"Their still answering my post, even though it's been pulled! Their so dumb they don't know what they're answerin'! (heheheheh)" ( ??!! This was probably the best one, repeated several times.)
OK, so this is my first and last post here. Go ahead and initiate your kick me off the board procedure or whatever you do. My one hope is that you leave this post up long enough so that a dyed-in-the-wool liberal can try to get an understanding of the way some of you think, especially in regard to war. If you delete it, screw it, at least I tried to communicate with people about whom I have no understanding whatsoever. Here are my questions, in no particular order: All you need to do to get an "understanding" of how certain individuals think is to read what they post, and you don't even have to post your own personal threads to do that. In fact, reading other people's ideas is as important to the learning process as is listening. You can't learn if you never shut up and listen, and you can't learn if you are posting and not reading.
-Why is it that we need to make war on Iraq?
Because the leadership of Iraq has allied themselves with those who are waging war on us, which means they are waging war on us, and they are preparing to expand that war. They will not stop until someone stops them by force. It is possible to lose a war even if you opt not to actively participate in it, of course. Pacifists are the roadkill on the highway of life. And what's worse, they tend get everyone else using that road killed, too.
If you reall yare serious though, I can post a huge list of events which might clarify things even for you. Parts of that timeline list are already plastered around this web site.
This question is asked in light of the fact that most serious people outside of the Bush administration don’t see Iraq as any sort of threat to anyone in the US. Rather, they see them as contained, neutered.
First of all, there is no need to lie. You and I both know that you cannot prove that "most serious people" don't see Iraq as a threat. The only reason you included that silly statement is because you believe it would be persuasive in some way. Perhaps a liberal, being a creature born of emotion rather than thought, finds some security or self-esteem in numbers. Is that why you inserted that blurb? Do you believe that your point of view somehow gains credibility if you can convince us that we are in the minority and you are in the majority by citing your own delusions about the opinion of people whom you , though not neccessarily anyone else, thinks is "serious?" You're a typical liberal, a person who believes that in matters of right and wrong, one should consult polling data.BUt in this case, you don't even have reliable data, you just made it up.
-Why should we believe Colin Powell?
Why wouldn't you? He has more credibility than anyone on your side of the fense, including your pal Saddam Hussein. Do you prefer to trust Saddam Hussein? Al "I invented the internet" Gore? Ex UNSCom inspector Scott Ritter, who doesn't even agree with his own testimony, and who openly admits that if he reported what he saw in an Iraqi children's prison, that even pacifists would want to go to war, and who was too self-centered and agenda-driven to honestly report what he saw and let everyone make an informed decision?
Over at DU (where I’m quite sure you’re NOT surprised to find out is where I hail from),
I can tell you are from DU. It's glaringly obvious given that your post is unfocused, and you come off as listless, faithless, pessimistic and hateful. That sort of negativity only comes from Bartcop or DU... even regular liberals aren't as miserable as you. Do you get up on sunny days and only think of suicide, or what?
there are even a few Democrats who are now convinced that we have irrefutable evidence, ad infinitum. Why do people think this way?
Because there is irrefutable evidence, which is why you posted this nonsense instead of actually trying to refute the abundance of data that is out there even in the public domain. Every once in a while, even a DU posting Democrat strumbles upon the truth, and decides not to go on denying it even if the mob over there doesn't want to hear it.
This is nothing that would ever stand up in a court of law.
Oh, and you believe that because ...? Could it be, because you never bothered to actually look at any data since you already have your mind made up that nothing is worth fighting for, not even the life of other human beings, if it means you personally might get hurt while defending someone? After all, you belong to a political philosophy that considers it acceptable to kill infants- who have committed no crime and who haven't had the benefit of an ACLU lawyer- just because of where they are located, and just because your group doesn't want to act responsibly. Do you think that if the babies your fellow lefties abort would get a trial before their execution, that your group's case "well that baby is bad because I don't want it, even if I did make it" would hold up in a court in a death penalty case? What did the kid do to deserve such punishment? You libs screwed around and put him the situation in the first place. You think the left has credibility whjen it comes to matters of life, liberty and justice?
