31 US Marines Killed

[Justice 0]

Yeah, it was projected that a record percentage of young people would vote in our election. That was real accurate.

First off, more young people did vote in the election. Problem was a ton more people just voted in general.

 

Secondly, what the fuck happened to your name?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

First off, more young people did vote in the election. Problem was a ton more people just voted in general.

 

Raw votes, perhaps. However, not percentages. They were roughly the same as they always are.

[Guest sek69]

This 80% number must come from people just looking at how the sunni's are 20% of the population and saying "well we still have 80% of the population".

 

I also find it interesting that RW radio is going on about how Bush won't get the credit if the elections go well. Funny, I thought this was all about spreading democracy, not getting Bush credit. I thought only evil Democrat presidents cared about getting credit for things.

 

No matter what happens, the RW media already has the spin ready to make it look like a victory for Bush. I heard Rush on the radio yesterday saying stuff like "oh, you'll hear the liberal media tell you about people being killed and stuff blowing up". Basically even if the worst case scenario happens, they already have the story in place to say how it was all a liberal conspiracy to make Bush look bad.

 

I don't know, I hope everything goes well over there, I just don't think that it validates what we're doing over there no matter if the elections go smooth or not.

[KingPK 0]

No matter what happens, the RW media already has the spin ready to make it look like a victory for Bush. I heard Rush on the radio yesterday saying stuff like "oh, you'll hear the liberal media tell you about people being killed and stuff blowing up". Basically even if the worst case scenario happens, they already have the story in place to say how it was all a liberal conspiracy to make Bush look bad.

 

I don't know, I hope everything goes well over there, I just don't think that it validates what we're doing over there no matter if the elections go smooth or not.

Soooo, should I just cancel that Ann Coulter Strip-o-Gram I ordered for your birthday?

[Justice 0]

I also find it interesting that RW radio is going on about how Bush won't get the credit if the elections go well. Funny, I thought this was all about spreading democracy, not getting Bush credit. I thought only evil Democrat presidents cared about getting credit for things.

Oh, bitch bitch bitch. Seriously, do you get everything from RW Radio? Lord, I try not to look at Aaron Brown and the staff at the NYT when it comes to the Lib point of view.

 

Anyways, of course it's not about getting Bush credit, but you are side-stepping the problem: If they do well, shouldn't Bush get at least some credit for starting Iraq on the path to Democracy? Or is it too much to give a "Right-Winger" credit?

 

And nice way to stereotype us into never giving credit to any Dems. I respect Clinton for a bunch of things, probably foremost his reform of welfare, his help in Balancing the Budget, and most of his work with Israel and Palestine. Jeez, I never give credit out, do I?

 

No matter what happens, the RW media already has the spin ready to make it look like a victory for Bush.

 

Pot, kettle.

 

I heard Rush on the radio yesterday saying stuff like "oh, you'll hear the liberal media tell you about people being killed and stuff blowing up". Basically even if the worst case scenario happens, they already have the story in place to say how it was all a liberal conspiracy to make Bush look bad.

 

And if everything goes as planned? Seriously, overgeneralizing every point and basing just about everything on weak assumptions does not a salient argument make.

 

I don't know, I hope everything goes well over there, I just don't think that it validates what we're doing over there no matter if the elections go smooth or not.

 

Huh? A working democracy doesn't validate what we've been doing? If that's so, then what would in your mind?

[Guest sek69]

I also find it interesting that RW radio is going on about how Bush won't get the credit if the elections go well. Funny, I thought this was all about spreading democracy, not getting Bush credit. I thought only evil Democrat presidents cared about getting credit for things.

Oh, bitch bitch bitch. Seriously, do you get everything from RW Radio? Lord, I try not to look at Aaron Brown and the staff at the NYT when it comes to the Lib point of view.

 

Anyways, of course it's not about getting Bush credit, but you are side-stepping the problem: If they do well, shouldn't Bush get at least some credit for starting Iraq on the path to Democracy? Or is it too much to give a "Right-Winger" credit?

 

And nice way to stereotype us into never giving credit to any Dems. I respect Clinton for a bunch of things, probably foremost his reform of welfare, his help in Balancing the Budget, and most of his work with Israel and Palestine. Jeez, I never give credit out, do I?

 

No matter what happens, the RW media already has the spin ready to make it look like a victory for Bush.

