Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there’s a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don’t think it’s a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of “too little, too late.” In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He’s not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
• 
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 11, 2006 06:52 PM
Now to reveal my ignorance once again–wht would one hunt in Israel if one were hunting?
Pssst… Micha… tell him you hunt “snipe,” and then invite him to come hunting with you…
Pssst… Micha… tell him you hunt “snipe,” and then invite him to come hunting with you…
Very funny. You can kiss goodbye that left-handed screwdriver I was going to buy for your birthday.
>Let him end up facing charges for the things he may have done after he leaves office.
Highly unlikely after he is gone, the time to get him or Cheney is now.
>We’ll be left in the loving hands of President Cheney.
Actually he should be the first target, Shrub is the pupet Cheney the mastermind.
>They know what the chances are of them getting swept back out of power the next go round if they make a power play like that.
Highly unlikely. However it is more likely if they get nothing done which is exactly where we are headed. Have you not been listening to the conservative side, Peter’s is not the only blog on the net? I have found very few, except when they show up posting comments in liberal blogs willing to “work” with anyone. Shrub’s speech the next day gave lip service to cooperation, as in you work with my ideals, not finding middle ground.
The troups will not be coming home under Bush, he’d veto that bill and fight it tooth and nail. And really no democrat made that promise, when it comes right down to it.
The only way to bring this mess to the end is expose it for the world to see. The only way to do that is to start impeachment and get the subpoenas flying, otherwise Shrub keeps it hidden under executive privelage.
Finally there is no real political capitol they have to spend. Bush is a lame duck, he has nothing to loose. The democrats do not have enough of a majority for an overrule of a veto and they are still facing a sizable number of radical conservatives. Yes we got rid of several radicals, but we also got rid of several moderate republicans. Bush has never cared about his ratings or the public opinion. He has always done as he wished.
I don’t agree with PAD, Bush didn’t exit Rummy because it “was the right thing to do”, he exited him for future political gain. I’d lay good money on if congress had remained Republican, Rummy would still have a job. Which would you want people to think, Rummy was on his way out but I lied because I hadn’t met his replacement yet or Rummy is the sacraficial lamb we will be blaming everything on for the foreseeable future? I have no doubt that the decision to off Rummy was made at 12:01 AM Wednesday. Already the conservatives are blaming him for everything no matter how little involvement he had in it.
>He may well start playing better with others for his last two years in office.
Don’t count on it. I know of very few bullys that changed their stripes because someone knocked them down. What we will see now is the return of the pre 9-11 White House when Shrub had no power then. What did he do? Whined about the evils of the democrats and how he couldn’t accomplish anything because of them. Instead of blaming clinton he’ll just blame Rummy.
“Hunting is not very common among Israelis, but it does exist. I don’t know what the rules are about the rifles they use.
Thanks for your long answer Micha, that’s why it’s so great to have people from all over the world here. Now to reveal my ignorance once again–wht would one hunt in Israel if one were hunting?”
I’m happy to be helpful. It is not ignorance, we are after all a very small faraway country, even if a loud one at times.
I’m very ignorant of hunting myself. I don’t really know what people hunt here. I actually don’t know much about wildlife in general. All I can tell you is that Israel is a crossroad for birds going north and south. It is also an interesting place because you have different ecological environments next to each other. As I understand it, Israel reintrudecd some animals that got hunted out of the country over the centuries. We have a few very small wildlife preserves. But beyond that I’ll have to ask somebody else.
Just to reveal my ignorance, I’m not exactly sure what a snipe is. I think it’s a bird, but I couldn’t recognize a snipe if I saw it. In any case, Israel is worth seeing for its wildlife among other things, but I don’t know about the hunting. Maybe. Birdwatching yes.
Brian, even if you don’t believe all those Democrats when they say that they have no desire to impeach Bush you have to see the reality taht it won’t happen. The numbers aren’t there. And if they did impeach him they have nowhere near the numbers to remove him. I doubtthey could even get most of the Democrat senators to go along. It’s not worth wishing for.
Micha, a snipe is indeed a type of bird. It is extremely elusive and very hard for even the best of hunters to nail one.
A “snipe hunt,” however, is a practical joke where an inexperienced hunter or camper is told by his more experienced buddies to catch a snipe using some ridiculously absurd method like carrying a bag or making idiotic noises.
And Bill Mulligan, I’m right-handed.
Just to reveal my ignorance, I’m not exactly sure what a snipe is. I think it’s a bird, but I couldn’t recognize a snipe if I saw it.
Part of me wants to keep you in the dark for future potential mischief but you’re a nice guy so…
There actually IS a bird called a snipe but to most of us a snipe is a mythical bird that is used to make fun of city slickers, tenderfoots, and other reprobates. The basic gag is this: while camping out you announce that all will participate in a “Snipe Hunt”. The snipe, it is said, is that most elusive of beasts but easily caught by those who know the tricks to catching them.
Now this is where one must accurately judge the gullibility of the target. The rules to catching snipes are usually both patently ridiculous and designed to get the target hopelessly lost in the woods. One varient is that snipes, which only come out at night, are amazingly sensitive to the whites of the eyes. Thus, one must hunt them blindfolded. Often pillowcases are used and the snipe will fly into the pillowcase if one uses the proper snipe call, which is usually “snipe”.
So what you end up with is some poor kid from exotic places like India or Queens, stumbling around the woods blindfolded, smacking into trees and patches of poison ivy, all the while yelling out “Snipe! Snipe! Snipe!” while the rest of you wet your pants in helpless mirth.
Cruel, yes, but it is the Way of Guys. There is also the Frazier Varient where one pretends to be going along with the snipe hunt only to drive away after dumping the would be pranksters in the middle of nowhere. Extra points if they are not wearing pants when you do so.
If you’re REALLY good we’ll tell you about cow-tipping.
>And if they did impeach him they have nowhere near the numbers to remove him.
Did the republicans have the votes to impeach Clinton? No. Did they still do it? Yes? When the House impeached it was a forgone conclusion the Senate would not exit him from office. Yet the Republicans did exactly that.
As for wishing, two years ago the republicans were declaring the death of liberalism and their ascendancy of total control. I lost count of how many Republicans told me that wishing for control of either house was a joke last March. Two weeks ago, control of the Senate was “nearly impossible”. The day of, even the Democrats weren’t all that enthused about control of the Senate, ranking it a slim possiblity.
