materialized.
Unfortunately lowing, you aren't arguing from a position that is well supported by events. I had hope when Uday and Qusay were killed and when the US appointed interim gov't was exchanged for a version more directly representative of the Iraqis, but those events have had roughly zero impact on the situation on the ground as it were.
Given the likelihood that nothing I say will disuade you from that point and the none too subtle accusation of treason in that post I will say that I'm fucking ecstatic that the Republicans lost the House and possibly the Senate and the fact that it seems to irk your to no end swells my jaded and cynical heart just that much more.
So fuck off and a hearty fuck you to all others in this thread that regularly impugn the patriotism of decent people for not buying the line that everything is just hunky-fucking-dory in Iraq and that W himself has presented each and every Iraqi child with an autographed pony.
Victory is sweet bitches. Eat it.
I am talking about you liberals knee jerk reaction to ANY event in Iraq. ANYTHING positive that happens your knee jerk reaction is negative. ANY negative occurance, your knee jerk reaction is excitement and you love it, cuz it is in the face of Bush.Masques wrote:
Thus far we've turned 6 corners and have reached the light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq.lowing wrote:
I completely understand, and captureing Saddam offered no glimps of hope or progress at the time he was captured...The truth is you all are chomping at the bit for failure in Iraq, any positive events that occur you call biased or irrelevent and any down turns you scream for heads, and jump fpr joy.
So interesting that you know exactly what's going on in my head. Like I said, events that don't produce any noticeable change aren't "positive" they are merely occurrances. If violence abates after Saddam's execution then, yes, that will be a positive development, but to the present the positives to similar events simply haven't materialized.
Unfortunately lowing, you aren't arguing from a position that is well supported by events. I had hope when Uday and Qusay were killed and when the US appointed interim gov't was exchanged for a version more directly representative of the Iraqis, but those events have had roughly zero impact on the situation on the ground as it were.
Given the likelihood that nothing I say will disuade you from that point and the none too subtle accusation of treason in that post I will say that I'm fucking ecstatic that the Republicans lost the House and possibly the Senate and the fact that it seems to irk your to no end swells my jaded and cynical heart just that much more.
So fuck off and a hearty fuck you to all others in this thread that regularly impugn the patriotism of decent people for not buying the line that everything is just hunky-fucking-dory in Iraq and that W himself has presented each and every Iraqi child with an autographed pony.
Victory is sweet bitches. Eat it.
Your hostility seems proof enough that I am right. I assumed from previous posts that you were much older, but appears I am very very wrong.
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-08 19:18:43)
You're right. It was actually Stingray24. My apologies for that.lowing wrote:
I did??, link the thread please cuz I have no idea what you are talking about.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Haha. In the other thread about the only thing that matters this election, lowing kept pressing me for what I would do. Number one on my list was to dump this dumb ass.
accepted.........+1 for the clarification, thx, cuz I was scratchin' my head wonderin' what the hell I did now?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You're right. It was actually Stingray24. My apologies for that.lowing wrote:
I did??, link the thread please cuz I have no idea what you are talking about.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Haha. In the other thread about the only thing that matters this election, lowing kept pressing me for what I would do. Number one on my list was to dump this dumb ass.
I really am sorry. I was thinking about posts to several threads and lost track of whosa said whatsa. I need an upgrade. I can only multitask 2-3 threads at a time.lowing wrote:
accepted.........+1 for the clarification, thx, cuz I was scratchin' my head wonderin' what the hell I did now?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You're right. It was actually Stingray24. My apologies for that.lowing wrote:
I did??, link the thread please cuz I have no idea what you are talking about.
no sweat, these threads do kinda all flow together, I have done the same thing before.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I really am sorry. I was thinking about posts to several threads and lost track of whosa said whatsa. I need an upgrade. I can only multitask 2-3 threads at a time.lowing wrote:
accepted.........+1 for the clarification, thx, cuz I was scratchin' my head wonderin' what the hell I did now?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You're right. It was actually Stingray24. My apologies for that.
Au contraire, I think the replacement of Rumsfeld is a welcome development and is a change that should have been made long ago. When Rumsfeld was last Sec. Def. during the Ford Administration much of the same complaints were aimed at him (though they came most often from the military instead of the opposing party).lowing wrote:
I am talking about you liberals knee jerk reaction to ANY event in Iraq. ANYTHING positive that happens your knee jerk reaction is negative. ANY negative occurance, your knee jerk reaction is excitement and you love it, cuz it is in the face of Bush.
Your hostility seems proof enough that I am right. I assumed from previous posts that you were much older, but appears I am very very wrong.