Is Saddam a liar? Well, probably,
What do you mean "probably?" First he says he has no WMD, then he promises to use it against US troops and other countries who aid us? First he signs a cease fire agreement, then he immediately broke it years ago. Now he says he will allow unconditional inspections, then he puts conditions on them. There is no doubt he is a liar of great magnitude.
but so is George W Bush,
Technically, the whole human race is, so of course he has lied- he said Islam is a religion of peace, and that's a pile of meaningless BS. Perhaps he told Helen Thomas she looked radiant once as a nice gesture. Those are all rather meaningless white lies designed to keep people from getting hurt, not lies from self-interest of the sort we often saw during the previous administration. And of course, you lied above with the quip about "most serious people." But if you had more substantial and relevent examples regarding Iraq, for example, you would have cited them instead of just babbling.
and sorry, but Powell has no gravitas with me.
Nothing ticks off a liberal more than a sucessful black man who isn't drinking the Kool-Aid and isn't serving white liberal masters on the Democrat plantation.
The Bush administration has shown a willingness and a propensity to say and do ANYTHING to get their little war.
The war was already in progress when Bush arrived, and war is still war even if only one side is actively fighting. Did you sleep off the last decade, Mr. Van Winkle? Did you miss WTC 1 where an Iraqi was involved, the embassy bombings of Tanzania and Kenya, the bombing of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, assorted assasinations, the support of Abu Nidal in attempted assassinations, support of suiside bombers, threats against dissidents, the meetings involving the Iraqi intel agent in Prague over the years, the meetings between Iraqi officials and bin Laden and or his agents in the Sudan and in the UAE and even in Afghanistan , the meetings in Malaysia where both an Iraqi agent and hijackers attended which covered the Phillippines bomb plots, scores of cracked Iraqi front companies, the London Ricin plots, bin Laden's early visit to Bagdhad where he was seen by a repoirter, bin Laden's spoken support of Iraq against the US, Saddam's spoken aproval of Osama, 911, and so on?
I have Windows Sound Recorder, Photoshop, and all the hearsay you can shake a stick at. And no, this is not an issue of having to believe Hussein or Powell. I think the most likely scenario is that they’re both lying.
Which makes absolutely no sense. What possible reason would there be for the two to be lying? What do you think Powell was lying about? The specialized aluminum tubing? Even Iraq admits it was taking the stuff, seeing as how it's provable since the orders were taken down on paper. They simply lie about the use, claiming they were for rockets which incidentally, still is a violation of their committments. But the tolerances the front company ordered are in print too since they did get them from legitimate companies which did keep records. If you had ever taken an engineering course you would know the tolerances ordered and the particular corrosive resistant material were damning evidence. Even more so when you see what else they have been importing. Your unfounded "negative feelings" regarding Powell, for which you have presented absolutely no supporting evidence, would not "hold up in a court of law" as you put it.
-Why are American military lives more important than Iraqi lives?
In God's eyes we're not more important than Iraqis in terms of God's love for us. But we are not God and are not ten feet tall and bullet proof, and we have to survive in this world, so we have to choose between American lives and the lives of others on occasion. If we didn't believe that we would all be speaking German or Japanese, because in order to fight the terrible ideologies of history, we have had to take out enemies. If we had not fought, we'd be slaves. We prefer to take out threats with as little damage to others as possible- indeed, our actions militarily save more lives since we tend to put an end to silliness like soccer-stadium amputations and mass murder, and we will put an end to the problems Iraqis suffer under, as well as offer them a chance to regain the rights that the socialists in the Ba'ath Party have denied them. But our preference for avoiding innocent casualties has led virtually all of our enemies to use human shields as a means of thwarting us in a fight. As I have told others, it takes no courage for a person who has suffered under a terrible regime to surrender to the US because it means food, shelter, survival and ultimately, freedom. In Gulf War Part One the Iraqis surrendered in droves because for many, going home meant going to their deaths or going back into misery. But for us there are no such options. If we surrender, we will be put to the sword just as Danny Pearl was put to the knife. Unlike the people we capture- who are often allowed assylum here and become our equals in law, we have nothing to look forward to if we are defeated but misery, torment and death. We cannot afford to treat American life as equal to those of our enemies because our enemies' lives are utterly useless in defending our freedom.