And now we have the possible flood gate opening on the most crooked, underhanded, corrupt administration since the early 1930’s. Not worth wishing for? VERY WORTH DEMANDING that those we put into office, do their jobs. And if they fail, boot the bums out come their next election.
What the fûçk are you talking about?
So if I catch a group of defensive white guys who never served in uniform denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the defninition of genocide, I’m anti-military? What color is the sky in your world?
“Have you not been listening to the conservative side…”
Yes, I have. The hard right has said many things. That doesn’t change the fact that Bush may see his options in a different way then he did one week ago. You no more know for sure that he does anymore then I know that he doesn’t. Time will tell.
“The troups will not be coming home under Bush, he’d veto that bill and fight it tooth and nail. And really no democrat made that promise, when it comes right down to it.”
No, they won’t be coming home in the next two years. Nor should they. The false world Bush created three years ago has become the real world today. Bush claimed that Iraq was a threat when it was little more then a joke. Now, Iraq could very well be a threat to U.S. safety if we just drop everything and walk away so that others can fill the void we created in removing Saddam.
“The only way to bring this mess to the end is expose it for the world to see. The only way to do that is to start impeachment and get the subpoenas flying, otherwise Shrub keeps it hidden under executive privelage.”
Ok, lets expose the mess for the world to see. Nothing changes. The world has seen this mess and Bush for what they are for far longer then most Americans. Impeachment will not make anyone see anything more clearly other then maybe the conservatives who see Democrats as people that they hate. It also does nothing to bring this mess to an end.
Lets remove Bush and Cheney and put Pelosi in the White House. We’re still in Iraq and Afghanistan and we still face the problems that Bush created in Iraq in the first place. Nothing changes other then we flush time and effort that could be going to working on those issues down the çráppër because some have a mad on for impeachment.
Speaking of which….
“The democrats do not have enough of a majority for an overrule of a veto and they are still facing a sizable number of radical conservatives. Yes we got rid of several radicals, but we also got rid of several moderate republicans.”
Yes, we got rid of a number of moderate Republicans and kept a number of moderate Democrats (and two indies). What makes you think they can get enough support to impeach by next Spring? What makes you think they could do it twice in one year?
“Finally there is no real political capitol they have to spend. Bush is a lame duck, he has nothing to loose.”
Screw Bush. The political capitol is with the people and some in the party out of power who will still be there when Bush leaves. They can work with some of the moderate Republicans on changing some things to correct what has gone wrong and to move Iraq in the right, if there is such a thing at this point, direction only if they don’t overplay their cards.
Plus, the Dems still have to deal with the fact that they came into power because of votes against the Republicans rather then for the Dems. They can ride that right and turn it into support for themselves if they don’t screw up too badly in the next two years or play to the idiots in the most extreme of the lib base. If they do that, well, then they can kiss votes from the moderates and the mad-at-Bush conservatives that put them in power last week goodbye.
“I know of very few bullys that changed their stripes because someone knocked them down.”
I never said that he would fully change his stripes. But I have knocked more then one bully into the dirt and they rarely got up wanting to fight with me much more after that. Bush no longer has the power he had before. He’s getting up off of the ground and seeing that he just got his nose broken. Oh, he’ll puff up his chest and beat it a lot in the near futre. I have no doubt of that. I just don’t think that his stands will be as firm or as extreme.
I point to this to back that up….
“I’d lay good money on if congress had remained Republican, Rummy would still have a job.”
“I have no doubt that the decision to off Rummy was made at 12:01 AM Wednesday.”
That kind of undercuts some of what you said. Even YOU think that Rummy would still have a job if the elections had gone the other way. That wouldn’t be the case if Bush wasn’t going to change at all.
Bush, as I said above, has already done things that everyone claimed he would never do by throwing Rummy on his sword, replacing Rummy with a guy that doesn’t think like Rummy or his pals do and standing up to Uncle Dicky. Bush is looking at the landscape and seeing the need for change. How much or how long the change is waits to be seen.
Bush is looking at a new political world. Maybe he will work in it. Maybe he won’t. You want to make it really easy for him stamp his feet and be a twit? Get the man support that he lost by getting the extreme left to fight for impeachment and getting us out of Iraq right now without so much as a second thought as to what that will do to us down the road. Then you can thank yourselves down the road when the Republicans once again own all three keys to power and the Dems are again the cranky minority that couldn’y get it right.
“What color is the sky in your world?”
Right now? Jet black with patches of dark deep blue. We’re overcast.
Did the republicans have the votes to impeach Clinton? No. Did they still do it? Yes? When the House impeached it was a forgone conclusion the Senate would not exit him from office. Yet the Republicans did exactly that.
And clinton remained president. So…what exactly is it that makes you think that it will be different with Bush?
And it didn’t really work out so great for the Republicans anyway so why would the Democrats want to repeat that mistake?
And if not impeaching Bush is all it takes for you to boot them out you’d best get them boots laced up because right now the Democratic leaders are falling all over themselves denying that they have any such plans. I’d be willing to make a wager that Bush is not impeached and I never bet unless I’m pretty sure I’m going to win. It would be a huge mistake and so far the Democrats have been playing it pretty smart (save for the puzzling petty sniping going on at some of the left blogs–they seem to be ready to string up James Carville for some reason).
“A “snipe hunt,” however, is a practical joke where an inexperienced hunter or camper is told by his more experienced buddies to catch a snipe using some ridiculously absurd method like carrying a bag or making idiotic noises.”
Yes, now that you mention it I think I’ve heard the term. I would also make an excellent target for this kind of prank. I come from a long line of city slickers on my mother’s side. She’s actually from Queens.
—————
Is there actually any legal basis for impeachment against Bush? He’s done a terrible job, but are you sure he’s done anything impeachable?
—————-
Enough already with the genocide thing. The definition lists several ways of performing genocide, one of which is killing (a lot of) people belonging to a race. It does not mean that killing people belonging to a race is genocide. The term also includes giving babies of one ethnic group to be adopted by members of the other, but nobody is going to accuse Angelina Jolie or Madonna of genocide. At best Madonna is guilty of killing music, repeatedly.
