Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 188
We're winningPage 4 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
@ charles - and how is that post off topic? Notice the comment, someone tell the Democrats, we're winning in Iraq. Seems pretty close to the title of this thread. Or is it that you just can't tell a democrat - or in your case, a NDP member, something they don't want to hear?
 zoomer63
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 189
We're winning
Posted: 12/4/2007 10:18:06 AM
Might I suggest that Cobra II is read,plus if you really want to know what is going on in Iraq and the Stan,that you read some of the mil blogs.It might give everyone a broader view on things.
I totally support the troops,have adopted deployed units.Reguardless of why we are over there,we need to finish what we started.
Its easy to sit here and complain,but so much harder to take action and make a change.Dont hate or down the soldiers,stand up and make a change.
To those who served,past and present,let me give you a great big thanks for your willingness to serve.God bless you.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 191
We're winning
Posted: 12/4/2007 3:46:54 PM

Its easy to sit here and complain,but so much harder to take action and make a change. Dont hate or down the soldiers,stand up and make a change.


I think the civilian population has grown up since Viet Nam. No one with any sense has anything but gratitude for them and the sacrifices they are making, nor their faith that they are making them on our behalf.

The problem these days is that anyone who criticizes or even questions the policies of the administration is immediately branded as a traitor to the troops. That sort of rhetoric is very damaging to the troops. When they hear people say that some of us don't support them, they might believe it! But that is simply a lie. I support them and I thank them whenever I come into contact with them. I do the same for veterans.

The ones who are undermining morale are the people who voice the lie that "liberals" don't support the troops!

The fact that I support the troops and am grateful to them, and that I show it, doesn't change the fact that I believe we were badly misled by this administration and that our young people were placed in harms way not to protect us, but to further an agenda that is has little to do with the safety of ordinary citizens. When our soldiers go to war, I want their cause to be just, and I want everyone in the world to recognize that it is just, so that when they fight, they are in a position to win not just the tactical victory, but the moral victory that is required to make our interventions stick.

Do you really want to have to go back there again in 20 years and do this again?

When we first went into Afghanistan, our moral position was clear. We were there to assert the rule of law and to apprehend the criminal conspiracy that perpetrated the 9/11 bombing. As far as Iraq goes, as long as we could mainain the fiction about WMD, or reasons for going in weren't nearly as clear, but at least they were somewhat plausible. Now, however, our presence in both countries is justified by what? We haven't apprenhended bin Laden and we haven't brought the conconspirators we're holding to trial. So, we've undermined our claim to be using force in support of the rule of law. Without that justification, what are we doing in either country?

Asking our troops to fight their way out of an unteneble position is, to me, just as bad as, or worse than, spitting on them. At least they can wipe off the spit. They can't come back from the dead. Nor can they overlook the fact that when they come home wounded this administration rescinds their signing bonuses. Talk about spitting on someone!

So, please stop telling me to support the troops and start telling the administration to stop wasting their lives for no good purpose and spitting on them to boot! Let's conclude our legitimate business in Afghanistan, hold those trials to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, allow the Iraqis to partition themselves into 3 separate countries if that's what they want to do, and start leading by example once again by practicing what we preach about respecting the rule of law and honoring democracy.

Is that clear?
 zoomer63
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 192
We're winning
Posted: 12/4/2007 7:47:54 PM
Ace I totally agree with you and not sure why you took that differently,guess it shows that you havent read Cobra II.And yes,I have told some of the administration to bring our guys home.The question is have you?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 193
We're winning
Posted: 12/5/2007 3:31:50 AM

Ace I totally agree with you and not sure why you took that differently,guess it shows that you havent read Cobra II.And yes,I have told some of the administration to bring our guys home.The question is have you?


Both through letters and at the ballot box. However, I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but this administration has been particularly bad at listening to anyone with whom it doesn't already agree.

This is what term limits are for.
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 198
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 5:54:17 AM
I think it's time we all refresh our memories and re visit the reason's Colin Powel gave for US needing to go to war,....



Powell's key points on Iraq
Wednesday, February 5, 2003 Posted: 12:24 PM EST
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.key.points.txt/index.html

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Although he said in advance that there would be no "smoking gun," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell raised numerous points Wednesday in making his case against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council. Here are some of the highlights:

Recorded conversations
Powell played what he said was a tape of a colonel and brigadier general of Iraq's elite Republican Guard discussing hiding a vehicle before U.N. inspectors arrived to search a site.

Powell said the conversation indicated the Iraqi officials knew inspectors were coming and what they would be looking for. One official is heard to say, "We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?" The other official says, "I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left."

The other official then says, "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left."

Powell said this indicates the Iraqis hid or destroyed banned materials. He said the vehicle came from a company "well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity."

Satellite images of 'active chemical munitions bunkers'
Powell then showed satellite photos that he said indicated the presence of "active chemical munitions bunkers" disguised from inspectors.