This should be obvious. American military lives are more important to Americans because it is only armed American that protect our rights and enable us to survive. Iraqis cannot protect our rights when they have been unable to even protect their own from Hussein's predations. To put it in terms you might better understand, even a child knows that the lives of his parents are more important to his survival than the lives of total strangers. If the parents die, the child will likely die as well unless some well-meaning soul comes by, typically a relative. If total strangers ocme by, they will likely pass on, but if not, will raise the child into their belief system, which means the original belief system dies too- and that would be a terrible thing if the belief system was like that of the Taliban, or some society where human sacrifice was the norm, or some culture where freedom is denied to people. I don't subsribe to the moral equivalency theories that say all societies are equal to our own. In order to protect our freedoms we must think in terms of doing what we must to ensure we remain free, and this does require that we protect our own first and foremost.
Why do you say God Bless America (and imply Screw the Rest of the World)?
Saying "God bless America" does NOT imply "Screw everyone else." That fact that you are a liberal is glaringly obvious here- you seem to think of God in the same way you think of wealth. Do you think God's blessings are finite? That's probably because you think wealth is finite, as if my success somehow implies your failure. That's simply not true. With hard work and dedication, both of us can succeed, and neither is the loser because of the other's accomplishments. Blessings are unlimited, and wealth is unlimited too, and God can bless everyone simultaneously.
-Is George W Bush detrimental to the safety of the world?
Nope- he's done more good than you or I will in a lifetime, and been the target of more evil than you or I will ever have to endure.
This goes to the point about how to best secure our future. I know it must be fun to talk about being the best and kicking ass and stuff like that. But what about all that liberal drivel you hear about how this will spawn more terrorism?
It's drivel and not supported by history, which indicates that when we act forcefully, violence against Americans declines. Libya is a good case in point. Osama bin Laden himself said he carried out 911 because he saw Clinton's America run from Somalia with its tail between its legs. He saw our weakness and decided to exploit it, saying that he believed that is he succeeded in hitting us hard enough, we would abandon the entire region because we were too weak to accept American casualties. It would be easy pickings for his network with us out of the way. So we got hit on 911 because he believed we would not strike back. He believed we would only lob some cruise missiles at useless targets as Clinton did. He even believed that the "Gore War" election meant that the President's power was compromised and the country dangerously divided. The constant shrill rantings of liberals made it seem like the current president was going ot be as weak in matters of foreign policy as Clinton was. The planners of 911 thought that a strike on an important economic center and military center--- and I dare to say an anthrax strike against key players--- would fracture the US and possibly result in power struggle within our government, and were this a third world country like theirs it could result in coup and even civil war. This sort of thinking isn't the sort just bin Laden might have... it is more likely the thinking of someone with a good deal of experience with coups, someone like Hussein. Whoever planned it. they tried what they knew and miscalculated, because they were getting information from incompetant sources that didn't understand our system any better than he does. He may as well have been reading DU. Just months before 911, Fidel Castro said much the same thing about US weakness as did bin Laden, to an audience at Teheran University in Iran. Castro told them he had "long observed America and it was weak; and together, Cuba and Iran would bring the US to its knees."
Really, do you guys ever think about that kind of stuff? Are your answers the knee-jerk, testosterone-driven responses they seem to be? Do any of you play chess?
If that silly assumption that opposing evil will only encourage evil is the only thing you're thinking about regarding consequences of action and inactrion, you have a looooooong way to go before you can even begin to chat about the subject. As for my responses, estrogen would be involved rather than testosterone. You liberals, though, could do with some testosterone- it would fix a lot of your problems. You come on a web site and post unfocused random thoughts off the top of your little head and you call everyone else's answers- before you even get any- knee-jerk? Look in a mirror.
-Is dissent somehow un-American to you?