You heard it here, folks: if you catch a group of defensive white guys who never served in uniform denying the plainly-worded definition of genocide, you are anti-military.
The definition didn’t give a quantity, so yes it does mean “killing people belonging to a race is genocide.” Your adding “a lot of” is arbitrary and self-serving, which is why you put it in parenthesis.
You are denying the plainly-worded definition, the only virtue of which is to shelter racism. You don’t get to say “enough already.” You are morally-challenged, and I can cite it as long you shelter your deficiency. And I will.
Considering everyone belongs to a race, let be go back to “ANY racially motivated murder.”
What was I thinking? I’m one of those people who can’t leave an argument alone, even when it’s obviously reached a dead end. Mike is beyond my help. I admit it. You can only go so far in trying to explain something. Sometimes you have to realize that an argument cannot be solved by reasonable discussion. You can’t even agree to disagree, because the lines of logical communication have broken down completely.
If there is anybody here who agrees with Mike’s hate crime = genocide argument, but can discuss it in rational way, anybody, I’ll be happy to continue the debate, or related debates. I enjoy the challenge. But this discussion is over.
Micha, give up on reason with Mad Mikey. I know that you’re hoping his idiotness is an act and that he may drop it if you talk nice to him. He won’t because it’s not an act.
He’s thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
I could be wrong. He could be a dimbulb 11 year old who is using the first name of another net troll or he could be the Mike I think he is. But most 11 year olds are actually brighter then the guy I’m thinking of so I think he would come off better then the real deal.
If it’s the Mike I think it is, then none of this is an act or an attempt to be troll-like. This guy really is this screwed in the head and has spent quite a few years crawling around the net showing proof of that. The 2 + 2 = 7 logic on display here is the norm for Mad Mikey and not merely something that he’s been doing just for us.
Oh, you already did.
I take too long to type sometimes.
🙂
I’m not x-ray, dìçkhëád. X-ray didn’t cite of mice and men. I cited of mice and men last year referring to x-ray. The reason I’ve stopped using my last name here is because it’s an ethnic last name, and you’ve demonstrated that you reserve the privilege of racism.
The only basis you have to call me screwed up is because I caught you sheltering racism. If you don’t want to cop to what you were caught doing, why wouldn’t you call me screwed up? If you want to try and out me, I’m ready to start a national debate on cnn if you are.
The Freedom Clock represents the amount of time until Bush is out of office. Last I looked, he’s still there.
I see. Thanks for the answer.
Iowa Jim
Raphael Lemkin, the gentleman who coined the term “genocide,” had this to say about its definition:
“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.“
The explanation above makes it clear that genocide is a comprehensive effort to destroy a GROUP. Murdering a single person, even if the murder is racially motivated, does not constitute genocide UNLESS it is part of a COORDINATED ATTEMPT to destroy a GROUP.
According to the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, genocide is defined as: “the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this.”
Note the word SYSTEMATIC. The isolated killing of a single individual does not qualify as a systematic attempt to destroy a group.
The American Heritage dictionary defines genocide as: “The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.”
Again, note the word SYSTEMATIC.
I hope this puts the debate over the definition of the word “genocide” to rest. Peter has kindly given us a variety of other topics to discuss, and it would be nice, I think, to get back on track with those discussions.
Oh yeah, Bill, like logic will win him over. Make sure you pick out a nice tie for when you get dragged on CNN.
I don’t understand why people are so bothered by the freedom clock.
Read my post. I could care less (other than that it slows down my loading the page) if PAD has it. I was just curious if it would stay with now that the Dems have control of the Legislative branch. PAD answered. End of story.
Iowa Jim
Bill Myers, Lemkin fleshing out the aims of genocide does not contradict his plainly-worded definition. Notice how the aims are implemented, in the text you cite as I highlight them:
The m-w definition also used the word systematic.
As I pointed out before, racism is presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles. Thanks for showing you’re paying attention.
I don’t think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry’s post:
Intimidation and race privilege. You won’t be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.
Hëll, Bill, you could even just note the word, “entire.” That just about sums up the problems with dork boys version.
“I’m not x-ray, dìçkhëád. X-ray didn’t cite of mice and men. I cited of mice and men last year referring to x-ray.”
I never said nor thought that you were X-Ray. X-Ray had, hard as it is to believe, even fewer brain cells then you. Never made any comment to lead anybody to that direction. I even said a week or so ago, when someone wondered if maybe you were him playing a new game, that I did not believe you to be X-Ray.
See, you just had to go and add 3 + 3 and get 21. That wonderful logic used on Planet M.
🙂
“…it’s an ethnic last name…”
Yes. I know. Worked that bit out. You would have picked up on that if you could actually understand what you’re reading half the time. There was a pretty good hint in my post from 3:47 today. Much like logic, common sense and intelligent discourse, it went way over your head.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at November 11, 2006 10:38 PM
Read my post. I could care less (other than that it slows down my loading the page) if PAD has it.
I did read your post. You, however, are not the only person to have brought up the Freedom Clock. For example, Eric! wondered if the Freedom Clock shouldn’t be removed in the spirit of bi-partisanship. This isn’t the first time that someone has suggested that Peter should remove the clock (note that after I wrote my post, Tim Butler did just that).
This isn’t solely about you, Iowa Jim. It’s about an issue that you happened to weigh in on.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at November 11, 2006 10:38 PM
I was just curious if it would stay with now that the Dems have control of the Legislative branch. PAD answered. End of story.
For you, perhaps. Others seem more troubled by the clock. I’m sorry you seem to feel that I was “butting in,” but, again, this is about more than just you.
Okay you want to talk about solving the problem that is Iraq. I’ll give you the only two solutions that exist and they are the only two that have existed since the first tank went over the border.
1 Install another thug, who is partial to the US, arm him and let him subdue the people with violence and bribes. I.E. another Saddam. In fact he’s the best candidate for the job. I’d seriously doubt he’d do anything to piss us off again after all of this.
2 Saigon all over again, declare victory and bug out. Perhaps in 30 years you may be able to open a dialog with whoever gains control.
Bleak outlooks? Yes. But that is where all this is headed no matter how many lives or money you throw at it. For that matter the same applies to Aftganistan, democracy can not be forced at the end of a gun barrel especially on a people who do not want it.