The first photo showed was from a weapons munitions facility, which Powell said was one of 65 such facilities in Iraq. He said the photo contained "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions," including a decontamination truck and special security.

Powell showed later photos from the same facility that he said showed the bunkers had been "sanitized" before U.N. inspectors arrived. He also showed satellite photos he said indicated that earth was moved and graded to hide evidence at a chemical production site called Al-Musayyib.

Scientists banned from interviews
Powell said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has personally barred Iraqi scientists from participating in interviews with U.N. inspectors and forced them "to sign documents acknowledging that divulging information is punishable by death."

"The regime only allows interviews with inspectors in the presence of an Iraqi official, a minder," Powell said. "The official Iraqi organization charged with facilitating inspections announced, announced publicly and announced ominously that, 'Nobody is ready to leave Iraq to be interviewed.' "

He said this was a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, which requires Iraq to abandon its alleged weapons of mass destruction programs and disarm.

Mobile biological weapons labs
Calling the discovery "most worrisome," Powell said U.S. intelligence indicated Iraq had production facilities for biological weapons "on wheels and on rails."

"The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors," Powell said. "In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War."

Powell said the evidence included firsthand accounts from four sources -- among them, an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of the facilities and an Iraqi civil engineer "in a position to know the details of the program."

Nerve gas unaccounted for
Powell said Iraq has failed to account for its stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons, including four tons of the nerve gas VX. He said a single drop of VX can kill a human being.

"We have evidence these weapons existed," Powell said. "What we don't have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are."

He said Iraq denied it had ever weaponized VX, and that U.N. inspectors had presented information on January 27 that conflicts with the Iraqi account of its VX program.

Nuclear efforts continue
"We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program," Powell told the council. "On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons."

Powell said Iraq has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons and missiles capable of striking targets at a distance of up to 1,200 kilometers (745 miles). He said Saddam has "a cadre of nuclear scientists with the expertise, and he has a bomb design," but lacks the fissile material needed for a nuclear explosion.

Powell said that in an effort to develop fissile material, Saddam "has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed."

Powell said Iraq had "no business" obtaining such tubes, even if they were for use in conventional rocket programs as Iraq and some experts have claimed.

Links to terrorism
Powell asserted that Iraq has had high-level, long-standing contacts with the al Qaeda terrorist network.

He said al Qaeda fugitives from Afghanistan have found safe haven in northern Iraq and al Qaeda associates are operating in Baghdad.

Powell also said an al Qaeda fugitive linked to the October killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan has found "safe haven" in Iraq and has plotted attacks in Europe


a lot of those reason's turned out to be completely falsified,...in fact some of the time just the opposite was true,....like the above reson's under links to terrorism,....

I bring this up only to say befor you can declair yourselves winner's of anything you have to state why you went,...and then which of those reason's have been dealt with.

you can't claim victory over issues that were never there to begin with,...IMHO
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 199
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 7:45:19 AM

a lot of those reason's turned out to be completely falsified,...in fact some of the time just the opposite was true,....like the above reson's under links to terrorism,....
Falsified, improperly analyzed intelligence, or merely encountered a master of the shell game?
I think at some point we have to inject a little common sense into the equation (which by the way is a key component to analyzing intelligence data). When we have pre-existing 3rd party reports that verify the existence of X Y & Z, and an order to dismantle and destroy all components of X Y & Z, yet decide to only produce records identifying the destruction of X, 1/2 of Y, and deny that Z ever existed, reasonable people without fail come to the conclusion that both Y and Z still exist. Is it wise to assume because Y & Z aren't where previously identified that all previous accounts were incorrect, or more prudent to assume that they have been moved to a new location(s)?
The UN declared Iraq to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and a serious threat to both the region and the international community. In making the declaration, they empowered all members, either singularly, or in combination, to take action to include military force if their national security is threatened. Now since no one on this site is qualified to make the determination as to whether the national security of the United States was threatened, we left the matter in the hands of those who have access to all intelligence data and empower them to make the appropriate decision. Here's where the common sense part comes into play: When you make a decision to do a particular thing, and then act on that decision, wishing you hadn't does not absolve you of the responsibility for your actions. On that note, I don't think anyone can argue the FACT that all who voted to empower the President to take military action are as culpable for any presumed malfeasance as he himself is and that wagging finger points all the way back from Congress to the UN and the previous two US administrations.

Let's discuss terrorism links... If memory serves, the claim was that Saddam had financial links as well as providing safe haven, training facilities and payment for any verified terrorist act against the United States or their allies. Unlike the OJ trial, this glove seems to fit. Shortly after the war began, blue team reports were coming out of the woodwork that Iraq had absolutely no "provable" link to Al Qada, yet years later we are still catching and or killing senior Al Qada operatives in Iraq. Are we to believe that after we attacked the dumbasses all ran to Iraq to hide? How do you capture and kill someone when they aren't there? Common sense dictates that you cannot ... Isn’t it more intelligent to surmise that the US military forces in Iraq have prevented their escape? I think we have proof positive that there is an Iraqi - Al Qada connection.