Of course not- we're the ones who defend it- even in Iraq. Do you think some twit who doesn't think anything is worth fighting for is able to defend the right to free speech? You can't even defend your position when your life isn't threatened. What does that have to do with Iraq?
What about that pesky First Amendment?
You mean the one that is ensured by the Second Ammendment, and which would not survive without armed citizens defending it? What does this have to do with Iraq, other than you clearly don't support the idea of freedom of speech in the Arab world, judging by the company you keep. Saddam Hussein is no poster boy for freedom.
Was it really put in place to protect not popular, but unpopular speech?
Ammendments don't protect anything. They are simple pieces of written paper with no power of their own, which simply declare that these rights exist because they are granted by the Creator and government may not legitimately take them away. The only thing that keeps the ammendments in place is the armed citizen as described in the Second Ammendment, and the only thing which preserves the second is the first- the two are dependent upon one another. The First Ammendment declares that the people have the right to worship freely, as well as engage in free speech- it does not indicate a preference for popular or unpopular speech, but is designed for the free expression of political ideas whether they are popular or not, although unpopular ideas are naturally more likely to run into opposition. If liberals truly held the first ammendment in high regard, they would not find themselves allied with the likes of Saddam Hussein, because under his rule, there is no free press. I see that you have gone off the beaten trail though.
I’ve got to tell you that word on the liberal street is that you guys are a bunch of single-minded, groupthink brownshirts. But you probably knew that already.
The liberal street, as usual, is in denial of their own history. It was the liberal street which supported Hitler- at least so long as he and Stalin were bosom buddies. Just as it is the liberal street which supported Pol Pot and so on. They supports Saddam Hussein, a person raised and trained into the Baathist Party. The Baathists are socialists, and are the descendent of the Nazi party of Germany, just as is the Syrian Baathist party. Both owe their existance to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Muslim SS, and that's why Mein Kampf is so popular in the Mideast. The liberal street needs to look around and see who is on their side- their team is ugly and cruel to behold. Suicide bombers, a murderous Iraqi dictator who tests his weapons on prisoners, the KKK, the skinheads, Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, FALN, the Worker's World Party, Ramsey Clark, the Black Panthers, you name it, they're on your side because they hate Israel and the US enough to embrace even each other.
And no, I’m not talking about freedom of speech within the server space wholly owned by rimjob. DU has posting restrictions too, and I understand I’ll be tombstoned or whatever you guys call it. But in society as a whole, are you all in agreement with the Bill O’Reilly’s (shut up! Shut up!) of the world? The Limbaughs (marchers are anti-American)?
Don't be silly- Limbaugh has been the victim of people trying to deny him freedom of speech, remember the effort to get him pulled off the radio? Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly are better fighters on behalf of the first ammendment than any leftist will ever be. Neither one of them can take away freedom of speech; they threaten no one, so what the heck are you rambling about? People like you keep trying to shut them up because they cannot defeat them in debate or even compete with them commercially, and that infuriates leftists enormously.
Thanks for the time. Again, I hope this lives long enough so I can see what some of your responses are. For my part, I’ll tell you that I think most of you are tragic dupes.
You're free to harbor your illusions. And my, aren't you full of them... are you getting some therapy for your problems? They need to boost your medication, or you need to stick strictly to prescription druigs and not the funny stuff. What is this garbage about:
The Bush Administration cares nothing for you, nothing about you.
They don't have to "feel my pain" ... they can do just fine by cutting taxes and letting me take care of myself in stead of robbing me blind as Democrats would do. That they have done a great many other things I like is a plus., considering that I thought Bush was too liberal.
And if you make 120K a year, don’t think you’re one of their special pets.
Were you Al Gore or Ralph Nader's pet? I'd love to make 120K and it wouldn't bother me if the President doesn't know me by name. That's not his job- he is there to serve us, not the other way around. As one of his bosses, I say he's doing pretty good in spite of Tom Dashcle.
You’re chumps to them, unless you’re making about 500 large per year, or more.