My hostility comes from knowledge (and experience) of more extreme regimes that have used such claims against opponents with the usual end result being mass execution. Even if you disagree with my views (obvious from the thrust of your post) I hope you at least understand my point. Honestly, I don't know if you honestly believe what you write (re: the treason issue) or if it's merely a rhetorical trick wielded for some kind of partisan points. In either case it belies a fundamentally unserious and potentially poisonous view of politics generally and political disagreement specifically.
Although rarely do those on the left posit that the more conservative amongst us are somehow treasonous (and no, saying Bush is a poor president is not equivalent), but those conservative members of this forum routinely accuse the more liberal members here of either hating America or wanting terrorists to win or being somehow guilty of treason.
What I want to know is, do you honestly believe that? (I'm not just picking on lowing here)
Do you believe that leftists are treasonous? Or merely misguided (for the record I think many of those on the right are misguided and somewhat deluded, but certainly not treasonous)?
Given the serious nature of the crime of treason, would you support execution for leftists? Outlawing all parties left of a certain area on the political spectrum?
That is a hell of a question, before I answer it let me clarify something. My observation ( which happens to be true based on this forum ) the liberals have posted negative reactions to ANYTHING positive that has happened in Iraq, and have posted snide and almost joyous posts whenever something bad happens in Iraq, Leaving the readers to deduce that the liberals really do not want success in Iraq. NOT if it makes Bush look good. That is a fair and accurate observation of this forum. If that doesn't sit well I am sorry.Masques wrote:
Au contraire, I think the replacement of Rumsfeld is a welcome development and is a change that should have been made long ago. When Rumsfeld was last Sec. Def. during the Ford Administration much of the same complaints were aimed at him (though they came most often from the military instead of the opposing party).lowing wrote:
I am talking about you liberals knee jerk reaction to ANY event in Iraq. ANYTHING positive that happens your knee jerk reaction is negative. ANY negative occurance, your knee jerk reaction is excitement and you love it, cuz it is in the face of Bush.
Your hostility seems proof enough that I am right. I assumed from previous posts that you were much older, but appears I am very very wrong.
My hostility comes from knowledge (and experience) of more extreme regimes that have used such claims against opponents with the usual end result being mass execution. Even if you disagree with my views (obvious from the thrust of your post) I hope you at least understand my point. Honestly, I don't know if you honestly believe what you write (re: the treason issue) or if it's merely a rhetorical trick wielded for some kind of partisan points. In either case it belies a fundamentally unserious and potentially poisonous view of politics generally and political disagreement specifically.
Although rarely do those on the left posit that the more conservative amongst us are somehow treasonous (and no, saying Bush is a poor president is not equivalent), but those conservative members of this forum routinely accuse the more liberal members here of either hating America or wanting terrorists to win or being somehow guilty of treason.
What I want to know is, do you honestly believe that? (I'm not just picking on lowing here)
Do you believe that leftists are treasonous? Or merely misguided (for the record I think many of those on the right are misguided and somewhat deluded, but certainly not treasonous)?
Given the serious nature of the crime of treason, would you support execution for leftists? Outlawing all parties left of a certain area on the political spectrum?
Now on to your question: Hating Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney is not treasonous, making it known that you hate them is not treasonous. Sabotaging their efforts to conduct this war IS treasonous. YES I said sabotage. When the NY Times prints war plans and how terrorists are tracked, hindering that effort, it is treason and the heads of that paper should have been arrested for it.
Cindy Sheehan fraternizing with a known enemy of the state is treasonous.
Lynn Stewart passing correspondence from a known and convicted terrorist to his contacts from prison, is treasonous.
Jane Fonda visting North Vietnam an enemy of the US at that time was a treasonous act.
Supporting ANY or ALL of the above examples doesn't mean you are a traitor, but you do have treasonous thoughts.
I don't see an answer anywhere in all of that. Just answer the questions.lowing wrote:
That is a hell of a question, before I answer it let me clarify something. My observation ( which happens to be true based on this forum ) the liberals have posted negative reactions to ANYTHING positive that has happened in Iraq, and have posted snide and almost joyous posts whenever something bad happens in Iraq, Leaving the readers to deduce that the liberals really do not want success in Iraq. NOT if it makes Bush look good. That is a fair and accurate observation of this forum. If that doesn't sit well I am sorry.Masques wrote:
Au contraire, I think the replacement of Rumsfeld is a welcome development and is a change that should have been made long ago. When Rumsfeld was last Sec. Def. during the Ford Administration much of the same complaints were aimed at him (though they came most often from the military instead of the opposing party).lowing wrote:
I am talking about you liberals knee jerk reaction to ANY event in Iraq. ANYTHING positive that happens your knee jerk reaction is negative. ANY negative occurance, your knee jerk reaction is excitement and you love it, cuz it is in the face of Bush.
Your hostility seems proof enough that I am right. I assumed from previous posts that you were much older, but appears I am very very wrong.