I bring this up only to say befor you can declair yourselves winner's of anything you have to state why you went,...and then which of those reason's have been dealt with.
I think this is rather clear by the above as well as considering the war was won when Saddam was captured. What we have been seeing since is the eradication of terrorists factions, be they pro-Saddam or simply anti-Western world. The argument now should not be why we fought the war, but rather why we haven't withdrawn our forces once the war was won; when we fought the gulf war, we pulled out all support for the Iraqi citizens and as a result, millions were killed by Saddam for opposing him and / or aiding the coalition forces. One would have to be completely brain dead to assume that when Saddam was hung, the prominent ideology and penchant for tyranny of the Baath party died with him. What we're seeing now is the US finally honoring the promises it made in the early 1990's, that being to support Iraqi citizens in their goal of living without the oppression of a sadistic dictatorship. Something that cannot be done without the help of a global power, and since we’re there, and we did promise, seems only prudent to live up to our commitments.
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 200
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 12:53:52 PM
Let's discuss terrorism links... If memory serves, the claim was that Saddam had financial links as well as providing safe haven, training facilities and payment for any verified terrorist act against the United States or their allies.


I have heard all kinds of claims,....but claims are just that,...
they're a dime a dozzen and anyone can make them,...

what I find harder to find,..is the paperwork proof to back up all these claims,....
we all know what happened to the , he's got weapons of mass distruction claims,...

and then after I see the paperwork I want to see the documentation of what the US know,..when they knew it and why they waited in some cases 10 or more years before they took action,....

and then I want to know why while Sadam did some of his worst things ,... while the US was not only continuing to fund this man,..but in fact increase financial support after Sadam Gassed the Kurds,...

To those on the outside looking in it sounds very much like,.....

the US government was telling him,...'atta boy go get 'em,....by continuing the flow of American dollars,...

what I don't understand is why more American's aren't pissed off by this,...
after all it was your tax dollars that were sent to Sadam,....for many years...making him more powerfull with every year,...and now not only your tax dollars are heading to Iraq but the blood of your children go with them,...as well as your grandchildren's financial future,.... you have to be thee most forgiving people on the planet to let all that slide,....(and your history doesn't suggest this)

How can any free thinking human not want to tear the eyballs out of the heads of the people that put you into this position,...this to me goes wayyyyyybeyond my understanding,....

but on this point you and I agree 100%


I don't think anyone can argue the FACT that all who voted to empower the President to take military action are as culpable for any presumed malfeasance as he himself is and that wagging finger points all the way back from Congress to the UN and the previous two US administrations.


so where are all the millions of you carrying signs , protesting??????....


Something that cannot be done without the help of a global power, and since we’re there, and we did promise, seems only prudent to live up to our commitments.


I actually understand and somewhat agree with this point,....but isn't that what the UN peacekeepers' is all about and for?,....

I know if I were an Iraqi citizen I would find it very hard to trust the same people responsible for deaths' of some of my family member's , to now be the good guys wanting nothing more than to help me,....especially when they can charge into my home at anytime they even suspect a terrorist from being in my home,....


yet years later we are still catching and or killing senior Al Qada operatives in Iraq. Are we to believe that after we attacked the dumbasses all ran to Iraq to hide?


let me ask you this since it has been reported that over the years the Al Qida numbers found in Iraq have increased not decreased,...is it possible that some organizws group that had a hate on for you,....might travel to fight you if you happened to be in their neighbourhood,...(meaning other countries close by)? Is that not possible too?

As an outsider I can understand why soldiers woould enter any home and at gunpoint hold the family at bay until they can verify no one that isn't supposed to be there is hiding,....but as an Iraqi I might see this differently,....as a husband or wife standing at gunpoint next to my children I would not feel greatfull, just threatened,....

For this reason alone you are at a disadvantage,....and a UN peacekeeping force might be more effective,....and simce you are not the only democ ratic country on the planet, perhaps another one,...(not you) can teach them how to govern themselves,...something they have had no template or opportunity to do ,...until now,... so it will be many years of trial and error for them to get it right,....
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 201
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 2:29:45 PM
This is gonna be fun.....

I have heard all kinds of claims,....but claims are just that,...
they're a dime a dozzen and anyone can make them,...