So the question is now how long it takes us to come to that realization.
Oh I’ll even give you a third option, make the a protectorate, put half a million troops over there, declare martial law and force their children to take on western values. In 50 or 60 years they may even quit shoot our soldiers, but by then the region may have united and invaded, kicking us out.
There is no “working on a solution”, the only solutions already exist. Britian learned it, Europe in the middle ages learned it, the Kahns learned it, the romans and the greeks. We will be no different.
> You no more know for sure that he does anymore then I know that he doesn’t. Time will tell.
Time will tell, but I have no doubt I’ll be proven right. Cooperation is not in the man’s makeup or a middle ground.
>The world has seen this mess and Bush for what they are for far longer then most Americans.
I’m not talking Iraq, the world knows that one already. Bush has plenty of the skeletons in the closet, time for those to come out.
>It also does nothing to bring this mess to an end.
It saps what little strength he has left and may make him more flexible to do the right thing.
Speaking of which….
>What makes you think they can get enough support to impeach by next Spring? What makes you think they could do it twice in one year?
No better time to try and right now with the Republicans looking for a scapegoat to their losses, you don’t know the moderates wouldn’t fall in behind getting impeaching the ultimate symbol of their failing. After all the same exact thing happened with the Clinton impeachment and this time there is actual criminal activity vs lying about an extramarital affair.
> They can work with some of the moderate Republicans on changing some things to correct what has gone wrong and to move Iraq in the right, if there is such a thing at this point, direction only if they don’t overplay their cards.
Overplay? Overplay comes into effect when you are so corrupt that that it is the pot calling the kettle black. And once again there is no direction for Iraq.
>Plus, the Dems still have to deal with the fact that they came into power because of votes against the Republicans rather then for the Dems.
What a feeble excuse to do nothing. I’m sorry but Hello! How did the Republicans come into power in 1994? The democrats were rife with corruption, several of them had gone down in disgrace and the Republicans made an appeal based on “we are not them” in the form of “contract with america”. History just repeated itself to a large degree.
>If they do that, well, then they can kiss votes from the moderates and the mad-at-Bush conservatives that put them in power last week goodbye.
The moderates will not leave because of an impeachment, just like the moderates didn’t leave in 2000 because of an impeachment. Gore lost because he ran one of the worst campaigns seen in modern history. Bush won in 2004 because 1 Kerry failed horribly in distinguishing himself from the competitor which lost him the Dems and the moderates he needed. 2 Bush terrorized the country with fear of terrorists.
> Bush no longer has the power he had before. He’s getting up off of the ground and seeing that he just got his nose broken. Oh, he’ll puff up his chest and beat it a lot in the near futre. I have no doubt of that. I just don’t think that his stands will be as firm or as extreme.
I wouldn’t bet on that one, if I was you.
>That kind of undercuts some of what you said. Even YOU think that Rummy would still have a job if the elections had gone the other way. That wouldn’t be the case if Bush wasn’t going to change at all.
Who said he changed? Rummy doesn’t have a job because Bush stayed true to form and true to his typical tactics. He has any number of times jettisoned people, heaped the blame on them and left them for the wolves. The most noticeable was the old Fema head. Sorry but Rummy is not a good example especially since it’s the same old, same old.
>Bush is looking at the landscape and seeing the need for change. How much or how long the change is waits to be seen.
I give him 30 seconds. And the new guy is no winner or do you forget he was one of the principals in Iran-Contra? Another perpetrator of the whole mess as it exists now.
>You want to make it really easy for him stamp his feet and be a twit? Get the man support that he lost by getting the extreme left to fight for impeachment and getting us out of Iraq right now without so much as a second thought as to what that will do to us down the road. Then you can thank yourselves down the road when the Republicans once again own all three keys to power and the Dems are again the cranky minority that couldn’y get it right.
Tectonic shifts as seen this week are never the result of one issue, it’s a preponderance of many smaller issues. So really that’s the least of my worries. Hopefully the majority of the Dems have learned their lesson. Well it appears all except Carvile that is. For 8 years now they have run one of the worst campaign machines that has existed. You don’t play defense when you need an offense. You don’t abandon the whole country to hold onto tiny slices. You don’t let the other side set the dialog. Most of all you distinguish youself from the other side. In other words, playing it safe gets you no where, haven’t you learned that from Rove yet?
“I don’t think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry’s post:
He’s thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won’t be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.”
Wow. 🙂
I point out that I think I know who dork boy is because of the amount of trolling he has done and still does here and elsewhere.
I point out that it’s not an act and that he really is just that clueless and idiot like.
I’ll tell Micha, who already worked it out, that he’ll never get anywhere in an argument with Mad Mickey and his Planet M logic.
And that means that I’m involved in intimidation and race privilege?
Mad Mikey, does your definition of “intimidation” mean telling others that you are a known screwball with brain damage and that they are better off trying to have an intelligent discourse with the wall that their computer stand rests against? Does yours exclude threats and other statements that those of us in the real world include in the definition of “intimidation”? It seems that the answer is yes.
Do you even know what the word really means? That would seem to be a no.
I don’t see how, but thanks for admitting you engage in the coded-speech that shelters racism, my little macaca.
As for what chicken soup or slurping has to do with race, you are, as I’ve already said, in a world all your own.
Here. This is from your fave book in the whole wide world.
Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: in·tim·i·date
Pronunciation: in-‘ti-m&-“dAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -dat·ed; -dat·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin intimidatus, past participle of intimidare, from Latin in- + timidus timid
: to make timid or fearful : FRIGHTEN; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats
Somehow, I just don’t see telling others that I think I know enough about who you are to say that you are in fact a complete nit-wit fits that. Thank you for playing. Come again.
When the basis of you calling me a screwball with brain damage is you getting caught denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide, it does.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.
Brian,
There is another option that I have gone over here in detail.
Rummy is not just the same old, same old. No one thrown out before has ever been that close to Bush or been someone he had to bûŧŧ hëádš with Cheney over.
Did I forget that he was involved with the Iran-Contra mess? No. Did you ignore what I said and what the man himself has said for three plus years now about Iraq and how bad a job he felt Rummy did. Have you ever seen anything he has said about what he would have done differently then what was done up until now?
“Overplay? Overplay comes into effect when you are so corrupt that that it is the pot calling the kettle black.”