 

Pot, kettle.

 

I heard Rush on the radio yesterday saying stuff like "oh, you'll hear the liberal media tell you about people being killed and stuff blowing up". Basically even if the worst case scenario happens, they already have the story in place to say how it was all a liberal conspiracy to make Bush look bad.

 

And if everything goes as planned? Seriously, overgeneralizing every point and basing just about everything on weak assumptions does not a salient argument make.

 

I don't know, I hope everything goes well over there, I just don't think that it validates what we're doing over there no matter if the elections go smooth or not.

 

Huh? A working democracy doesn't validate what we've been doing? If that's so, then what would in your mind?

Well I try to avoid Fox News, and we have a whole station full of RW talk here so it's kind of hard to avoid the running themes. You can sound all superior if it makes you feel better, but most of the conservatives I see here and the ones I run into in real life parrot the same talking points I hear on RW radio. I'm not saying you all are nutty like Hannity and the crew, but lets not act like what they say doesn't reflect the conservative mindset.

 

If Iraq ends up a stable democracy, then that will go a long way towards validating what we did. Just getting people to show up to the polls won't be enough for me. If Iraq has a viable democracy led by a person not a puppet of the US then it would definately validate what we're doing there. And, (ironically) depsite what RW radio says, I actually hope it does work.

[Justice 0]

Well I try to avoid Fox News, and we have a whole station full of RW talk here so it's kind of hard to avoid the running themes. You can sound all superior if it makes you feel better, but most of the conservatives I see here and the ones I run into in real life parrot the same talking points I hear on RW radio. I'm not saying you all are nutty like Hannity and the crew, but lets not act like what they say doesn't reflect the conservative mindset.

No offense, but I really get the feeling that you bundle up every conservative out there with this "Conservative Blowhard" idea. Do I know a lot of Conservatives hoping for a good turnout in the election coming up? Yeah, a bunch of us are. We do want to come out with some good in this entire situation over there. I don't think there's a worry of Bush getting 'credit' from the Dem's, to be honest. You are just twisting motives so you can make some attack on the right. I honestly can't see where this whole situation is starting up other than you starting it up yourself.

 

And, frankly, you don't come off as anything other than some simple yuppie Dem who can't find anything else to do than just listen to talk radio and bitch about it all day. Do you honestly have a topic around here that DOESN'T start with something you heard on Talk Radio?

 

If Iraq ends up a stable democracy, then that will go a long way towards validating what we did. Just getting people to show up to the polls won't be enough for me. If Iraq has a viable democracy led by a person not a puppet of the US then it would definately validate what we're doing there. And, (ironically) depsite what RW radio says, I actually hope it does work.

 

There's a very long way to go. First steps should be praised. To continually bitch about something not being done that is going to take a long, long time is a fairly pointless gesture, in my opinion. The puppet argument is a straw man: Whoever is favorable to the US in the slightest will be labelled a 'puppet'. If you can honestly give me a real critera for a guy who won't be some sort of 'puppet of the US', please do because I can't see what will suffice for you.

 

All in all, it's okay to be realistic, but frankly you guys expect everything to be completely perfect and done in months. Things take time, please understand this.

[Guest sek69]

No offense, but I really get the feeling that you bundle up every conservative out there with this "Conservative Blowhard" idea. Do I know a lot of Conservatives hoping for a good turnout in the election coming up? Yeah, a bunch of us are. We do want to come out with some good in this entire situation over there. I don't think there's a worry of Bush getting 'credit' from the Dem's, to be honest. You are just twisting motives so you can make some attack on the right. I honestly can't see where this whole situation is starting up other than you starting it up yourself.

 

Contrary to what seems to be your belief, I don't sit around thinking of ways to attack the right. I just listen to the shows and respond to what they say.

 

And, frankly, you don't come off as anything other than some simple yuppie Dem who can't find anything else to do than just listen to talk radio and bitch about it all day. Do you honestly have a topic around here that DOESN'T start with something you heard on Talk Radio?

 

 

Wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a yuppie. I just happen to have a job that allows me to listen to the radio all day and I listen to talk radio because we have like 5 music stations in Pittsburgh that all play the same style of music and it gets boring real fast. Plus I like listening to different points of view. When you spend the whole day listening to people on the radio telling their audience that the left wants everyone in Iraq to die and take their Bibles away it tends to make you want to vent about it.