Exactly! Anyone can claim that the intelligence was flawed, just like anyone can support the war, then not, then support it again, then not..... And there are countless numbers in the flock of sheeple who believe anything that is anti-republican even when it flies in the face of common sense.

what I find harder to find,..is the paperwork proof to back up all these claims,....
we all know what happened to the , he's got weapons of mass distruction claims,...
Now why didn't we think of that... we should have a space on the Visa Applications:
Circle Appropriate Response
1.) Are you a terrorist? Y N
2.) If yes, are you affiliated with Al Qada? Y N
3.) Is the purpose of your visit training? Y N

Pray tell exactly what documentation is it you require in order for OUR government to operate in its own best interest?


and then after I see the paperwork I want to see the documentation of what the US know,..when they knew it and why they waited in some cases 10 or more years before they took action,....
Note to Staff - Please inform NSA Advisor Marita_b as to why Clinton failed to take action during his administration.

and then I want to know why while Sadam did some of his worst things ,... while the US was not only continuing to fund this man,..but in fact increase financial support after Sadam Gassed the Kurds,...
Is this one of those claims you were referring to earlier, or do you have copies of the cancelled checks? If you do you might want to hide them, odds are they’ll have Clintons signature on them and we all know the blue team won’t stand for a hit like that on the chosen one….

what I don't understand is why more American's aren't pissed off by this,...
after all it was your tax dollars that were sent to Sadam,....for many years...making him more powerfull with every year,...and now not only your tax dollars are heading to Iraq but the blood of your children go with them,...as well as your grandchildren's financial future,.... you have to be thee most forgiving people on the planet to let all that slide,....(and your history doesn't suggest this)
What most of us don't understand is why you get so upset about it, after all, it isn't your tax dollars now is it?

How can any free thinking human not want to tear the eyballs out of the heads of the people that put you into this position,...this to me goes wayyyyyybeyond my understanding,....
Ummm... we did that with Saddam, and now we're being criticized for it.... No one forced him to ignore the UN; no one forced him to expel the UN Inspectors countless times. No one forced him to hide items which he admitted to having in previous inspections.

I don't think anyone can argue the FACT that all who voted to empower the President to take military action are as culpable for any presumed malfeasance as he himself is and that wagging finger points all the way back from Congress to the UN and the previous two US administrations.


so where are all the millions of you carrying signs , protesting??????....
Apparently they're all in Canada....

I actually understand and somewhat agree with this point,....but isn't that what the UN peacekeepers' is all about and for?,....
Who do you think the UN armed forces are comprised of? If you think the UN needs to step in, why aren't you lobbying for your government to do so? Could it be that complaining on POF is more fun than complaining to someone that can actually do something about it?

let me ask you this since it has been reported that over the years the Al Qida numbers found in Iraq have increased not decreased,...is it possible that some organizws group that had a hate on for you,....might travel to fight you if you happened to be in their neighbourhood,...(meaning other countries close by)? Is that not possible too?
You can't UNfind people, so yes, we will continue to find more terrorists all the way up until we stop looking for them because their numbers have dwindled to a point where they are no longer a threat to the new democratic Iraqi government. The nature of terrorism is to strike at vulnerable points, not taking on the strongest military in the world head to head. What you're seeing in Iraq is the last desperate stand of the ones who have no hope of escape.

As an outsider I can understand why soldiers woould enter any home and at gunpoint hold the family at bay until they can verify no one that isn't supposed to be there is hiding,....but as an Iraqi I might see this differently,....as a husband or wife standing at gunpoint next to my children I would not feel greatfull, just threatened,....
Then I would suggest that the only way to avoid this is to report anything suspicious to the Iraqi police so that they can put a swift end to your feeling threatened. Looks as though the Iraqis caught on to how the game is played, which is why you hear less and less of it....

For this reason alone you are at a disadvantage,....and a UN peacekeeping force might be more effective,....and simce you are not the only democ ratic country on the planet, perhaps another one,...(not you) can teach them how to govern themselves,...something they have had no template or opportunity to do ,...until now,... so it will be many years of trial and error for them to get it right,....
You do realize that the 82,000 uniformed UN forces are comprised largely of US soldiers don't you? Do you honestly think covering the American flag on uniforms with the UN flag is going to make any difference? Kicking in doors searching for murderers is a police action, something anyone who aids the Iraqi government is going to have to do. Do you think Al Qada cares if you speak French, German, or English with other than a US accent? You don't seem to get that Al Qada has contempt for the entire western world, not just the US, and will not stop until one of us, either the western world or Al Qada, is eradicated or assimilated.
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 202
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 3:03:12 PM

Exactly! Anyone can claim that the intelligence was flawed, just like anyone can support the war, then not, then support it again, then not..... And there are countless numbers in the flock of sheeple who believe anything that is anti-republican even when it flies in the face of common sense


That's true enough but you went over to Iraq supposedly on proof,...the details of which were'ent released because of National security,...whaich of course can be anything,...you won't know to verify,....so the Nation sits there having to accept and like sheep it does,...because no leader would send their children to die with a smug smile on his face,....Would he?

so try and proove a negative,.....cam't be done you see,....