Why, yes, many of the stone throwers in the Dems power structure are. What are you asking?
“Tectonic shifts as seen this week are never the result of one issue, it’s a preponderance of many smaller issues.”
Tell that to all the people who said otherwise just before they voted. The poor job being done in Iraq was a big issue. It was the only issue for many.
Thing is, many that voted on that issue know that just pulling out and letting everything fall apart will be the sure way to give us an evil thug or new Saddam. They also know that staying may not give us much better then that. Then again, we may get something worth the lives lost up to this point.
We also have a moral problem here. We invaded and broke a country. We opened its people to take over from outside powers. We did that. Us, the U.S. To say that we should just walk away and let those people go to hëll for what wwas done by us is as bad as anything Bush has ever said or done.
“…maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool.”
And Mike makes yet another leap off the cliff of sanity and into the abyss of his own dementia. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Bill… No, not you, Bill… I want Bill. Bill, can you hand me that thing? Yeah, that’s it. Thanks.
Mike, I now shroud you on this thread. You have gone over a new edge of insanity that even I didn’t think you could go over. Your dementia has reached new levels as yet unseen on this site. You may have the last word between us for this thread and then you may bug off for all I care.
You know, when he was just trolling over at Little Green Footballs and those types of sites he was trollish, but not entirely nuts. Even made the occasional good point now and again. Something’s happened.
There comes a point where you have to sit back and wonder if what has been to you harmless provoking of a twit may actually be unnecesary taunting of someone who is not entirely capable of responding to the best of their abilities.
What other virtue is there to flattening the distinction between genocide and homicide, than to mitigate murder for the sake of manipulating the gene-pool?
Well, it doesn’t surprise me that someone with your appetite for intimidation would seek to “blot out the eyes” of someone he obsesses over. Someone who lives a closeted life is dealing with a lot of self-shame, and often can’t stand to be observed.
Lennie Green Footballs? The site that, instead of naming Michael Moore their “Idiotarian of the Year,” chose instead a dead 23-year-old who volunteered to teach pre-school to Palestinian children? You frequent those cowards? No wonder you are so fuuucked uuup, Bill Mulligan.
What happened, Bill Mulligan, is that I caught you denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide. That’s what happened.
I say this unambiguously, but because you are sheltering a race-privilege, you have to paint it as something shadier.
“…harmless provoking of a twit may actually be unnecessary taunting of someone who is not entirely capable of responding to the best of their abilities.”
Yeah, that’s why I’m done with him on this thread and likely on any other as well. Most the times he’s been on this site, he gets to a certain point and I just stop talking to him. That’s how I’ve seen others in other places deal with him as well. He always comes back strange, but never to these frighteningly demented levels. This time I played whack-a-troll with him and it went into really dark and disturbed places.
Not gonna go there with him anymore. Intelligent discourse has failed, ignoring him has failed and poking him with a stick has failed. That leaves only one course of action open. In the wise words of the immortal Red Green, “Quando omni flunkus, mortati.” (When all else fails, play dead.)
>There is another option that I have gone over here in detail
?? There are hundreds of options, I’m listing the 2 that will actually be reality.
>No one thrown out before has ever been that close to Bush or been someone he had to bûŧŧ hëádš with Cheney over.
How soon we forget, Powell. Powell wasn’t forced out in disgrace, but from the looks of it he was forced out and Bush butted heads with Cheney over him many times along with Rummy. Now if it was Rove and not Rummy on the chopping block I would actually agree with you that change may actually be happening. Let me know when the puppet master and the man behind the curtain go down and then I might agree with you.
>No. Did you ignore what I said and what the man himself has said for three plus years now about Iraq and how bad a job he felt Rummy did. Have you ever seen anything he has said about what he would have done differently then what was done up until now?
What are you talking about? He never said Rummy was doing a bad job for 3 years, in fact all he did for 3 years was praise him, then suddenly he’s been horrible for 3 years? Blah! Don’t take political, opportunistic mechinations for real change. It’s like “stay the course” he never said that for these past 3 years according to Tony Snow even with the preponderance of video against that. In fact if you want another “close” sacrificial lamb, we can add Tony’s predecessor.
The two safest people are the two left, Rove and Cheney. If Cheney goes then Bush has severed his corporate ties, which he could do since he no longer has to fund a political campaign. IF Rove goes, then Shrub has truly chosen to set a new course, but Rove has been a “sacrifice” once already and we know how far that actually went; He lost his front of the house office and got one in back.
>Tell that to all the people who said otherwise just before they voted. The poor job being done in Iraq was a big issue. It was the only issue for many.
I was quizzed by an exit poller. Don’t believe everything you hear. The questions I was given did not give room for “multiple” reasons but searched for one overriding. I’ll trust conversations with people I know which predominantly pointed to a confluence of factors. Iraq is the easy top of the head, quick answer.
>Why, yes, many of the stone throwers in the Dems power structure are. What are you asking?
I was making a statment. In a political sense the Dems slate is clean, let’s see how many years it takes till the next self destruct.
> Then again, we may get something worth the lives lost up to this point.
And man may give up his addiction to fossil fuels… Not in my lifetime.
>We also have a moral problem here. We invaded and broke a country. We opened its people to take over from outside powers. We did that. Us, the U.S. To say that we should just walk away and let those people go to hëll for what wwas done by us is as bad as anything Bush has ever said or done.
I see no moral problem here. We leave, either after spending ourselves into the poor house and needlessly killing more of our sons and daughters or now. If you want to talk about morals that was before we went in, now it isn’t about morals it’s about how many people we get killed and how much of the future we bankrupt for our children. We have given ourselves the moral black eye and it’s time to live with it. It is neither the first time and probably won’t be the last and we aren’t the first nation in history to be a bunch of morally righteous idiots. It is just time to live with it and get out.
>We opened its people to take over from outside powers. We did that. Us, the U.S.
It was already headed that way, we just speeded things up. As with most despots it is unlikely Iraq would have remained stable long after his death. His sons may have ruled for a few years, one of them probably would have killed the other. They really weren’t their father, their sense of entitlement if nothing else would have been their undoing and I doubt either one of them could have held the country together. Sooner or later someone in the military would have followed with an
overthrow.