On what do you base this assumption? More attempts at juvenile class warfare? A tax cut helps the economy no matter what; the more cuts the better, as it puts earnings back into the hands that originally earned it so it can be reinvested in a free market- the best way to ensure that resources go where they are most needed. Just because your snotty letters don't get responses from your leaders and no one ever asks for your opinion doesn't mean the rest of us have the same problem. And since they are addressing my concerns,, I am pleased whether they see me as a chump or not, although I don't believe they do.
Are you always such a pessimist? How do you face the day with a bitter, uninformed and unhappy outlook like yours? Do you get the urge to slash your wrists?
I think that the Bush Administration needs a dumbed-down populace, non-critical thinkers.
Wrong party- it's the dems that need a rotten public school system- hence the emphasis on race as a qualification to serve as an educator instead of tests to determine skill and intelligence. And if you are an example of what the Democrats or Green party consider "educated," I'm not impressed. You would shrivel up and die if someone cut your power and water off. You're the type which would starve to death even if you were surrounded by cows and duck potatoes, unless some government social worker came by to give you food stamps so someone else would have ot pay for your upkeep.
Because if most Americans really did put their critical facilities to work, Bush would be back at the pig farm in Crawford in very short order.
Cattle ranch- not that you would know the difference if you got gored by a bull. Bush probably would prefer to be on the ranch rather than at the helm, but he's needed at the helm thanks to all the messes Clinton got us into while he was neglecting his duties in order to stroke himself. While my brother was in Somalia feeding people, Clinton changed the mission to a personal headhunt for Aidid, then failed to follow through after putting our personnel into danger each time. Clinton ran away of course, when things went wrong- due to his own presidential incompetance. Maybe Clinton was busy with the intern on the kneepads, or was occupied with the sink. While my brother was in Iraq tracking illicit arms shipments of Saddam Hussein, Clinton was loosening the funds to enable Hussein to smuggle in more, taking bribes from Chinese agents , and his moronic energy secretary O'Leary was releasing nuclear data and lifting security on our labs. While my brother was in Iran checking out things there to prevent terrorism, Clinton was cutting the military so badly and abusing it so much they couldn't retain their best people. While my borther was in the service Clinton limited how we dealt with terrorists- even entertained them in the White House. Not to mention he even pardoned some.
Last question: have any of you ever actually read Noam Chomsky or watched his stuff? Just wondering.
Noam Chomsky was once an apologist for the Khmer Rouge. He is also an idiot, multilingual though he may be, and until recently I estimated that he was just a naive kid of 14. I was stunned when I found out that he was a dried up old loon, old enough to know better than to parrot such long-discredited marxist nonsense. He is also a communist. Is he your kind of guy? We see his garbage everywhere, is he the only thing you've got? Here's a taste of ol Khmer Rouge-lover Chomsky's wisdom:
"a new era of economic development and social justice" for Cambodia was predicted by Noam Chomsky in 1973 ... nevermind that Chomsky's friends the Khmer Rouge were out there murdering thousands upon thousands of people.
Is this lover-of-bloodletters familiar, too?
" [The] Kampuchean Revolution will appear more and more clearly as one of the most significant early indications of the great and necessary change beginning to convulse the world in the later 20th century and shifting from a disaster-bound course to one holding our promise of a better future for all. In the mean time we can surely rejoice that the people of Kampuchea are assured now steadily rising living standards while those of their still "free world" neighbors continue to deteriorate." - Leftist scholar Caldwell's erronous conclusion on Cambodia in 1978
Surely you must remember Ramsey Clark, leader of today's antiwar movement:
"Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor." - Col. Bui Tin, member of North Vietnamese General Giap's staff
The traitors were wrong then, too, and the Vietnamese paid for it in blood and still do. Thanks to these people, we paid in blood as well.
We knew we were winning our battles against those with names like Daun, Thanh, Giap and Bui Tin. We did not know we were losing the war to those with names like Jane, Tom, Bill and Ramsey. - Tim Lickness, an American who arrived in Vietnam shortly before the beginning of the 1968 Tet Offensive (Refers to Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark- President Johnson's Attorney General, and others)