Who do you think the UN armed forces are comprised of? If you think the UN needs to step in, why aren't you lobbying for your government to do so? Could it be that complaining on POF is more fun than complaining to someone that can actually do something about it?


Honestly,...because I'm a mother of two soldiers,....and,...
as long as your son's are getting in front of the bullets,...
mine doesn't have to,....sorry,...but you asked

The rest I will address later,...supper's burning,...
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 203
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 3:51:10 PM

That's true enough but you went over to Iraq supposedly on proof,...the details of which were'ent released because of National security,...whaich of course can be anything,...you won't know to verify,....so the Nation sits there having to accept and like sheep it does,...because no leader would send their children to die with a smug smile on his face,....Would he?

so try and proove a negative,.....cam't be done you see,....
Make that LeaderS ... plural. The President requests the authority, and Congress grants it. They all had the same intelligence, hell the Intelligence committee (comprised of members of Congress) is privy to more information that the President gets....
Proving a negative... hmmm seems that's all the blue team has been doing on this issue since they first voted in favor of military action in Iraq! The President used information provided to him BY Congress to request authority for military action, and some of those same members of Congress claim they didn't know things when they thought they did.... sounds as though the entire blue argument is based on a negative....


Honestly,...because I'm a mother of two soldiers,....and,...
as long as your son's are getting in front of the bullets,...
mine doesn't have to,....sorry,...but you asked
I have a nephew and one of my best friends in Iraq right now, so you'll forgive me when I point out that yours is the typical bleeding heart blue team NIMBY response. It's easy to sit back and judge when you don't have anything to lose, but when you do, I hope you don't encounter the same contempt. By the way, since you have two sons in the military, were you not aware that soldiers is what countries use to fight wars with?
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 205
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 4:55:35 PM

and simce you are not the only democ ratic country on the planet, perhaps another one,...(not you) can teach them how to govern themselves,

Ok - so who's going to step up to the plate, who's got the resources. My country, Canada, certainly doesn't - no thanks to Chretien and the liberals for gutting our Armed Forces by the way - England? Certainly not France or Germany. Australia? China - now there's a joke....the UN - now that's truly hysterical, even though it's their job.
Point is, America is the only country with the resources and, most importantly the will - to do this dirty job.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 206
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 4:59:29 PM
Kudos to you timpowwel - that WAS fun to read!
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 207
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/7/2007 5:18:36 PM
Hey Monty!
I see a lot of barn door closing AFTER the horse got out, what I don't see, nor does anyone else, is a majority of the blue members of Congress NOT approving the military action in Iraq before it started, if they had held out, we wouldn't be there...
As for there not being any Al Qada in Iraq, granted there are fewer now than when we started, but... Keep tootin that blue horn, one of these days you'll get an issue right (the law of averages won't allow you to be wrong ALL the time....)
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 213
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/9/2007 8:32:39 AM

time to get back to the point of the forum. what are the politicians who have chosen side going to do. How will they answer to the american people?
I think we'll have to come up with a new term to identify them....
1.) Unconscious Objectors
2.) Conscientious Retractors
3.) The Waffle House
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 214
We're winning
Posted: 12/9/2007 9:34:58 AM

what are the politicians who have chosen side going to do. How will they answer to the american people?

Once again, you are proceeding from an erroneous assumption. You assume the illegal occupation can be even be won (hint: no matter what the outcome, its supporters lost the day the first troops stepped across the border).

Those who have chosen to oppose the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation have nothing to answer for, they already occupy the "moral high ground".

The only ones who need to "answer to the people" are the ones who chose (and supported that choice) to lie their way into an illegal war costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives for reasons that had nothing to do with legitimate interests.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 216
We're winning
Posted: 12/9/2007 10:18:58 AM

The Demos are enemies of the USA.
They know that these tapes will be utilized by enemies as proof of how bad the USA is.

And, proof it would be!!

Is the right-wing becoming SO desperate that they now have to try and hide the truth, calling anyone who seeks truth an "enemy"?

Since when has truth ever been the enemy of anything or anyone but the criminal, the immoral and the evil?
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 217
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/9/2007 10:35:21 AM
Now here's a can of worms....

Once again, you are proceeding from an erroneous assumption. You assume the illegal occupation can be even be won (hint: no matter what the outcome, its supporters lost the day the first troops stepped across the border).
Why is the war illegal? By what laws are you making such an allegation?


Those who have chosen to oppose the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation have nothing to answer for, they already occupy the "moral high ground".
Let me see if I have this straight, all anyone has to say is that they changed their mind (after the war started) and suddenly they're morally superior? Man that blue Kool-Aid must really be good!