That’s the sad part, if we had allowed nature follow it’s course the person who took over may have been more easily “controlled” since they would have risen more likely from the military and would have been more interested in money than religion. But we’ve destroyed the military and given the power back to the clerics, so now Iraq is headed to what we don’t need and that is an oligarpy. Possibly even a recreation of Persia with a unification of Iran and Iraq.
>To say that we should just walk away and let those people go to hëll for what was done by us is as bad as anything Bush has ever said or done.
Give me one good reason why this is any different than say Vietnam? Actually where was your indignanty when we were giving Saddam weapons? I was in high school listening to my government teacher say what a bad idea our policy in the middle east was. Little did I realize just how right he would be in 20+ years. Or supporting any number of petty despots that killed, tortured and starved their people? The truth is that sometimes there is no “favorable” solutions and you have to take the bloody nose because you were stupid enough to do the wrong thing in the first place.
Our government has done a lot of morally reprehensible things over the decade and will do them in the future. Iraq is lost, it was lost from day one, there will be no salving of the ego on this one as there was none with Vietnam.
Now on an unrelated positive note: Christine Aguliera just did a very nice duet on SNL with Tony Bennet. Christine cleaned up her act, wonder if Britney will ever get her act together.
“I’m listing the 2 that will actually be reality.”
No, you are listing the two that you like and discounting any others. Not quite the same thing. Much like those who prophesied that thousands of body bags filled with U.S. soldiers’ bodies would come flooding back home after the first few weeks of the attack, those who said that we would never find Saddam after he left Iraq with loads of $$$$ for safer environments and those who claimed that we would find the motherload of WMD’s by week two, your crystal ball is on the blink. You do not know what WILL happen anymore then anybody else here. Myself included.
“How soon we forget, Powell. Powell wasn’t forced out in disgrace, but from the looks of it he was forced out and Bush butted heads with Cheney over him many times along with Rummy.”
Powell was never a true loyalist. Powell spoke his misgivings with this foolish venture on more then a few occasions and was one of the few to speak the truth on the WMD situation and the prewar Intel while still in the administration. He then played good soldier until was asked too much and parted company with the administration. He has since spoken his feelings on the situation and on the way it has been run.
Rummy was one of the guys running the show. He was not a soldier for Bush or a water carrier.
“I was quizzed by an exit poller. Don’t believe everything you hear. The questions I was given did not give room for “multiple” reasons but searched for one overriding. I’ll trust conversations with people I know which predominantly pointed to a confluence of factors. Iraq is the easy top of the head, quick answer.”
I was quizzed by the local pollers as well and they did have better options then you describe. Others may have had better as well. But I wasn’t looking at polls as much as I was what people were saying on the street, around work, in letters to the local, statewide and national papers, calls to local and national radio programs, blogs and so on. Iraq wasn’t just the easy answer for many. It was THE answer for many. Maybe it was the answer for most.
“In a political sense the Dems slate is clean…”
Not on this planet.
“Give me one good reason why this is any different than say Vietnam?”
Maybe because brighter people could learn from the mistakes of Vietnam, like bailing too early or just letting things fall apart, and apply those lessons here.
“Actually where was your indignanty when we were giving Saddam weapons?”
I’m sorry, I can’t show you any proof of that. Hop in a time machine, invent the internet decades ahead of time, archive my old local newspapers and remind me to save my writings from my Civics’ classes so that I can show them to you now and we can discuss where my indignity was back then. That’s a moronic question.
“Our government has done a lot of morally reprehensible things over the decade and will do them in the future.”
There’s sterling logic. We were an @$$ in the past and it’s ok to be an @$$ when it works for me.
“Iraq is lost, it was lost from day one, there will be no salving of the ego on this one as there was none with Vietnam.”
We’re not talking about salving an ego. We’re talking about what move will make things worse for us in the long run. I feel that your ideas on what needs to be done in Iraq will make things worse. You disagree.
Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 11:26 PM
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.
Mike, if you are doing this merely for the fun of upsetting people, you’ve accomplished your goal. Please stop.
If, however, you truly believe what you are saying, then I fear you may be suffering from mental illness. Having suffered from mental illness myself — clinical depression, to be exact — I know what it can do to a person. If you too are suffering in this way I hope you will get help.
Bill Mulligan, I think you are correct that we are likely engaging in “unnecessary taunting of someone who is not entirely capable of responding to the best of their abilities.”
Jerry C, you’ve said ignoring him does not work. Well, if we ignore Mike he may not go away or change his behavior, but at the very least we won’t be provoking him and feeding into what may be a very real case of paranoia.
Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 11:26 PM
I don’t think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.
Mike, if you’re doing this for the fun of upsetting people, you’ve succeeded. Please stop.
If on the other hand you truly believe what you’re writing, then I fear you may be suffering from mental illness. As someone who has suffered from mental illness — clinical depression to be exact — I know how it can affect a person. That’s why I sincerely hope you’ll get help if you need it.
Bill Mulligan, I think you are correct that we may well have been engaging in “unnecesary taunting of someone who is not entirely capable of responding to the best of their abilities.” I think ignoring Mike will be not only to our benefit, but possibly his as well.
Sorry for the double posts above. Both times I tried to submit, I got a “Page Cannot Be Displayed” error. Didn’t realize they actually went through.
It seems to me that the best option for Iraq which has maybe some chance of success, is to try to get some of the suni groups into a power sharing deal together with the ones that are already on the American side. Al Quida obviously will not join, but the local groups are basically interested in insuring a share of the pie. Look at Lebanon. It is a fûçkëd up country always on the verge of civil war, but the notables of the various sects do find ways of dividing the spoils between them and maintaining some form of stability.
One of the stupid things the US did in Iraq was disband the army and de-baathification. They didn’t realize that in the middle east the army is an employment office. They also didn’t realize that when in comes to guns the middle east makes Texas look like France.
Ultimattely it’s a tribal thing. You have to buy off the different tribes and local groups of bandits by giving him a share of the pie. That’s what the Othomans did.
————-
There is a small difference between Christina and Britaney. For al her faults she is a musician. Britany Spears is a machine, a cynical sexual manipulation gone bad. If someone told me she was a CGI character, I wouldn’t be surprised. Jar Jar had more depth and musical talent.