 

I'll be fair: you seem to be an honest too goodness conservative rather than the foaming at the mouth types that tend to populate the airwaves. I have nothing but respect for old school conservatism and I actually agree with a lot of it. But then you should acknowledge that's becoming a rare breed on the right. It may not be fair to paint all of the right with the wacko Ann Coulter/Sean Hannity brush but so many on the right think all us lefties are as shrill as Al Franken or Michael Moore.

 

What can ya do, I guess.

 

 

There's a very long way to go. First steps should be praised. To continually bitch about something not being done that is going to take a long, long time is a fairly pointless gesture, in my opinion. The puppet argument is a straw man: Whoever is favorable to the US in the slightest will be labelled a 'puppet'. If you can honestly give me a real critera for a guy who won't be some sort of 'puppet of the US', please do because I can't see what will suffice for you.

 

Well someone who doesn't have CIA connections would be a good start. We seem to have a thing for installing people with CIA backgrounds as leaders of countries we decide to liberate.

[Justice 0]

My only real problem with your entire post is your two articles: Wikpedia is one of the worst sources on the entire net. Just a few days ago, one of my friend's played a joke on me, so I listed him as one of the "See Also" entries under 'Douche'. It was certainly hilarious, but it just shows that there's little in the way of safeguards protecting them. That and your article is, well, not written by the most 'open-minded' of people. I'll put it that way nicely.

 

Allawi's involvement with the CIA doesn't bother me that much. Most exiled leadership works with the CIA because they probably have the best links into a country that's closed down. Would it surprise you that Charles DeGaulle helped out with our early Intelligence system? I don't think he was that much of a puppet. CIA involvement =/= Puppet, it just means that's where they've helped out.

 

Anyways, perhaps you aren't a yuppie, but you really have to get XM or something because bitching about what's on Talk Radio is becoming a bad cliche. You don't want to come off like Cheesala, do you?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Saturday, January 29, 2005

 

Zogby: 9% of Sunnis Will Vote

Stong Majority of Iraqis Wants US Out

 

As for Zogby, he's the idiot who predicted a Kerry win based the phoney exit polls.

[Vern Gagne 0]

That's it? A picture.

 

More evidence, Zogby is an unreliable source.

 

Arizona Zogby had it +6% for Bush Final +11% for Bush

 

Arkansas Zogby had it +3% for Bush Final +9% for Bush

 

Colorado Zogby had it too close to call Final +7% for Bush

 

Florida Zogby had it +.1% for Kerry and trending Kerry Final +5% for Bush

 

Iowa Zogby had it +5% for Kerry Final still TBD

 

Michigan Zogby had it +6% for Kerry Final Result +3% for Kerry

 

Minnesota Zogby had it +6% for Kerry Final Result +3% for Kerry

 

Missouri Zogby had it +3% for Bush Final Result +8% for Bush

 

Nevada Zogby had it too close to call Final +3% for Bush

 

New Hampshire Zogby had it +5% for Kerry Final Result +1% for Kerry

 

New Mexico Zogby had it +3% for Kerry Final - still TBD

 

North Carolina Zogby had it +3% for Bush Final +13% for Bush

 

Oregon Zogby had it +10% for Kerry Final Result +5% for Kerry

 

Ohio Zogby had it +2% for Bush but trending Kerry Final TBD

 

Pennsylvania Zogby had it trending Kerry Final Result +3% for Kerry

 

Tennessee Zogby had it +4% for Bush Final +14% for Bush

 

Virginia Zogby had it slight edge for Bush Final +8% for Bush

 

Washington Zogby had it +10% for Kerry Final Result +7% for Kerry

 

West Virginia Zogby had it +4% for Bush Final +14% for Bush

 

Wisconsin Zogby had it +6% for Kerry Final Result +1% for Kerry

 

 

Our Call

Zogby International's 2004 Predictions

November 2nd 5:00

2004 Presidential Election Electoral Votes:

 

Bush

213

 

Kerry

311

 

Too Close To Call

Nevada (5)

 

Too Close To Call

Colorado (9)

[The Czech Republic 0]

Saturday, January 29, 2005

 

Zogby: 9% of Sunnis Will Vote

Stong Majority of Iraqis Wants US Out

 

As for Zogby, he's the idiot who predicted a Kerry win based the phoney exit polls.