The only ones who need to "answer to the people" are the ones who chose (and supported that choice) to lie their way into an illegal war costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives for reasons that had nothing to do with legitimate interests.
That's where you're completely wrong. If there are in fact any misdeeds, then everyone who supported the war and every one who supports the continued funding is equally to “blame”. Slamming your fist on the table claiming you were duped while signing a bill authorizing the continued funding is utter and complete hypocrisy! This is simply a matter of the blue team wanting to have their cake and eat it to … when it all shakes out, no matter who history dictates is right or wrong on the issue, only the members of blue team will have documented evidence that they actually supported both sides. To me that’s hardly representative of moral high ground, it’s simply democratic politics as usual. Come to think of it, financially supporting what you publicly acknowledge to as an illegal action would actually make one more culpable wouldn’t it? Or simply a Democrat……
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 218
We're winning
Posted: 12/9/2007 4:31:39 PM

That's where you're completely wrong. If there are in fact any misdeeds, then everyone who supported the war and every one who supports the continued funding is equally to “blame”. Slamming your fist on the table claiming you were duped while signing a bill authorizing the continued funding is utter and complete hypocrisy! This is simply a matter of the blue team wanting to have their cake and eat it to …


Hmmm ... So let's see. We let ourselves get talked into something because of a bunch of lies, and then we find that it's a lot harder to get out than it was to go in. So, instead of abandoning the troops completely in order to maintain our appearance of virtue, we instead try to work with the administration to bring them out in good order--believing the ongoing arguments that doing anything else would leave the nation in a worse position? And for that we're hypocrites?

Is there anything that a "blue team" member could ever do that you wouldn't find a way to disdain? It's easy to spin anything to fit such a deeply ingrained prejudice.

It's very easy to condemn the lies of the people you believe to be against you. It is much harder, and much wiser, to look for the ways in which the people you agree with might be lying to you. "Always blame the blue team" is a great way to lie and get away with it.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 221
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/9/2007 7:52:57 PM
Hmmm ... So let's see. We let ourselves get talked into something because of a bunch of lies, and then we find that it's a lot harder to get out than it was to go in.
When you say "we", are you a member of Congress? If not, then what you meant to say was "my representative / senator". Further, I don't think any politician can be talked into anything that doesn't serve his or her own best interest first and those of their constituents second.

So, instead of abandoning the troops completely in order to maintain our appearance of virtue, we instead try to work with the administration to bring them out in good order--believing the ongoing arguments that doing anything else would leave the nation in a worse position? And for that we're hypocrites?
Now you're catching on! If you truly wanted a withdrawal, you would cut the funding. Do you honestly think that they would distribute fewer bullets to the same number of troops, or immediately reduce troop strength so that we don't have all those M16's with only one bullet in each of them.... Supporting the troops is approving their payroll and training budgets, what Congress passed was overwhelming financial support for the war itself, so yes, the term hypocrisy fits....


Is there anything that a "blue team" member could ever do that you wouldn't find a way to disdain? It's easy to spin anything to fit such a deeply ingrained prejudice.
Spin? Disdain? Prejudice? When the facts combined with common sense don't support your argument, the politics of personal attacks are unleashed.... Quite frankly I find the whole issue to be disturbing.... Someone points out that others lack the courage of their convictions, while promoting those convictions to be "morally superior" to all other positions, and HE’S the bad guy?


It's very easy to condemn the lies of the people you believe to be against you. It is much harder, and much wiser, to look for the ways in which the people you agree with might be lying to you. "Always blame the blue team" is a great way to lie and get away with it.
Pray tell, what is it I'm blaming the blue team for? Not honoring their professed convictions? Seems to me you’re granting absolution to only certain members of Congress who, like you, profess to be against the war as the ink from their signature dries on their financial support for it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 222
We're winning
Posted: 12/9/2007 10:08:08 PM
Pray tell, what is it I'm blaming the blue team for? Not honoring their professed convictions? Seems to me you’re granting absolution to only certain members of Congress who, like you, profess to be against the war as the ink from their signature dries on their financial support for it.


This is the best rebuttal I've had in a long time! Thank you for thinking and not just rattling off some dismissive ditto-headed slogan.

The way I see it is that we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a trap over there. How to get out of it with minimal damage is the question in my mind. There are short-term and long-term tradeoffs to consider. Occupation is always a more complex problem than invasion, so all I'm saying is that I can understand why someone would hold their nose and vote to continue until a solid plan for withdrawal can be worked out.

Personally, I have no idea why the current Congress is so weak in its dealings with the Administration. However, when it comes to dishonoring their professed convictions, both political parties seem quite bad to me at the moment. The Democrats could do a lot more to stand against the occupation, and Republicans could do a lot more to stand up for the rule of law. Actually, all they'd need to do is stop undermining it!

Of course, if the real objective in Iraq is to project strategic military power over the region, and to have our troops well established and dug in long before the Chinese and Indian economies are fully ramped up, and both parties understand that, then the pretext of a debate over withdrawal is of little consequence. In that case, consolidation of our hegemony is the only measure of victory and the so-called debate is just window dressing. If it's really just a "good-cop, bad-cop" game, then it really doesn't matter which cop either one of us prefers. The result will be the same anyway.