————-
I’m happy to ay the Mike discussion was not a complete waste. It brings up some interesting ideas about artificial intelligence and linguistics. About how when we read a text (like in a dictionary), we read it in a certain context and not just one word at a time. If somebody (who shall remain nemeless) were to read a text without context, that could lead to some intersting things. It could make a good sci-fi short story maybe, or an aspect of a character in the next Star Trek installment.
So if I catch a group of defensive white guys (who frequent sites where the year’s dead are subject to ridicule and humiliation) denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide, I’m mentally ill?
I’m not being ambiguous here. Your position is morally indefensible.
Why should I allow Bill Mulligan to hold democrats to penny-ante lapses when republicans are cashing in middle-class savings for pennies on the dollar, with record-breaking government spending, tax-cuts disproportionately favoring the rich, and entitlement retoolings that hand over tax-payer trillions to pharmaceutical companies? Why should I relent?
There have in fact been calls for building a fence along the US-Canada border, causing much amusement and bemusement up here. There’s a little problem though. In a bunch of places no one is quite sure where the border is. Both governments were supposed to keep a strip cleared along the border, but no one got around to it. In any case the idea has been pretty much shot down.
> your crystal ball is on the blink. You do not know what WILL happen anymore then anybody else here. Myself included.
My crystal ball is far from on the blink, it tells a magnificent story dating back to the earliest civilization in Messopotamia, it’s called history. Those who fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it and that is exactly what we are doing. Read up on the history of Britian in Persia sometime, it’s a fascinating little tale of western arrogance and middle eastern unwillingness to be dictated to.
> Iraq wasn’t just the easy answer for many. It was THE answer for many. Maybe it was the answer for most.
Iraq is the easy soundbyte. A percentage are single issue voters, but many are not. And I’m a marketing person, our exit pollsters weren’t conducting good marketing research. But really what does it matter.
>Not on this planet.
Yes at this point they will have one more election to screw up before it really impacts their control. That is assuming they run a good race and don’t fumble that ball again.
>Maybe because brighter people could learn from the mistakes of Vietnam, like bailing too early or just letting things fall apart, and apply those lessons here.
LOL! Sorry but that is too funny. Once again return to the prizim of history and you will find the way to “win” this mess. Do you have the stomach to depopulate whole towns? Does the world have the stomach to let us do exactly that? NO! That is why wars like Vietnam and Iraq will never be won. We say oh what a horrible person Saddam was, but when it comes right down to it, he knew what it took to control his country. You can not apply western values to these people and expect them to respond in the same way as we would. Vietnam should have taught all of us that, yet 30 years after bugging out we are repeating the same dámņ mistakes. In fact Vietnam probably could have been a win if it had been fought right, Iraq due to it’s religious dynamics could never be a win.
>That’s a moronic question.
Actually it’s not, moronic because there was once again many people pointing out where it would lead. You say the crystal ball doesn’t work, but history does and we keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.
>There’s sterling logic. We were an @$$ in the past and it’s ok to be an @$$ when it works for me.
Perfectly sterling logic, because as long as we keep voting into office those that we do we will continue doing the exact same thing again and again. I have no illusions to that reality. You would think that 30 years after Vietnam we wouldn’t find ourselves embroiled in another Vietnam like mess, yet her we are because we traded one lying, arrogant, sob for a different one as president. The cry then was fighting the communist scourage, today it’s fighting the terrorist scourage. Same crap different day. New leaders, same attitudes, moral superiority.
>We’re not talking about salving an ego.
Oh yes we are. We are at the point where neither Dem or Repb will admit they have thrown away 3000 lives for nothing. And when you mention terrorists everyone falls all over themselves in fear, unwilling to realize that there isn’t much they can really do to us.
>We’re talking about what move will make things worse for us in the long run. I feel that your ideas on what needs to be done in Iraq will make things worse. You disagree.
You got it because we have made it worse, by what we have done. Now we need to live with that mess. Here is something to think about: Israel has faced 40+ years of nearly the exact same problem and have yet to find a successful resolution. What makes you think we are going to be any different? We can’t afford to be fighting this 40 years from now let alone 10. There is a solution for Israel and for us, but in the pervue of world politics, regional depopulation is not an option.
Brian,
I don’t think that we will find a solution for the problems over there any more then I think that we can win in the manner that many who were/are pro-Bush claim that we will win. I just don’t see utter and complete failure as an option either.
We do what you want and we make things worse for ourselves and others now and in the long run. If we stay, do what we should have done from the start troop numbers-wise and give the new Iraq Gov. a fighting chance, we give ourselves two slightly better options then your way gives us. We don’t get a country that hates us and joins up with others that hate us for maybe a generation or so rather then by next year or, on the real longshot, we get a country that doesn’t hate us that much, will deal with us and won’t go out of its way to help people or countries in that area that want to hurt us.
You don’t fix a dumb@$$ thing by doing an even BIGGER dumb@$$ thing. Letting the country fall apart and setting down the road you want to send it, when there is a chance to change that, is a dumb@$$ thing to do.
“Iraq due to it’s religious dynamics could never be a win.”
It depends on what you define as a win. I said much of what you are saying, including the problems with the areas religious wars, on this site a few years back. I said that we would never win in the way it was being sold. We will never see a Western style government in Iraq or any other part of the NeoCon pipe dream that they tried to sell the people before going in. I pointed all that out and said that we should never go in to Iraq.
But we have gone in and now we have to deal with it. Winning is now doing what is as close to right as we can and taking whatever steps we need to not create an even greater mess and danger for ourselves and others over there then we had before we went in. Do do anything else is foolish. So, yeah, I guess I want to “win” this.
“You can not apply western values to these people and expect them to respond in the same way as we would.”
I’ve said as much as well. Not going to try and do that. Not going to say we should. Go argue that with the people making that argument.
“That is why wars like Vietnam and Iraq will never be won.”
Do you know the only real difference between those two wars and all the others in our history (other then how poorly they were run)? We got to see them on TV.
The destruction to life, towns, cities, country sides and countries in general in WW1 and WW2 dwarf anything that came from Vietnam or Iraq. The carnage in those two wars was on a scale that we’ve not even begun to see in Iraq. We just didn’t see it on TV every day. What we saw of it at the time was cleaned up versions of events made to make everybody feel good and John Wayne movies later. Just because we didn’t SEE the carnage doesn’t mean that it wasn’t as bad.
Now we can see it and everybody freaks. Tough. We have to do some things that we don’t like that much.
You say that we can’t win wars like Vietnam and Iraq because people won’t like what they see and won’t let us win (however you define “win”). Well, if that is your yardstick for staying in the fight, you would have us lose every future war we got into. We will never again have a war that looks good in highlight clips after the Sat. movies or on the evening news. That doesn’t mean the need for the fight or the value in the “win” isn’t there or that we should up and quit because it’s not as pretty and clean as all the John Wayne films you grew up watching.
TUBGIRL
If you really are curious about Tubgirl, surely the image could be found through Google.
A warning, however, it is disgusting and definitely NOT work safe.
———
And speaking of work, too many of you guys are posting from work, where the idea is to, um, work for your employer, not waste time on your employer’s equipment.
and here is that world’s official comic book:
http://www.accstudios.com/
i love the heroes, two convicted felons and a halfwit.
this is sadly emblematic of a certain section of the right.
>Do you know the only real difference between those two wars and all the others in our history (other then how poorly they were run)? We got to see them on TV.
Okay you just hit a never with me. Oh there were many, many differences between Korea, Vietnam and all of the wars we fought especially WWI and II, the civil war etc. This is most noticeable in Vietnam. We weren’t fighting a war, not even close. A war you hunt down and and obliterate the enemy. If you have to cross country lines you do. If you have to fly over a parallel, you fly over it. You do not leave military bases standing that are supplying and launching attacks from. Half a village is the enemy you burn the village to the ground. A war is won by demoralizing and killing the enemy to the point they don’t want to fight anymore. There is no such thing as “surgical strikes” there is no such thing as colatterol damage, civilian, men, women and children are the enemy and if they get in the way so be it.
In vietnam we let the cong run into Cambodia and didn’t follow them. In N Vietnam we didn’t go after their military base, they were off the target lists. One of the Migs, if it got across the line in the sky was scott free, pursuit was over and they returned for another day to attack us.
We sold the world on Vietnam being a “police action” and put ourselves in restraints and lost the war. You know what Hitler did to villages harboring rebels? He depopulated them. You know what we did to villages controlled by Germans during WWII? We carpet bombed them into oblivion. You know what we did to soldiers who tried to win the war in Vietnam by killing villagers who harbored communists? Put them on trial for war crimes.
>The destruction to life, towns, cities, country sides and countries in general in WW1 and WW2 dwarf anything that came from Vietnam or Iraq.
Because we were actually out to win and not out to appease the world! Iraq is Vietnam all over again. We aren’t fighting for our survival, we shot enfirst, we weren’t attacked. And so that we don’t pull the region into the conflict or pull other countries in that don’t like our movements, we aren’t fighting a war. We minimize collaterol damage, we let the enemy run away when he is hidden among the civilians. We treat the rebels not like an enemy state, but street gangs. When the Shiites took over that southern city, we should have sent some hummers with a few soldiers in them down there, we should have carpet bombed the place out of existence. Shown the populace that letting the enemy walk in and take over will also mean you die with them. But we can’t do that because we are there to “free” the civilians.
>Tough. We have to do some things that we don’t like that much.
Yet the politicians freak and know full well that they can’t do what needs to be done. If they did we would most likely see Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and Russia enter the fray and then we’d have a real fight on our hands. It is also likely we would be fighting completely alone… So this is where we stand, unable to do what is needed and being there unable to bring about any chance of “victory”.
Well, if that is your yardstick for staying in the fight, you would have us lose every future war we got into.
My yardstick is if we go to war, we go to war and that means all out bloody hëll where collaterol damage is desired and we carpet bomb the crap out of everyone and force them into submission. That is how you win a war. And you can’t do that if you are the agressor, not in our world of politics. Aftganistan could have been that, no one liked the Taliban but even there our administration was a pack of mamby pambys who let the Taliban run over the Pakastani border instead of carpet bombing their tribes into oblivion. Now the UN is paying for our shortsightedness. I give it another year before we have to commit a major force to that country again.
> We will never again have a war that looks good in highlight clips after the Sat. movies or on the evening news. That doesn’t mean the need for the fight or the value in the “win” isn’t there or that we should up and quit because it’s not as pretty and clean as all the John Wayne films you grew up watching.
Never accuse me of not understanding what war is. I would say at this point I have a far better understanding than you do. Yes the propaganda of WWII was “clean” but the country knew what was required. The body bags came home stacked like cordwood, those lucky enough to come home for burial. Very few families did not have a loss due to the war. But we had a reason, a valid justification for that war. We lost 3000 soldiers at Pearl, our Pacific fleet was all but decimated. Our European allies were fighting for their existence and a few had been defeated. We had a righteous reason to go out and fight a war, to win at any cost and have no care about collaterol damage. Where ever the Germans or Japanese were we fought them, and if you were an occupied country, well sorry but run for cover because if the enemy was there we were going to bomb. You were a country that gave support to the enemy, kiss your butt goodbye.
That barely existed in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin was half lie, half staged. Iraq is all lie, a hypothetical mushroom appearing over a city, created by a person who was looking for a reason to invade prior to even 9-11 to get personal revenge and fill his coffers.
To sum this long winded post up, we have no righteous justification to be at war in Iraq. We have a world that will move against us if we do not minimize collaterol damage and our hands are tied. Once again there can be no victory here, we are unwilling, unable to do what is needed. We are the good guys, we worry about our standing in the world, we do not want to bring other countries agressors. Like Vietnam we lost before the first shot was even fired.
As to where my ideals would leave us. Right where we were the day after 9-11. With people who hate us loose in the world and the potential that something may some day be done to us. Our gas prices may go up, which means more pressure for alternatives to be developed. Personally I say go the way of Brazil but I digress… But it won’t be the end of the world, far from it. Bush has pounded fear into the majorities heads, but the reality is they are thousands of miles from us. They are just as happy killing each other over religious debates as they are killing us. THe longer you try to dictate what they are going to do, dictate who is going to lead them the more likely you will cause them to unite against us. Bailing and letting them shoot it out will keep them occupied for a few years and give us the manpower to go after the real problem, Bin Ladden.