Oh that's brilliant, hope you're proud that you've stooped to Deon's level

[Zorin Industries 0]

Early reports so far are for high turnouts in Shia and Kurd areas and very low turnout in Sunni areas.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This isn't turning out to be the violent gorefest that I was hoping for.

 

I was expecting a couple K to bite it during this, anyway. Dozens of 'em is unrealistic, but would hammer the irony home incredibly hard.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I'm waiting to see who wins, once we get that we'll have a clearer picture of how the constitution might look. If were all terribly unlucky it'll end up being dominated by religious leaders

[Guest MikeSC]

This 80% number must come from people just looking at how the sunni's are 20% of the population and saying "well we still have 80% of the population".

 

I also find it interesting that RW radio is going on about how Bush won't get the credit if the elections go well. Funny, I thought this was all about spreading democracy, not getting Bush credit. I thought only evil Democrat presidents cared about getting credit for things.

 

No matter what happens, the RW media already has the spin ready to make it look like a victory for Bush. I heard Rush on the radio yesterday saying stuff like "oh, you'll hear the liberal media tell you about people being killed and stuff blowing up". Basically even if the worst case scenario happens, they already have the story in place to say how it was all a liberal conspiracy to make Bush look bad.

 

I don't know, I hope everything goes well over there, I just don't think that it validates what we're doing over there no matter if the elections go smooth or not.

Considering that the left in this country DOES NOT WANT DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ --- feel free to attempt to argue otherwise, since the ONLY plan the left has mentioned is leaving Iraq immediately --- this IS Bush's doing. Just as the Afghan elections were Bush's doing --- and, because they went off smoothly, it's strange that the press has decided that there is no real story there any longer.

 

It is about spreading democracy. It's just important to recognize WHO was behind it and who was not. Just like Communism --- the Dems HATE to actual historical study of the era because they hate to admit that, by and large, they were extremely sympathetic to Communists. FDR had a Communist as his VP (Henry Wallace), had a Communist at his side for treaty negotiations (Alger Hiss), and did nothing to try help the Russians, who were being massacred by Stalin.

 

The Dems THEN did nothing to try and alleviate the suffering of the Chinese under Mao, allowed the Vietnamese to suffer a virtual Holocaust when they decided that it'd be a solid idea to abandon S. Vietnam, decided that the Communists in Nicaragua were worth supporting --- even though, when given the chance, the population voted them out.

 

Dems ALSO decided that allowing the Shah to fall wouldn't be too bad, ignoring that the ONLY group who had the power to take control at that point in Iran were the Islamists.

 

Democrats will, in about 30 years, discuss how America spread democracy to the Middle East, glossing over the fact that they OPPOSED it almost every single step of the way.

If Iraq ends up a stable democracy, then that will go a long way towards validating what we did. Just getting people to show up to the polls won't be enough for me.

Strange, since long lines count as "proof" of "disenfranchisement" in this country, but people waiting in line to vote is not proof that spreading democracy was a good idea. The Iraqis are facing POTENTIAL DEATH in the act of voting. Get off your high horse and live in the real world.

 

It is baffling the racism of the left --- you just ASSUME that the Middle Eastern countries WANT to live under totalitarian regimes.

 

Just because they're darker-skinned than Europeans doesn't mean they suddenly have no desire to control their own fate.

 

NRO asked a question --- let's say white South Afrikaners decided to boycott the election where Nelson Mandela won in S. Africa. Would ANYBODY claim that the low turnout amongst the Afrikaners would, somehow, make the election less legitimate?

 

No --- because they CHOSE to not participate. If they CHOOSE not to, fuck 'em.

 

Under Bush, history has been made twice. Afghanistan had elections. Iraq is having elections.

 

This is ACTUAL history. This is an ACTUAL legacy.

 

And, when things work out, the left will claim that they supported all of this.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Vern Gagne, Zogby didn't have anything to do with the exit polls. And your insinuation that the exit polls were phoney--prove it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Vern Gagne, Zogby didn't have anything to do with the exit polls. And your insinuation that the exit polls were phoney--prove it.

No, he didn't. He simply had insanely shitty projections.

 

It's sad that one blind luck shot in 1996 made the man's career, as his accuracy has hardly been impressive since.

-=Mike

[Guest sek69]

Ah, see now that's what I'm talking about. Mike's bringing the RW radio inspired hate, right down to the "what if the white people didn't vote in South Africa" argument I heard Rush make on Friday.

 

Saying Democrats don't want democracy in Iraq is just plain asinine. The main argument most Democrats made was it wasn't the role of the US to decide if other nation's governments are acceptible or not. I know you hate when people mention PNAC, but to see we're following their plan pretty much verbatim worries a lot of people on my side of the debate.

 

Your arguments just don't make sense, FDR apparently hated Democracy because he didn't stop Stalin, but stopping the Nazis from taking over Europe doesn't seem to matter.

 

What did you want Dems of those eras to do, start wars with two of the largest nations on Earth (Soviet Union and China) because the right has a hard on over communism? The right's obsession with communism led directly to the war on terror we're fighting today.

 

Spare me the "lefties are racists who don't think Arabs want democracy" crap. That's pure pap on the highest level. Just because the left doesn't get on board with the GW Bush Democracy at Gunpoint World Tour doesn't mean they don't want democracy there. The jury's still out on Afghanistan, warlords control a lot of the country outside Kabul, and there's still the good chance Iraq could end up an Islamic theocracy like Iran.

 

I do agree with one point though, no matter how it turns out it will be W's legacy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, see now that's what I'm talking about. Mike's bringing the RW radio inspired hate, right down to the "what if the white people didn't vote in South Africa" argument I heard Rush make on Friday.

And that is ACTUALLY a legitimate question. I know, asking questions is verboten if RW radio might have POSSIBLY asked it. It truly is stunning that you listen to more RW radio than, oh, the FRIGGIN' CONSERVATIVES on this board. I'll take your word on Rush discussing this, as I haven't heard Rush in a few weeks now, due to work.

 

Then, give your answer: let's say Afrikaners did not participate in the S. African restaurant. Would that make the S. Africa elections illegitimate?

 

If groups in the country who utterly hate democracy decide to not participate, it's not delegitimizing.

 

BTW, just to let you know, CNN's preliminary reports have turnout at about 72%.

Saying Democrats don't want democracy in Iraq is just plain asinine.

What is the Democrats' plan for Iraq?

 

Yup, cut and run.

 

What the hell have they done to try and foster it?

The main argument most Democrats made was it wasn't the role of the US to decide if other nation's governments are acceptible or not.

Or, in the case of some of the far-left that are wielding considerable in the Demortic Party, the "insurgents" are comparable to the minutemen of our revolution.

 

And the Dems are FULLY aware of what cutting and running would lead to --- yet Kennedy STILL insists that we should do that.

 

Well, except that they have approximately zero desire for ANYTHING. They have no ACTUAL alternative view for anything --- all they want is NO democracy.

I know you hate when people mention PNAC, but to see we're following their plan pretty much verbatim worries a lot of people on my side of the debate.

Because actually providing democracy to countries that have not really done so is something that people on YOUR side oppose. People on YOUR side seem to think that the folks in Middle Eastern states do not WANT to live under democracy.

 

Yes, Afghanistan disproved that --- but that didn't stop you from believing it.

Iraq is presently disproving it --- and I doubt that will stop you from believing it.

Your arguments just don't make sense, FDR apparently hated Democracy because he didn't stop Stalin, but stopping the Nazis from taking over Europe doesn't seem to matter.

Considering that Stalin was WORSE than Hitler --- yes, it is a problem. He decided to not push the issue and sentenced E. Europe to roughly 45 years of hell under Soviet tyranny.

 

FDR had a blind spot for Communism --- as MANY in the DNC always did.

What did you want Dems of those eras to do, start wars with two of the largest nations on Earth (Soviet Union and China) because the right has a hard on over communism?

And you prove my point.

 

The right had the "hard-on" over Communism.

 

COMMUNISM WAS FUCKING EVIL. In case you missed it, the misery Communism caused has no been matched by ANY government system in HISTORY.

 

The far left --- of which you clearly are a member --- seem to think that the right's disdain for Communism was much ado about nothing, ignoring the horrendous outcomes Communism engendered.

 

I say the left has a soft spot for Communism and, thankfully, you PROVED it perfectly.

 

Kudos.

The right's obsession with communism led directly to the war on terror we're fighting today.

Nah. The fight against Communism freed more people than any liberal has done.

 

But, again, the far left loves to believe that Communism really wasn't too bad --- and no numbers could prove you wrong.

Spare me the "lefties are racists who don't think Arabs want democracy" crap.

That's called reality staring you in the face. It's not always a pretty thing to face, but it is reality.

 

You'll also claim that you disapprove of Communism should you reply to this, ignoring that your words clearly dispute that.

That's pure pap on the highest level. Just because the left doesn't get on board with the GW Bush Democracy at Gunpoint World Tour doesn't mean they don't want democracy there.

And how would you go about achieving it?

 

Saying "Oh, we support democracy" while doing NOTHING to actually support it laughable. It makes your sentiment nothing more than an empty platititude, and while making yourself feel all warm and gooey while accomplishing is something big for you, it belies any actual desire to promote your desires and goals.

 

And while the left LOVES to believe that good sentiments are enough, in the "Reality-based world", they are just a wee bit useless.

The jury's still out on Afghanistan, warlords control a lot of the country outside Kabul, and there's still the good chance Iraq could end up an Islamic theocracy like Iran.

Missed the elections there, eh? Not shocked --- since the "completely impartial press" has decided that there is no story since the elections went off nicely.

 

The left, including you, are deep-down HOPING for failure so you can sit back and cluck "Well, we told you so".

 

I'd rather have the problems resolved.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Then, give your answer: let's say Afrikaners did not participate in the S. African restaurant. Would that make the S. Africa elections illegitimate?

That's a really great typo/slip.

[Guest MikeSC]

Then, give your answer: let's say Afrikaners did not participate in the S. African restaurant. Would that make the S. Africa elections illegitimate?

That's a really great typo/slip.

No joke. I'm bloody hungry and the ice here is finally melting.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

COMMUNISM WAS FUCKING EVIL. In case you missed it, the misery Communism caused has no been matched by ANY government system in HISTORY.

 

The far left --- of which you clearly are a member --- seem to think that the right's disdain for Communism was much ado about nothing, ignoring the horrendous outcomes Communism engendered.

Communism was a threat to us. If it wasn't amassing a force enough that we were scared they might easily take us over, we wouldn't have fucking cared.

 

I don't think the complaints about Iraq are because we don't like democracy, which you ever so carefully imply, but that few people think it's somehow our burden to evangelize democracy around the world with our own funds and our own people.

 

Lastly, people wanting to see Iraq fail. Boy, you're out of it. Even I don't want to see Iraq fail. I'd like to see the political fallout that followed Iraq failing, but not at the cost.

[Guest MikeSC]

COMMUNISM WAS FUCKING EVIL. In case you missed it, the misery Communism caused has no been matched by ANY government system in HISTORY.

 

The far left --- of which you clearly are a member --- seem to think that the right's disdain for Communism was much ado about nothing, ignoring the horrendous outcomes Communism engendered.

Communism was a threat to us. If it wasn't amassing a force enough that we were scared they might easily take us over, we wouldn't have fucking cared.

 

I don't think the complaints about Iraq are because we don't like democracy, which you ever so carefully imply, but that few people think it's somehow our burden to evangelize democracy around the world with our own funds and our own people.

 

Hate to break it to you, but the American left, by and large, DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN about Communism. They thought it was much ado about nothing. The right had to drag far too many leftists, kicking and screaming, to oppose the Communists.

 

Again, it wasn't the right that tried to prop up Soviet spies like Alger Hiss.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what better use is there for our military might? Providing FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY TO THE WORLD seems like the EXACT kind of thing "liberals" should WANT to do. Pro-active action to alleviate problems sounds like brilliant strategy, to me. And that it actually gives people the freedom that the left has LONG proclaimed that it wants to bring the world sounds perfect.

 

But, apparently, it is not the case any longer.

 

Oh well. I remember when the left would at least pay lip service to the theory behind human rights. Those days have come to a grinding halt, apparently.

Lastly, people wanting to see Iraq fail. Boy, you're out of it. Even I don't want to see Iraq fail. I'd like to see the political fallout that followed Iraq failing, but not at the cost.

I could quote Kerry or Kennedy's ever-so-positive remarks about Iraq recently. I could post Juan Cole's comments on the Iraqi elections (Iran's in 1997 were more democratic, according to him). I could post comments from DU.

 

I could --- but I won't.

 

Even YOU admitted you'd like to see it fail to harm Bush --- but you don't want to see the destruction. Not exactly an endorsement.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

So, we should be using the military to take down non-democratic countries all over the world? Doesn't that seem a bit expensive, both in terms of money (with our current $400+ billion deficit) and lives (where reservists are put on extended stays of duty)? Who, may I ask, is next on the checklist?

[Guest goodhelmet]

A bunch of idiotic, misinformed, half-truths and misrepresentations about history.

-=Mike

For chrissakes man, go back to school and read a history book. Get your nose out of Joseph McCarthy's ass and cleanse your soul.

 

Mike SC.. "McCarthy was right!!!"

 

Yeah, I read that article too.

 

Neocons - Rewriting history

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you don't mind me asking, what better use is there for our military might?

Defending ourselves from invaders. Democracy at gunpoint is somewhere far down the list.

 

Providing FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY TO THE WORLD seems like the EXACT kind of thing "liberals" should WANT to do.

 

Not if you're going to leave hundreds of billions on my tab, thank you. If I've got problems at home, the last thing I want to do is go be everybody else's problem-solver.

 

Oh well. I remember when the left would at least pay lip service to the theory behind human rights.

 

And what are we doing in Sudan, again?

 

Even YOU admitted you'd like to see it fail to harm Bush --- but you don't want to see the destruction. Not exactly an endorsement.

                    -=Mike

I said I'd like to see the political disaster that would occur if it failed, just to see how they try to spin their way out of it. However, it's not worth the cost of Iraq failing.

 

I have yet to see a person associated with "the left" say that they would actually like to see Iraq's emerging government fail. Even those who protested the war most vehemently realized that once they started paying out billions for an Iraqi democracy, they should at least follow through to make sure it works.

[Guest MikeSC]

A bunch of idiotic, misinformed, half-truths and misrepresentations about history.

      -=Mike

For chrissakes man, go back to school and read a history book. Get your nose out of Joseph McCarthy's ass and cleanse your soul.

 

Mike SC.. "McCarthy was right!!!"

 

Yeah, I read that article too.

 

Neocons - Rewriting history

You can hate the sentiment --- but the sentiment is historically accurate.

 

The Soviets had a considerable spy ring in the gov't.

 

McCarthy called them on it.

 

C'est la vie.

 

You don't wish to face the brutal reality. The VP of the US from 1940-44 WAS a Communist. Not even much of a debate. The Rosenbergs DID commit espionage. Hiss WAS a spy. I could pull up names you're unfamiliar with of people guys I actually respect like Truman kept in the gov't IN SPITE of NUMEROUS warnings about their Communist tendencies.

 

The left never could condemn them for it, though.

 

If a gov't official was a Nazi, they'd have been pilloried. And rightly so.

 

Communists should have been treated EVEN WORSE --- considering that Communists (and this takes some doing) have a FAR worse human rights record than any other group on Earth. NOBODY can hold a candle to the sheer evil of Communism. Sudan today and Rwanda of the 1990's are a friggin' picnic compared to Stalin's purges, Mao's China, and the lovely reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

 

Don't even get me started on that fucktard Che Guevera who the college kids think is so cool.

Defending ourselves from invaders. Democracy at gunpoint is somewhere far down the list.

Ah, the Jobber way of doing things --- don't fix a problem, simply wait for it to explode.

 

MUCH better theory.

Not if you're going to leave hundreds of billions on my tab, thank you. If I've got problems at home, the last thing I want to do is go be everybody else's problem-solver.

Even if being everybody's "problem solver" saves money in the long run.

 

Keep this in mind --- the ONLY spending Clinton cut was military spending. Reagan's build-up that ended the Cold War PERMITTED that.

 

But, hey, who cares is several hundred thousand Iraqis get killed because they didn't support the government? Hell, who CAN care with the REAL terrorist of the world, George Bush, governing the US, right? Sure, he actually WON two fair elections --- but still...

And what are we doing in Sudan, again?

Presently, exercising the JOTW school of defensive action. Don't bitch about Sudan if you oppose actually doing anything. And you HAVE to oppose it, considering your comments thus far. Just like I'm sure you opposed us entering Rwanda in the 90's. Or the Balkans. Or Europe during World War II.

 

Oh, and we --- as people like you bitched about in regards to Iraq --- trying to get people to help us.

 

And, as expected, our "allies" in Europe aren't too anxious to help.

 

France doesn't really get their panties in a bunch over dark-skinned folks getting slaughtered.

 

Shockingly, neither does Kofi Annan.

I have yet to see a person associated with "the left" say that they would actually like to see Iraq's emerging government fail.

I can start pulling quotes from DU, if you'd like.

Even those who protested the war most vehemently realized that once they started paying out billions for an Iraqi democracy, they should at least follow through to make sure it works.

You mean like Kerry did on Sunday? The whole "cut and run" defense strategy that the Dems have wielded like there's no tomorrow.

 

The only thing this war has shown is that the one group who DIDN'T learn anything from Vietnam are the liberals. Apparently, they STILL have few qualms about permitting their allies to get slaughtered by abandoning them.

 

Man, thank God THAT clown got slaughtered in November. He'd make Carter look like a good President.

-=Mike

[Guest goodhelmet]

You can hate the sentiment --- but the sentiment is historically accurate.

 

The Soviets had a considerable spy ring in the gov't.

 

McCarthy called them on it.

 

C'est la vie.

 

The criticism of McCarthy for historians was never on being a cold warrior but for the blatant lies and accusations against people who were NOT communists, whether it be political adversaries or people who had done old Joe wrong. It was the wrongful witchunts for which McCartney is criticized and rightfully so.

 

Hey, I read the same article you are spouting off as gospel. You are misrepresenting history.

 

You don't wish to face the brutal reality. The VP of the US from 1940-44 WAS a Communist. Not even much of a debate.

 

I'm not arguing this but I have never heard this in any history course I have ever been taught... from liberal hippies or staunch conservative professors. What's your source?

 

The Rosenbergs DID commit espionage.

 

They were fried for it but even the Soviet documents that confirmed Julius' involvement have no records of Ethel ever being a spy. Her sole crime was being married to one.

 

Hiss WAS a spy.

 

No argument here.

 

I could pull up names you're unfamiliar with of people guys I actually respect like Truman kept in the gov't IN SPITE of NUMEROUS warnings about their Communist tendencies.

 

Please do.

 

 

Communists should have been treated EVEN WORSE --- considering that Communists (and this takes some doing) have a FAR worse human rights record than any other group on Earth. NOBODY can hold a candle to the sheer evil of Communism.

 

You say that yet NO President or political group stood up to the MAIN Communist regimes.. from Truman to Bush Sr. Not one had the nads to say ... fuck it... lets start WWIII over this ideology and nuke the world.

 

That is the tricky part of the Cold War. You could talk a big game like McCarthy or send in hundreds of thousands of troops like Johnson did in Vietnam but the reality is that the other side had nukes just like we did. We fight satellite wars like the one in Vietnam. We boycott and use economic sanctions. We don't press the little red button.

 

The left never could condemn them for it, though.

 

Just as the right tries to exonerate quacks like Goldwater and McCarthy.

 

If a gov't official was a Nazi, they'd have been pilloried. And rightly so.

 

But yet, Republican and Democrat regimes alike decided to hire ex-Gestapo and SS officials... but you fail to mention that... because the Nazis weren't as bad as the Communists?!?! Give me a fucking break.

 

Also, lets remember... we got to Hitler before they had weapons of mass destruction;. We weren't able to get to the USSR that quickly nor would we have been able to sustain the military effort required to defeat the USSR at the time. It has been proven Stalin didn't give a rats ass about millions of deaths so what's a few million more. I dont think the U.S. under any leadership would be willing to accept that cost of life.

 

Sudan today and Rwanda of the 1990's are a friggin' picnic compared to Stalin's purges, Mao's China, and the lovely reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

 

So why don't we "liberate" Sudan? That is our mission, right? To rid the world of despots.. oh wait, it is to prevent terrorists... except in Saudi Arabia.

They are allowed to have despots AND terrorists

 

 

Don't even get me started on that fucktard Che Guevera who the college kids think is so cool.

 

Please, get started on Guevara... and give sources while you are at it.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Here's an article written by Paul Berman. About Che Guevara, it also covers the recent motorcycle diaries.