My hostility comes from knowledge (and experience) of more extreme regimes that have used such claims against opponents with the usual end result being mass execution. Even if you disagree with my views (obvious from the thrust of your post) I hope you at least understand my point. Honestly, I don't know if you honestly believe what you write (re: the treason issue) or if it's merely a rhetorical trick wielded for some kind of partisan points. In either case it belies a fundamentally unserious and potentially poisonous view of politics generally and political disagreement specifically.
Although rarely do those on the left posit that the more conservative amongst us are somehow treasonous (and no, saying Bush is a poor president is not equivalent), but those conservative members of this forum routinely accuse the more liberal members here of either hating America or wanting terrorists to win or being somehow guilty of treason.
What I want to know is, do you honestly believe that? (I'm not just picking on lowing here)
Do you believe that leftists are treasonous? Or merely misguided (for the record I think many of those on the right are misguided and somewhat deluded, but certainly not treasonous)?
Given the serious nature of the crime of treason, would you support execution for leftists? Outlawing all parties left of a certain area on the political spectrum?
Now on to your question: Hating Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney is not treasonous, making it known that you hate them is not treasonous. Sabotaging their efforts to conduct this war IS treasonous. YES I said sabotage. When the NY Times prints war plans and how terrorists are tracked, hindering that effort, it is treason and the heads of that paper should have been arrested for it.
Cindy Sheehan fraternizing with a known enemy of the state is treasonous.
Lynn Stewart passing correspondence from a known and convicted terrorist to his contacts from prison, is treasonous.
Jane Fonda visting North Vietnam an enemy of the US at that time was a treasonous act.
Supporting ANY or ALL of the above examples doesn't mean you are a traitor, but you do have treasonous thoughts.
Then maybe you should re-read it. You asked if liberals were treasonous, and I gave you examples of liberals that I considered traitors and the bounderies for me, personally, to consider someone a traitor.Masques wrote:
I don't see an answer anywhere in all of that. Just answer the questions.lowing wrote:
That is a hell of a question, before I answer it let me clarify something. My observation ( which happens to be true based on this forum ) the liberals have posted negative reactions to ANYTHING positive that has happened in Iraq, and have posted snide and almost joyous posts whenever something bad happens in Iraq, Leaving the readers to deduce that the liberals really do not want success in Iraq. NOT if it makes Bush look good. That is a fair and accurate observation of this forum. If that doesn't sit well I am sorry.Masques wrote:
Au contraire, I think the replacement of Rumsfeld is a welcome development and is a change that should have been made long ago. When Rumsfeld was last Sec. Def. during the Ford Administration much of the same complaints were aimed at him (though they came most often from the military instead of the opposing party).
My hostility comes from knowledge (and experience) of more extreme regimes that have used such claims against opponents with the usual end result being mass execution. Even if you disagree with my views (obvious from the thrust of your post) I hope you at least understand my point. Honestly, I don't know if you honestly believe what you write (re: the treason issue) or if it's merely a rhetorical trick wielded for some kind of partisan points. In either case it belies a fundamentally unserious and potentially poisonous view of politics generally and political disagreement specifically.
Although rarely do those on the left posit that the more conservative amongst us are somehow treasonous (and no, saying Bush is a poor president is not equivalent), but those conservative members of this forum routinely accuse the more liberal members here of either hating America or wanting terrorists to win or being somehow guilty of treason.
What I want to know is, do you honestly believe that? (I'm not just picking on lowing here)
Do you believe that leftists are treasonous? Or merely misguided (for the record I think many of those on the right are misguided and somewhat deluded, but certainly not treasonous)?
Given the serious nature of the crime of treason, would you support execution for leftists? Outlawing all parties left of a certain area on the political spectrum?
Now on to your question: Hating Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney is not treasonous, making it known that you hate them is not treasonous. Sabotaging their efforts to conduct this war IS treasonous. YES I said sabotage. When the NY Times prints war plans and how terrorists are tracked, hindering that effort, it is treason and the heads of that paper should have been arrested for it.
Cindy Sheehan fraternizing with a known enemy of the state is treasonous.
Lynn Stewart passing correspondence from a known and convicted terrorist to his contacts from prison, is treasonous.
Jane Fonda visting North Vietnam an enemy of the US at that time was a treasonous act.
Supporting ANY or ALL of the above examples doesn't mean you are a traitor, but you do have treasonous thoughts.
Wow I can't believe I used to post here... I wouldn't have the patience to do it any more. My hat goes off to Masques though.
Im actually not to upset about this, the guy should have been gone a few years ago. He just didnt handle this war well, and tried to micromanage to much over what the generals on the ground wanted. They are actually happy that he resigned.
Let's just hope gates does a better job of orgainzing a new stratgegy. But i dont want to see any troop withdrawls, i mean that just spells vietnam right there. Bettery stratgey and cohesive plans with the rest of congress etc is what should be done, hopefully they will all get along, and with the generals on the ground.
