"Some of my fellow Democrats *are* unpatriotic"

[Firestarter 0]

In one of Patrick O'Brian's novels about the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was "death to the Whigs." Watching the primary campaigns among this year's pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can't help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of "Death to the Republicans."

 

Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean's "Bush is the devil" to everybody else's "I'll make you rich, and Bush is quite similar to the devil." Since President Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public...

 

I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might - because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure - even though by every rational measure it is not.

 

And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him - which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us...  the Iraq campaign isn't over - and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.

 

Am I saying that critics of the war aren't patriotic?

 

Not at all - I'm a critic of some aspects of the war. What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.

 

Patriots place their loyalty to their country in time of war ahead of their personal and party ambitions. And they can wrap themselves in the flag and say they "support our troops" all they like - but it doesn't change the fact that their program is to promote our defeat at the hands of our enemies for their temporary political advantage...

 

The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties.

 

Our national media are covering this war as if we were "losing the peace" - even though we are not at peace and we are not losing. Why are they doing this? Because they are desperate to spin the world situation in such a way as to bring down President Bush.

 

It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape...

 

We are being lied to and "spun," and not in a trivial way. The kind of dishonest vitriolic hate campaign that in 2000 was conducted only before black audiences is now being played on the national stage; and the national media, instead of holding the liars' and haters' feet to the fire (as they do when the liars and haters are Republicans or conservatives), are cooperating in building up a false image of a failing economy and a lost war, when the truth is more nearly the exact opposite...

 

We have enemies that have earned our hatred, and whom we should fear. They are fanatical terrorists who seek opportunities to kill American civilians here and Israeli civilians in Israel. But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans.

 

I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House. But right now, if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination, then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home.

 

And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.

- The Campaign of Hate and Fear by Orson Scott Card

 

A long but excellent column. Read the entire piece to appreciate Mr Card's trenchant points on the differences between Iraq and Vietnam, and the similarities in the dishonest attacks leading up to the elections in 1992 and 2004.

 

NB: all boldface mine.

[Ripper 0]

Interesting. I don't like how he calls it an outright LIE that the economy is doing bad, when it is far from that and although he says otherwise, there seems to be a air of "Be Republican or you are a terrorist" type of vibe in his tone. Interesting article.

[Firestarter 0]

there seems to be a air of "Be Republican or you are a terrorist" type of vibe in his tone

Did you miss the parts where he repeatedly stated that he is a Democrat?

 

Basically, the issue is this:

 

Are you going to vote for a party which was hurt by the capture of Saddam Hussein?

[Ripper 0]

there seems to be a air of "Be Republican or you are a terrorist" type of vibe in his tone

Did you miss the parts where he repeatedly stated that he is a Democrat?

 

Basically, the issue is this:

 

Are you going to vote for a party which was hurt by the capture of Saddam Hussein?

Yeah, I see where he says that he is a democrat and that is all well and good, but he also gives the feeling that the Democrats should be campaining as "Hey, Bush is doing a great job! The economy is doing FAN TAS TIC!! The war in Iraq...going just the way it should...but you should vote him out and vote for me." and they are a bunch of American hating liers if they don't.

 

The party that was hurt by Saddams capture? Come on now. If every Democrat was for the war, Saddam being captured in a Bush(republican) led war would still hurt them party in election time. Unless by hurt you mean they were mad that he was caught and want him to be back in power over Iraq, which I really doubt you mean.

 

Bottomline, the economy IS hurting and there ARE questions about the reasons that we went into war and it is just plain bad politics and plain stupid to not expect these things to be questioned in a election time. If thats the case, every president should push for a war so that they can not be judged on the shortcomings of their presidency. And the Democrats doing so is not being unpatriotic, and it is a pretty cheap shot to say so.

[Firestarter 0]

Are you going to vote for a party which was hurt by the capture of Saddam Hussein?

A line in another article makes my point absolutely explicit:

Over on the Dean blog, one worried supporter echoed the view of many pundits about what Saddam's capture means for Dean. "I can't believe this," Carrie B wrote. "I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have chance in this election."