I can more easily forgive the Democrats their hypocrisy about funding the occupation because it's less damaging in the long run than the Republican hypocrisy about defending democracy while systematically undermining human rights and the rule of law. However, I will grant you that the Democrats could and should be doing a lot more to keep this Administration in check.

Still, with such a polarized electorate, the realities are that anything the Democrats do to try to rein in the Administration will be painted as a lack of support for the troops. In a no-win situation, you hold your nose, vote, and then try to sway opinion so that you don't lose every seat you hold and leave the country in an even worse position (from your perspective) by making some fruitless stand on virtue that will only be distorted and backfire anyway. You go on playing the "good-cop" role for all the dissenters while the band plays on.

My objection is not to your criticism of the Democratic weakness and their attempts to compensate for it. I can't argue with you when you're right. My objection is to the unthinking, jingoistic, "my team's better so there," nonsense that's been passing for debate and discussion for far too long in this country. We can't possibly hold our own in an increasingly complex world if we don't start thinking for ourselves and stop falling for the emotional appeals of propagandists on either side. However, the ones who make my blood boil are those who make money or validate their egos by poisioning the well. That is the kind of unthinking and unvigilant behavior that leads to eventual tyranny.

If the real debate should be about whether or not we have the moral right and the strategic might to weild control over the oil in that region, why are we being spoon-fed such nonsense from both parties? My view is this: if we undermine our moral right by compromising the principles of rule of law and rule by the consent of the governed, then we won't have the strategic might when the time comes because we won't quite have the will. In that case, we'd do a whole lot better to find a different approach toward protecting our national interest in the strategic fuel supplies of the region.

Still, I concede your point and thank you for making it!
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 223
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/10/2007 5:51:31 AM
This is the best rebuttal I've had in a long time! Thank you for thinking and not just rattling off some dismissive ditto-headed slogan.
Ditto headed slogan.... like "I support the troops but not the war"? Not meaning to be overly sarcastic, but Washington serves up equal amounts of both Red and Blue Kool-Aid. I've always wondered how agreeing with a particular red team policy makes one a "ditto-head" dismissed as apparently incapable of individual thought or reasoning, while agreeing with the blue team stance is considered to be enlightened, or better informed. Clearly it’s the exact same thing, and since there are normally only two sides to any issue, wouldn't it be prudent to state that either none were capable of singular thought, or all are either red or blue ditto-heads?

The way I see it is that we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a trap over there. How to get out of it with minimal damage is the question in my mind. There are short-term and long-term tradeoffs to consider. Occupation is always a more complex problem than invasion, so all I'm saying is that I can understand why someone would hold their nose and vote to continue until a solid plan for withdrawal can be worked out.
I actually think this is far less complicated of an issue than some make it out to be. Either we need this specific military presence in the region or we do not. Either we fully support the objective, or we do what our conscience demands and take all necessary steps to withdraw immediately. The way I see it, the objective was to oust Saddam, as step one in eradicating the tyrannical rule of terrorists in the region. Step two was to aid the new Iraqi government in its organization. Step three is to support the implementation of that government as the prevailing body, policing itself of any and all terrorist factions.

Personally, I have no idea why the current Congress is so weak in its dealings with the Administration.
It's politics as usual, the only difference seems to me to be that sticking with ones convictions is considered naive, while demonstrating what can only be accurately categorized as hypocrisy is represented as omnipotent enlightenment.

However, when it comes to dishonoring their professed convictions, both political parties seem quite bad to me at the moment. The Democrats could do a lot more to stand against the occupation, and Republicans could do a lot more to stand up for the rule of law. Actually, all they'd need to do is stop undermining it!
This one is a head scratcher... I see both the blue and the red signing on for this perceived undermining of the Constitution, but I only hear the blue team (and generally the ones who, by vote, support the continuation) outcry of the loss of freedom. Every administration encounters roadblocks from the opposition party, generally the issue is more pork than principal, and this seems to be the case. We've had people stumping and waving the banner of principal while authorizing increased spending, deployment of additional troops, and *gasp* the extension of the patriot act.... Isn't that having your cake, eating it, in addition to licking the bowls of cake batter and frosting? I'm an ol’ Kentucky boy, and where I grew up we were taught to practice what we preach, and to be perfectly honest, on THIS issue, it seems that the only democrat to do so was Joe Lieberman, and he was shunned after a generation of faithful service to the party line. I'm not selecting him as an example because he supports the military objectives in the Middle East, but because he's the only one who, to his own detriment, is unwavering in executing his convictions in the matter. To me, ousting ones previous VP candidate for not drinking the blue Kool-Aid, is an indication of what the Democratic Party has become, quite simply the party of anti-republicans, void of individual thought and resistance to conviction. Fortunately for both Lieberman, and his constituents, they recognized his value to them in Washington and poked a hole in the bottom of their pitcher. Remember, it was the Democratic Party who ousted him, not the electorate, to me that's a resounding indication that he represented the will of the electorate, apparently in conflict with the accepted virtuous mass of free thinkers.