And if the dems get the senate which looks like they will, doesnt mean bush is going to be out anytime soon if at all, he seems willing to work with them anyway..let the guy do his last 2 and lets move on.
besides a they need a 2/3rds vote to impeach him, and alot of the new house seats taken, are by more conservative dems then far left. thank god. so they should organize some type of plane to stay in iraq and finish the job within 18 months
Let's just hope gates does a better job of orgainzing a new stratgegy. But i dont want to see any troop withdrawls, i mean that just spells vietnam right there. Bettery stratgey and cohesive plans with the rest of congress etc is what should be done, hopefully they will all get along, and with the generals on the ground.
And if the dems get the senate which looks like they will, doesnt mean bush is going to be out anytime soon if at all, he seems willing to work with them anyway..let the guy do his last 2 and lets move on.
besides a they need a 2/3rds vote to impeach him, and alot of the new house seats taken, are by more conservative dems then far left. thank god. so they should organize some type of plane to stay in iraq and finish the job within 18 months
Last edited by beerface702 (2006-11-08 23:24:51)
and rummy didnt get fired, well of course i cant say with complete knowledge behind the oval office. but i think he just has had it with all this nonsense, and once he saw that the dems got the majority, he thew in the towel on his own will after years of pressure.
doesnt matter our gov is corrupt on either side, dont get all giddy kids
doesnt matter our gov is corrupt on either side, dont get all giddy kids
Did anyone see Bush's Freudian slip on the Iraq war? He said "write-off" when he meant to say "write-in".
On Fox today, Heraldo, discussing the departure of Rummy, actually criticized the war. He said that the US should ask the Iraqi's to vote on their presence, and if they want them out then they get the hell out.
Having visited Iraq over 12 times and spending time with the troops, he says he started to think. As they drove down a road the troops showed him where they lost a captain, and then a colonel to IED's. "They are forced to patrol this strip of road, but as soon as they pass by it returns to insurgent control. It only takes 5 minutes to plant a bomb, and there we are driving down, flying our flag, and for what! so we can be in the crossfire of this Sunni and Shiite civil war. Our boys are just getting cut up. We should simply take a defensive posture, defend the ministries so the government can function and let Iraqis handle the streets"
On Fox today, Heraldo, discussing the departure of Rummy, actually criticized the war. He said that the US should ask the Iraqi's to vote on their presence, and if they want them out then they get the hell out.
Having visited Iraq over 12 times and spending time with the troops, he says he started to think. As they drove down a road the troops showed him where they lost a captain, and then a colonel to IED's. "They are forced to patrol this strip of road, but as soon as they pass by it returns to insurgent control. It only takes 5 minutes to plant a bomb, and there we are driving down, flying our flag, and for what! so we can be in the crossfire of this Sunni and Shiite civil war. Our boys are just getting cut up. We should simply take a defensive posture, defend the ministries so the government can function and let Iraqis handle the streets"
Last edited by thanks_champ (2006-11-09 02:22:11)
omfg he's gone!!11!!!11!!one
letz get him b4ckz!!
letz get him b4ckz!!
Well, you are invited to continue NOT posting here if you so choose, ain't free will grand???skratch-x wrote:
Wow I can't believe I used to post here... I wouldn't have the patience to do it any more. My hat goes off to Masques though.
The Americans are indeed just placing themselves in the crossfire of a Sunni-Shi'a civil war. It's quite evident they have little control over proceedings. America's business in the country is over. Let Iraqis decide the direction of their country - 'democratic elections' aren't generally very meaningful in a country that is at war with itself.thanks_champ wrote:
Did anyone see Bush's Freudian slip on the Iraq war? He said "write-off" when he meant to say "write-in".
On Fox today, Heraldo, discussing the departure of Rummy, actually criticized the war. He said that the US should ask the Iraqi's to vote on their presence, and if they want them out then they get the hell out.
Having visited Iraq over 12 times and spending time with the troops, he says he started to think. As they drove down a road the troops showed him where they lost a captain, and then a colonel to IED's. "They are forced to patrol this strip of road, but as soon as they pass by it returns to insurgent control. It only takes 5 minutes to plant a bomb, and there we are driving down, flying our flag, and for what! so we can be in the crossfire of this Sunni and Shiite civil war. Our boys are just getting cut up. We should simply take a defensive posture, defend the ministries so the government can function and let Iraqis handle the streets"
Win.
That's Rumsfeld, face down in a muddy ditch.
Ok, I don't get it, isn't it usually a good idea to get rid of the really unpopular person from your party before the election, not after it?
So... Rumsfeld a scapegoat... Yeah, I can live with that!
ƒ³
Does Robert Gates have the kung-fu (Rum-fu?) skill of Grand Master DonZo?