 

Dean's supporters are crying about the capture of a mass murderer, a tyrant, and a vicious sadist. Saddam Hussein is the very reincarnation of Hitler that the Democrats jeeringly try to caricature President Bush as. And the people who support Howard Dean are crying. Crying because we ended the rule of a man who murderered half a million people and starved, oppressed, and tortured millions more, and captured him alive so that he could be brought to justice and made to answer for his unspeakable crimes. I can't emphasise this enough:

 

Howard Dean's supporters are crying for Saddam Hussein.

 

Go on. Justify that. Rationalise it. Go dig up one of the mass graves we're still uncovering in the deserts of Iraq, pick up a shattered skull and pour the sand out of it. Look into its eye sockets and tell it you're crying for the animals that left it there.

 

Then vote for the Democrats. And may God have mercy on your soul.

[Firestarter 0]

The party that was hurt by Saddams capture? Come on now. If every Democrat was for the war, Saddam being captured in a Bush(republican) led war would still hurt them party in election time.

Bullshit. It wouldn't be a "Bush(republican) led war" if every Democrat had supported the war. It would be a bipartisan accomplishment - as it should have been. And every Democrat could stand up and claim, honestly, to have contributed to our success. But they didn't, and they can't, and now it will not only hurt them but butcher them.

[Ripper 0]

Are you going to vote for a party which was hurt by the capture of Saddam Hussein?

A line in another article makes my point absolutely explicit:

Over on the Dean blog, one worried supporter echoed the view of many pundits about what Saddam's capture means for Dean. "I can't believe this," Carrie B wrote. "I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have chance in this election."

 

Dean's supporters are crying about the capture of a mass murderer, a tyrant, and a vicious sadist. Saddam Hussein is the very reincarnation of Hitler that the Democrats jeeringly try to caricature President Bush as. And the people who support Howard Dean are crying. Crying because we ended the rule of a man who murderered half a million people and starved, oppressed, and tortured millions more, and captured him alive so that he could be brought to justice and made to answer for his unspeakable crimes. I can't emphasise this enough:

 

Howard Dean's supporters are crying for Saddam Hussein.

 

Go on. Justify that. Rationalise it. Go dig up one of the mass graves we're still uncovering in the deserts of Iraq, pick up a shattered skull and pour the sand out of it. Look into its eye sockets and tell it you're crying for the animals that left it there.

 

Then vote for the Democrats. And may God have mercy on your soul.

But let’s not pretend that is the overall view of the Democratic Party or of Howard dean supporters.

 

They are not having "Free Saddam" rallies right now. Somewhere, there was a bush supporter wishing that they had caught Saddam closer to the election sway more voters, and that it is so early now, the shock might wear off on people. But that isn't how the SANE people are thinking.

 

So Carrie B is retarded(you know, I am sorry, that is a insult to people with mental retardation...Carrie B is [insert your own non PC insult] ) but lets not pretend that this is the majority view.

 

I shouldn't have to justify the doltish rantings of a few loons when it is obvious that they don't represent anyone really.

[Ripper 0]

The party that was hurt by Saddams capture?  Come on now.  If every Democrat was for the war, Saddam being captured in a Bush(republican) led war would still hurt their(edited) party in election time.

Bullshit. It wouldn't be a "Bush(republican) led war" if every Democrat had supported the war. It would be a bipartisan accomplishment - as it should have been. And every Democrat could stand up and claim, honestly, to have contributed to our success. But they didn't, and they can't, and now it will not only hurt them but butcher them.

Yes, it LITERALLY would have been seen as a bipartisan accomplishment, but in all honesty, accomplishments are attributed to the guy in charge. Just like alot of Bill Clintons "accomplishments" while in office were signing into law plans written by a republican controled congress. The man on top gets the credit.

 

Supporting the war or not, this would have "hurt" Democrats as it will be seen as George Bush Jr. led the country to victory. Not the Democrats and Republicans came together in a lovefest and brought down the tyrant.

[Guest Cerebus]

Now I'm not a big fan of OMG NEW YORK SLIMES LOL2003!!!, particularly their editorial today on good ol' Saddam, but here was an interesting article about the fallout of Dean's rather inane commentary on Saddam's capture.

 

Edited to add:

If you don't feel like registering here is the whole article:

 

Dean's Speech on Iraq Brings Rebuttals From Rivals

By JODI WILGOREN and RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

 

Published: December 16, 2003

 

 

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 15 — Howard Dean declared on Monday that "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer," provoking an avalanche of new attacks from rivals who have seized on Sunday's surprise news as a way of redrawing the foreign policy debate in the Democratic presidential campaign.

 

Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, had billed his speech here to the Pacific Council on International Policy as a sweeping international tour of what he said were his moderate foreign policy views, a pathway beyond the antiwar label that accounted for his early campaign success. But after the capture of Mr. Hussein, Dr. Dean and his aides rewrote the speech to issue a fresh denunciation of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and prosecution of the global war on terror.

 

"The difficulties and tragedies which we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion," he said. "The capture of Saddam does not end our difficulties from the aftermath of the administration's war to oust him."

 

Dr. Dean's Democratic opponents immediately seized on the speech to raise new questions about his viability in a general election during a flurry of hastily scheduled conference calls as well as in their own planned campaign events. At the same time, a group of Democrats known informally as a "stop Dean" coalition began running a television advertisement in New Hampshire and South Carolina that shows a photograph of Osama bin Laden with the warning, "It's time for Democrats to start thinking about Dean's inexperience."

 

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who supported the war, spent a second day in row hammering Dr. Dean on the Iraq issue, and scheduled a speech for Tuesday in New Hampshire to highlight their differences on national security.

 

"If he truly believes the capture of this evil man has not made America safer, then Howard Dean has put himself in his own spider hole of denial," Mr. Lieberman said. "I fear that the American people will wonder if they will be safer with him as president."

 

Other Democratic contenders, even as they had strong words for Dr. Dean, echoed some of his comments about Iraq, using Mr. Hussein's capture as a new opportunity to distinguish themselves from President Bush. They said they would smooth relations with allies and tend to problems the current administration has left on the back burner.

 

At a public library in Des Moines, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina tweaked his own foreign policy speech to reflect the developments, adding Iraq — a topic he has lately been avoiding — to remarks that had largely focused on nuclear proliferation and other hot spots. Nearby, before an audience of elderly people, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts turned a talk on Medicare reform into a treatise on Iraq.

 

And in The Hague, where he is testifying in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, Gen. Wesley K. Clark reminded his audience of the continuing attacks on American forces in Iraq, saying: "The war is not over."

 

"The entire resistance in Iraq was not run by a pathetic ex-dictator hiding in a hole," General Clark said.

 

He said the capture of Mr. Hussein was "only one step" toward success in Iraq, which he said would take "tens of billions of dollars," "enormous stamina" and renewed cooperation between the United States and Europe.

 

Mr. Edwards, in his first major speech on foreign policy in months, said that while Mr. Hussein's capture "did not end the danger in Iraq," it had "kicked the door wide open for all of us to hope that sooner and not later democracy will thrive for the Iraqi people." He called on the administration to include the international community in rebuilding Iraq and in trying Mr. Hussein.

 

"Prosecuting Saddam is not like restoring electricity or picking up garbage — it is one of the most politically sensitive and complex tasks facing a post-Saddam Iraq," said Mr. Edwards, a former plaintiff's lawyer. He said any trial must meet "world-class standards of fairness and be seen as legitimate by both the Iraqi people and the international community."

 

Having voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion but against the $87 billion appropriation for its reconstruction, Mr. Edwards has been hobbled by the war issue and has in recent weeks address it only when asked.

 

He used much of his time on Monday to deride the Bush foreign policy as divisive and short-sighted in diminishing the nuclear threat. If elected, Mr. Edwards said, he would triple spending on securing the former Soviet Union's nuclear stockpile, appoint a nonproliferation czar and convene a summit within six months to draw up a "global nuclear compact." He promised to work with Japan and South Korea to diffuse the North Korean threat, though the speech lacked specifics on how to secure international competition and engage rogue states.

 

"America does not need a new doctrine of pre-emption; we need a new strategy of prevention," Mr. Edwards said. "I'll work with the world to transform the underlying conditions of tyranny that nourish the strength of our enemies and crush the hopes of friends, and I'll take real action to keep the world's most dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands."

 

Dr. Dean, too, devoted significant chunks of his speech to the proliferation issue, saying he would also triple American financing to $30 billion over 10 years to combat unconventional weapons around the world, and ask allies to contribute the same amount.

 

"For too long, we have been penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to addressing the weapons proliferation threat," he said in the 40-minute address at the St. Regis Hotel in Century City.

 

For the first time in recent months, Dr. Dean stuck largely to his script, which had been written — and rewritten — by a team of new foreign policy advisers, with editing by former Vice President Al Gore. The effect of Mr. Hussein's capture was evident in his policy director's copy of the text, which included large chunks that had literally been cut and pasted together.

 

Only a few paragraphs — one about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution forming a foundation of values for foreign policy, and another about strong alliances as the best path to security — were cut from a draft finished on Thursday. But several more were added after Sunday's news from abroad.

 

Praising American troops, Dr. Dean described Mr. Hussein's capture as "good news," and said he hoped it would lead to information about unconventional weapons. But, he said, "let me be very clear: my position on the war in Iraq has not changed."

 

"Saddam's apprehension does not end our security challenges in Iraq or around the world," Dr. Dean said. "I hope the administration will use Saddam's capture as an opportunity to move policy in a more effective direction. America's interests will be best served by acting with dispatch to work as partners with free Iraqis to help them build a stable, self-governing nation, not by prolonging our term as Iraq's ruler."

 

In broad strokes, he said his foreign policy would be guided by "the legitimacy that comes from the rule of law, the credibility that comes from telling the truth," "first-rate intelligence undiluted by ideology" and strength through "robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy."

 

Aware of the criticism that descended when he said, earlier this year, that the United States might someday be overpowered militarily, Dr. Dean twice referred to American armed forces as the world's "strongest" or "most powerful."

 

He said Americans must choose "between a national security policy hobbled by fear, and a policy strengthened by shared hopes."

 

"They must choose between today's new radical unilateralism and a renewal of respect for the best bipartisan traditions of American foreign policy," he said. "They must choose between brash boastfulness and a considered confidence that speaks to the convictions of people everywhere."

 

Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, whom Dr. Dean has criticized during the presidential campaign for voting for the resolution on using force against Iraq, on Monday accused his opponent of shuffling to the center to bolster credibility for a general election.

 

"We can't beat George Bush by playing politics with foreign policy," Mr. Gephardt told reporters in a campaign swing in Ecorse, Mich. "We've got to stand up for what we think is right. That's what I've always done and that's what I'll always do."

 

Mr. Kerry, who has been among the fiercest critics of Dr. Dean's statements on the Iraq war, renewed his argument that his military credentials and foreign-policy portfolio make him a better candidate to face President Bush, saying Democrats "deserve more than" a "foreign policy speech written by someone else."

 

"In a world where terrorist threats loom large, and they do, our fellow Americans are looking for real leadership," Mr. Kerry said. "To earn your trust, we have to show through our own actions, and our own experiences, that our approach to national security and foreign policy is credible, legitimate, and the best way to defend our nation."

 

As Dr. Dean's campaign fielded incoming from all angles, it sent out an e-mail message labeled "Pundits have predicted a setback before," highlighting other times when international news threatened to slow his momentum.

[Skywarp! 0]

This is what someone in another thread said about the same post. Thoughts?

 

"This article really disappoints me, because Orson Scott Card wrote some of my favorite books ever.

 

But it's idiocy. The idea that during war, blame for deaths automatically goes to the "enemy" is just ridiculous. Do we place no responsibility for Vietnam on the Presidents who made it happen? No. We hold them accountable, because the war was unjust. If the cause is just - which it is up to EVERY American to decide for themselves - then we can believe in it and accept combatant deaths as a neccessary but unfortunate reality.

 

But when the war is unjust, when the President has hijacked the nation's resources to win power and contracts for his rich buddies, we say "fuck you, this war is fucked." And we blame the people who lied to us to get us there for LYING TO US TO GET US THERE. We have been shafted, and this article makes it sound like we're just supposed to stand by and support the person who FUCKED us.

 

And by US, i mean YOU. Because I didn't fall for it.

 

I don't hope that our troops die. I don't hope that we can't rebuild Iraq. I don't hope that Iraq will drive the United States out.

 

but I DO hope that the war will fail - because its goal is none of those things above. Its goals are political and domestic and underhandedly capitalistic, and if Bush succeeds in achieving those goals with a war that goes against everything America thinks it stands for, we'll just be proven a nation of suckers and sheep once again.

 

The fucked up thing is, the reason why no one really cares that we're being lied to is because we all have it too goddamn easy to want to complain. We just as a nation have no sense of responsibility to any other human beings. We're selfish and arrogant and something has got to give. If this is how we're gonna be, I don't want us to be in charge of the world either."

[NoCalMike 0]

If the deaths of american troops don't stop, then the capture of Saddam will be forgotten in a few months.

 

Bush and Co. have been on the tv practically day and night explaining the relavence of Iraq & Saddam and how much better things will be as far as "terrorism" goes once Saddam is out of power.(In the minds of the people that were still scared that he was ruling from beyond the borders) Well as of two days ago, he is out of power, so I am sure people will expect DRASTIC changes in the situation in Iraq or people will start asking questions again.

 

Now if somehow Bin Laden is caught before this next election, then there doesn't even need to be an election methinks.

 

Honestly though I think the situation with our troops in foreign countries being killed will have a lot more to do with the way people vote then simply the capture of Saddam, maybe not today, but 6 months from now, definately.

 

And as far as the economy goes, well it looks like people are spending big for the holidays, but the key to this whole thing is job creation. That is the one thing that is lacking and going unmentioned. More and more jobs are going overseas, which is creating massive layoffs here. Instead of relying on people buying christmas presents, our government should work on ways to encourage companies to keep PRODUCTION on US SOIL, and to support our own fucking country, rather then go to cambodia and take up 4000 employees at a time.

Edited December 16, 2003 by NoCalMike

[Ripper 0]

And as far as the economy goes, well it looks like people are spending big for the holidays, but the key to this whole thing is job creation. That is the one thing that is lacking and going unmentioned. More and more jobs are going overseas, which is creating massive layoffs here. Instead of relying on people buying christmas presents, our government should work on ways to encourage companies to keep PRODUCTION on US SOIL, and to support our own fucking country, rather then go to cambodia and take up 4000 employees at a time.

Sales are down 3% from last year (you know, when everyone was talking about how bad the sales were and everyone was talking tax cuts to help spending. Well...its worse this year, except this is the last Holiday season before election year and amazingly worse numbers mean GREAT~!)

[Guest Cerebus]

I don't hope that our troops die. I don't hope that we can't rebuild Iraq. I don't hope that Iraq will drive the United States out.

 

but I DO hope that the war will fail

Sorry buddy the war can't fail without a lot more troops dying, the US being driven out, and Iraq not being rebuilt.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't hope that our troops die. I don't hope that we can't rebuild Iraq. I don't hope that Iraq will drive the United States out.

 

but I DO hope that the war will fail

 

And you totally disgust me with your ingnorance. For you to get what you want a lot of people have to die. Several thousand more in fact. So you sir can promptly go fuck yourself and anyone else that thinks like that.

[Ripper 0]

I don't hope that our troops die. I don't hope that we can't rebuild Iraq. I don't hope that Iraq will drive the United States out.

 

but I DO hope that the war will fail

 

And you totally disgust me with your ingnorance. For you to get what you want a lot of people have to die. Several thousand more in fact. So you sir can promptly go fuck yourself and anyone else that thinks like that.

Just to clarify, the person that wrote that isn't here...i don't think...Right...

 

KANE...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I like how you bold stuff he says like:

 

the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure - even though by every rational measure it is not.

 

Without providing proof. I also got a good bit of this:

 

And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him

 

when only longshots have made comments suggetsing we need to pull out and go home. The ones with most the points have said that President Bush has made a commitment on behalf of the country, and we have no choice but to stick with it.

 

I also like:

those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war

 

Because BUSH = PATRIOTISM = GOOD and obviously if you criticize the man on the top you criticize all the troops under him.

[Guest JMA]

Because BUSH = PATRIOTISM = GOOD and obviously if you criticize the man on the top you criticize all the troops under him.

I really HATE when people do that.

[NoCalMike 0]

The fact of the matter is that None of the Democrats that have a chance of getting through the primary actually wants to cut & run, yet this is all people like Hannity & Savage and some on this board like to rinse, wash & repeat with.

 

Show me the candidates that want to cut & run and I will show you a candidate that has no chance of getting through the primary.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A line in another article makes my point absolutely explicit:

Over on the Dean blog, one worried supporter echoed the view of many pundits about what Saddam's capture means for Dean. "I can't believe this," Carrie B wrote. "I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have chance in this election."

These people are stupid and petty. There's plenty of logical political ammo to be lobbied at the Bush administration. The deep fear among those of us who aren't like that is that important, real issues will be completely forgotten among the general public because the simple call of "We caught Saddam" could bury it in today's political landscape were soundbytes carry much more weight than actual debate.

[Dr. Tom 0]

But when the war is unjust, when the President has hijacked the nation's resources to win power and contracts for his rich buddies, we say "fuck you, this war is fucked."

Perhaps if that were the case, that claim may be justified.

[Skywarp! 0]

I don't hope that our troops die. I don't hope that we can't rebuild Iraq. I don't hope that Iraq will drive the United States out.

 

but I DO hope that the war will fail

 

And you totally disgust me with your ingnorance. For you to get what you want a lot of people have to die. Several thousand more in fact. So you sir can promptly go fuck yourself and anyone else that thinks like that.

Just to clarify, the person that wrote that isn't here...i don't think...Right...

 

KANE...

Nope. None of that is mine.

[Justice 0]

But it's idiocy. The idea that during war, blame for deaths automatically goes to the "enemy" is just ridiculous. Do we place no responsibility for Vietnam on the Presidents who made it happen? No. We hold them accountable, because the war was unjust. If the cause is just - which it is up to EVERY American to decide for themselves - then we can believe in it and accept combatant deaths as a neccessary but unfortunate reality.

Vietnam wasn't unjust. We were defending an ally from being invaded by a hostile Communist Government (And back off those of you who say that we were defending a corrupt President: We weren't happy with him either and we were the ones who put in a decent political council after he was gone). Explain to me how the North Vietnamese were justified by invading South Vietnam. That would be like us not acting when Kuwait was invaded. Indeed one could argue that the war was ultimately too micromanaged by Johnson and the media was more concerned about showing dead Americans than reporting American successes (See: Tet Offensive), but to say it was unjust is just plain stupid.

 

But when the war is unjust, when the President has hijacked the nation's resources to win power and contracts for his rich buddies, we say "fuck you, this war is fucked." And we blame the people who lied to us to get us there for LYING TO US TO GET US THERE. We have been shafted, and this article makes it sound like we're just supposed to stand by and support the person who FUCKED us.

 

Lying to get us there? Dude, you are sad. The fact that Bush had to gain support by using WMDs (Which hasn't been disproven yet) because the international community was too concerned with the status quo and its own interests with a CORRUPT AND VICIOUS DICTATOR (Germany and France's oil deals that kindly went behind the 'Food for Oil' program in the UN, Russia's continued arms support) is unjust. To oppose a war that frees the Iraqi people from someone who terrorized them for years is unjust.

 

How has GW "FUCKED us"? We've lost a minimal amount of troops so far. GW giving contracts to his buddies? Uh, the military handed out those contracts, dude; GW didn't have any power in giving them out. Oh, and an update on the Haliburton thing: Turns out that Haliburton didn't overcharge, people. The Kuwaiti supplier did. Sorry.

 

We've hijacked their resources? Explain to me where this money is, because frankly, I don't think anyone in the US or in our Government is seeing a cent of it, especially when we are handing Iraq a $87 Billion rebuilding gift/loan out of our own pocket.

 

And by US, i mean YOU. Because I didn't fall for it.

 

Oh, don't worry, I'm sure that the Republican Party will be installing a skull radio in your head to make you believe that the war on Iraq was cool. I'm sure, though, they'll have a hell of a time removing the ones that the Left-wingers have already installed...

 

I don't hope that our troops die. I don't hope that we can't rebuild Iraq. I don't hope that Iraq will drive the United States out.

 

Well that's nice.

 

but I DO hope that the war will fail

 

... Do you realize that that will ONLY OCCUR IF THE THREE THINGS ABOVE HAPPEN? Jesus H. Christ, you must be retarded NOT to realize this.

 

because its goal is none of those things above.

 

Which is why we are actually doing the things above. Why would we do things that we don't need to do if we aren't for them? I guess that's left wing logic for ya.

 

Its goals are political and domestic and underhandedly capitalistic,

 

Uh... Proof? This is costing us much more than it will make us, man.

 

and if Bush succeeds in achieving those goals with a war that goes against everything America thinks it stands for, we'll just be proven a nation of suckers and sheep once again.

 

The man wanting to give Iraqis freedom, dislodge a tyrannical dictator before he could start handing out dangerous weapons to terrorist groups, and is now rebuilding Iraq is CERTAINLY UNJUST GOALS! DAMN HIM, DAMN HIM TO HELL![/JR]

 

The fucked up thing is, the reason why no one really cares that we're being lied to is because we all have it too goddamn easy to want to complain. We just as a nation have no sense of responsibility to any other human beings. We're selfish and arrogant and something has got to give. If this is how we're gonna be, I don't want us to be in charge of the world either."

 

Please don't mistake no one agreeing with your mindless accusations as no one caring, it's just that a majority of Americans have tuned out the useless "OMG WAR FOR OIL BUSH IZ TEH BADZ FAUX NEWZ LOL2K3*#$908" drivel that you continually spout. We do care. We care for the Iraqi people. All you care about is trying to find ways to bitch about the US over and over again.

 

Selfish? Wow, what a hypocrit. We are giving tons of things to the Iraqi people, and just because you dislike the current President you immediately dismiss it as "selfishness". And it is just because you hate the current President. This isn't a normal, logical 'Jobber of the Week- I'm worried this may not be the right justification to do this' dissent, this is 'WE ARE ALL CAPITALISTIC BASTARDS AND EVIL AND NOTHING WE DO SHOULD BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE' shit.

 

You are exactly what a liberal should not be. You make liberals and your causes look bad because of your inane hatred and distrust of the US and anything we do. Hopefully some of the smarter liberals on the board will find you and smack the shit out of you someday for making them look bad.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This isn't a normal, logical 'Jobber of the Week- I'm worried this may not be the right justification to do this' dissent

I love you, too.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

You are exactly what a liberal should not be. You make liberals and your causes look bad because of your inane hatred and distrust of the US and anything we do. Hopefully some of the smarter liberals on the board will find you and smack the shit out of you someday for making them look bad.

 

Amen

[Justice 0]

This isn't a normal, logical 'Jobber of the Week- I'm worried this may not be the right justification to do this' dissent

I love you, too.

No matter how much you can get on my nerves for disagreeing with me, you almost always bring up a pretty logical argument to it. You definitely have my respect along with a few other people on this board for being the good guys on the other side of the aisle.

[Guest Cerebus]

<------ Agrees with ^

[Skywarp! 0]

Can none of you read? It wasn't my post. I'm bouncing ideas from different boards off each other. Some of you are so quick to attack, you don't realize who you're biting into during the feeding frenzy.

[Justice 0]

Can none of you read? It wasn't my post. I'm bouncing ideas from different boards off each other. Some of you are so quick to attack, you don't realize who you're biting into during the feeding frenzy.

I know. Send that back to whoever wrote it. I saw the quotations. Sorry if you thought that was me bitching at you.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

By the way, regarding the idea that the media is biased to wanting to see Bush fail:

 

Still, even Dean acknowledged there was a certain satisfaction in vanquishing such a reviled enemy.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-analysis_x.htm

 

This sounds like one would expect Dean to NOT be happy that Saddam was captured. Like he'd say "Damn! He got captured! I was hoping he got away!"

 

The writing here actually makes Dean sound like a terrorist supporter.

[Skywarp! 0]

Can none of you read?  It wasn't my post.  I'm bouncing ideas from different boards off each other.  Some of you are so quick to attack, you don't realize who you're biting into during the feeding frenzy.

I know. Send that back to whoever wrote it. I saw the quotations. Sorry if you thought that was me bitching at you.

Oops! Sorry!