Of course, if the real objective in Iraq is to project strategic military power over the region, and to have our troops well established and dug in long before the Chinese and Indian economies are fully ramped up, and both parties understand that, then the pretext of a debate over withdrawal is of little consequence. In that case, consolidation of our hegemony is the only measure of victory and the so-called debate is just window dressing. If it's really just a "good-cop, bad-cop" game, then it really doesn't matter which cop either one of us prefers. The result will be the same anyway.
Then it seems you agree that the words and actions of particular members of Congress demonstrate blatantly rampant hypocrisy and nothing more.


I can more easily forgive the Democrats their hypocrisy about funding the occupation because it's less damaging in the long run than the Republican hypocrisy about defending democracy while systematically undermining human rights and the rule of law. However, I will grant you that the Democrats could and should be doing a lot more to keep this Administration in check.
Ahhhh... but they aren't, it seems to be status quo inside the beltway, publicly bemoaning the evils of policy while quietly voting in favor of them....


Still, with such a polarized electorate, the realities are that anything the Democrats do to try to rein in the Administration will be painted as a lack of support for the troops. In a no-win situation, you hold your nose, vote, and then try to sway opinion so that you don't lose every seat you hold and leave the country in an even worse position (from your perspective) by making some fruitless stand on virtue that will only be distorted and backfire anyway. You go on playing the "good-cop" role for all the dissenters while the band plays on.
Politicians are elected to serve the best interest of the electorate, what they seem to have forgotten is that their job is to serve, not jockey for better positioning for re-election.


My objection is not to your criticism of the Democratic weakness and their attempts to compensate for it. I can't argue with you when you're right. My objection is to the unthinking, jingoistic, "my team's better so there," nonsense that's been passing for debate and discussion for far too long in this country. We can't possibly hold our own in an increasingly complex world if we don't start thinking for ourselves and stop falling for the emotional appeals of propagandists on either side. However, the ones who make my blood boil are those who make money or validate their egos by poisioning the well. That is the kind of unthinking and unvigilant behavior that leads to eventual tyranny.
I'm back to thinking it's not as convoluted as you indicate. If I agree with something you say, why am I (or anyone else) automatically labeled as incapable of original thought? Is it not reasonable to assume that some are better capable of articulating our position on an issue than we ourselves sometimes are? From my seat, that's a little like refusing to drive an automobile to work because I didn't invent it...


If the real debate should be about whether or not we have the moral right and the strategic might to weild control over the oil in that region, why are we being spoon-fed such nonsense from both parties? My view is this: if we undermine our moral right by compromising the principles of rule of law and rule by the consent of the governed, then we won't have the strategic might when the time comes because we won't quite have the will. In that case, we'd do a whole lot better to find a different approach toward protecting our national interest in the strategic fuel supplies of the region.
I don't mean to be patronizing, but this is simply more of not practicing what we preach. Every new Congress is comprised of members who say one thing yet do another; we can only hope that any damage their self serving execution of the authority we bestow upon them can be remedied in the next election. So long as we continue to buy into the premise that it was right yesterday, wrong today, but it will be right tomorrow and wrong again by Wednesday, then position status, NOT policy will continue to be the only changes in Washington. I respect someone who stands by their convictions, even when I disagree with them. Conversely, I have absolutely no stomach for those whose convictions are controlled by the direction of the ever changing daily political wind.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 226
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 12/10/2007 8:33:37 AM
Commentary from the Toronto School of International Law and Sheetmetal Welding?

So the UN had no authority over the issues? Odd that their resolutions rescinded the 1991 cease fire, clearly in violation of what you consider to be controlling legislation ... May not be a bad idea to copy them on this insightful post so that they can implement sanctions against the US for such clear and flagrant violations of international law.... You're welcome
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 228
We're winning
Posted: 12/10/2007 5:10:10 PM

Commentary from the Toronto School of International Law and Sheetmetal Welding?

Tim, as a Canadian I should be offended by that, even if it was directed against one of our looney liberals - but I can't stop laughing long enough to complain!
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 229
We're winning
Posted: 12/10/2007 5:17:36 PM

So the world's nation's returned to the old ways. Hitler invaded Poland, the treaties triggered and WWII started.

Way too simplistic Herald - WW2 was a great deal more complex that this. Had Germany stopped in Poland, Britain would have lived with it, despite the various violations of the Versailles Treaty - which with its reparations was causing immense financial difficult for Germany.
Remember Chamberlain - peace in our time? Chamberlain was an appeaser, and pooh poohed Churchill. We know how that ended.
Hitler's plan had nothing to do with treaties - his intention was to rule Europe and once he began, war was inevitable.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >