Bush or Kerry

[Jesda]

Just for ya'lls information, I'm not a radical left wing liberal. I'm a progressive centerist pragmatist and as such there is no way bush gets any support from me seeing as how the adjectives used to describe bush would be opposite to me. Regressive extreme right wing ideologue would be words for the "metro-Texan" from Crawford.

Years ago when I was a liberal-progressive 'forward-thinking' democrat I assumed I was moderate too. After all, if you call yourself moderate/centrist you can make the world believe you look at every issue based on raw data.

Blind media assumptions about politics actually make "centrist" seem like the only reasonable, sensible way when in actuality its just a fancy word everyone likes to use to avoid being pigeonholed.

With your unusually sarcastic attacks and jabs at Bush and Limbaugh (whom Im not a fan of either), I only see anger not independent or "moderate" thought and reason.

-Jesda

[AZhitman]

It's funny... we get crap for trying to prevent future attacks... and we get crap for not preventing a past attack? What's a conservative to do? I guess we can only sleep well at night knowing we are doing something for the right reasons and not just to get re-elected.

Brilliant. Simple, but brilliant.

Of course, the detractors will have their say that this is "overly simplistic" and "short-sighted", but they *still* remain the minority in this great nation.

[AZhitman]

With your unusually sarcastic attacks and jabs at Bush and Limbaugh (whom Im not a fan of either), I only see anger not independent or "moderate" thought and reason.

Jesda - This is nothing new.

The same group of hand-wringers that question nearly every decisive action (while drenched in the stench of INACTION) will whine and cry to highest heaven if you utter the words "liberal" or "pacifist".

Yet watch them pepper their rhetoric with words like "boorish", "redneck", "uncultured", "warmonger"... It's quite entertaining if you don't take it seriously.

[The Mic]

we should let saddam "escape" into the countries we want to invade and keep on recapturing him as much as we please.

[AZhitman]

Any thoughts?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

[AZhitman]

i think we should let saddam "escape" into the countries we want to invade and keep on recapturing him as much as we please.

LOL - Some of us so-called "rednecks" might like that idea a little TOO much.

"Run, sucker! Woo hoo!"

[VimyJ]

Man, you have to stop letting yourself be so scared by bush. Iraq would never attack the US because it never would have anything to gain from such an action except certain destruction. SH was many things but he surely wasn't an idiot and never had a martyr complex.

SH was in it for cigars, palaces and cash not stupid religion and everlasting life. The former is what you do when you have your little kingdom and the latter is what you do if you want to die for Allah and be regarded as a prophet. Little Iraq would never open itself up for a retaliatory strike a la the Taliban religous nutballs. Crap, Iraq couldn't even beat Iran in a war and Raygun gave them poision gas and took them off the terrorlst list! And you think Iraq wanted to take on a superpower?

[Sopdadope]

Yes, and one picture surely speaks for an entire population. You obviously must know how ignorant that post is... or maybe you don't....?

Puhlleeez...Before you reply back with your typical smarmy neo con response, I am well aware one picture doesn't speak for an ENTIRE population, but close to it.

82% of Iraqi's disapprove of US occupation

Also, I'm well acquainted with many Iraqi immigrants, much more then you'll probably ever encounter in your life, and the general consensus seems to be that although they despised Saddam, the country's is in absolute disarray- much worse than before the occupation. Most of them were outraged by the alarming rate of civilian casualties (no doubt caused by US bombing). The overriding (and most frequent) concern is that with the factions wrestling for power, there will be a long and arduous civil war forthcoming that will only further the catastrophe.

[VimyJ]

Years ago when I was a liberal-progressive 'forward-thinking' democrat I assumed I was moderate too. After all, if you call yourself moderate/centrist you can make the world believe you look at every issue based on raw data.

Blind media assumptions about politics actually make "centrist" seem like the only reasonable, sensible way when in actuality its just a fancy word everyone likes to use to avoid being pigeonholed.

With your unusually sarcastic attacks and jabs at Bush and Limbaugh (whom Im not a fan of either), I only see anger not independent or "moderate" thought and reason.

-Jesda

Jeeze Louise, Jesda. No WMD and no AQ in Iraq. Try those friggin facts on. Iraq was never a threat to US security. Try thinking forward again. This backwards stuff you're trying is stunting your comprehension.

[f1seb]

Because not everything in reality works like it does in your "color-by-number" world. This is why foreign policy is left in the hands of those that know what the hell they are talking about...

Mind you elaborate on that? Because you didnt answer my question but just decided to put me down with some senseless crap thinking you know everything. But let me get this how it is: We go after a poor country that doesn't even have nuclear weapons, an army that the rest of the world can laugh at, and basically for no damn reason. But we refuse to go after a country that is already nuclear and has the weapons which probably will make it to the black market for money and oil which North Korea badly needs, lets see now where can we find oil, oh man look its right in the middle east where all the american hating oil rich terrorists reside, my my how convenient. And you are telling me that Bush knows something about foreign policy? I don't remember the last time since half the European countries were pissed off at us cause of this conflict he created. Man get your head out of your ahole.

[AZhitman]

So we goofed.

BUT, since we're already there, we may as well introduce some stability to the area, eradicate some radical groups, maybe build some infrastructure just for fun, toss up a few schools, hook up my ancestors with some democracy, y'know?

Just like the good ol' boys we are.

[Nathan]

Jeeze Louise, Vimy. Iraq would never outright attack the US, but I do NOT put it past them to fund terrorlst actions against the US. You keep skipping over that point, its fact that Iraq met with Al Qaida members, and even employed one of them in a governmental position. Saddam hates the US, he has motivation to help our enemies.

[VimyJ]

BTW Jesda. This is sarcasm: bush is a really smart man. I've never written that sentiment. When I call bush a dolt, I'm not being sarcastic.

[Nathan]

F1seb, at the very least...North Korea is more stable and geographically removed from the hotbed of the middle east. I agree that we need to go blow some **** up there too though. In fact, If I had my way we'd run this whole damned world

[f1seb]

So we goofed.

BUT, since we're already there, we may as well introduce some stability to the area, eradicate some radical groups, maybe build some infrastructure just for fun, toss up a few schools, hook up my ancestors with some democracy, y'know?

Just like the good ol' boys we are.

I wish this was as easy as just like that. But that region is so damn unstable that I dont see us leaving that place anytime soon. People cant even do their work over there cause they have to watch everybody so they dont get their head chopped off, journalists even they are targeted.

[AZhitman]

82% of Iraqi's disapprove of US occupation

Also, I'm well acquainted with many Iraqi immigrants, much more then you'll probably ever encounter in your life, and the general consensus seems to be that although they despised Saddam, the country's is in absolute disarray- much worse than before the occupation. Most of them were outraged by the alarming rate of civilian casualties (no doubt caused by US bombing). The overriding (and most frequent) concern is that with the factions wrestling for power, there will be a long and arduous civil war forthcoming that will only further the catastrophe.

POLLING the Iraqi people? LOL... I can just see the little pollsters in their white coats with their clipboards and pencils. :rolleyes

Of course they oppose the OCCUPATION. Who wouldn't? The question should have been, were you better off a year ago?

If they want to go back to living under a SH-type regime, well, what can I say?

[AZhitman]

I wish this was as easy as just like that. But that region is so damn unstable that I dont see us leaving that place anytime soon. People cant even do their work over there cause they have to watch everybody so they dont get their head chopped off, journalists even they are targeted.

ALL the more reason to stay the course.

Don't EVER give up on what's right, even if it's inconvenient, unpopular or painful.

Please see my analogy 3 pages back about the schoolyard bully.

[f1seb]

F1seb, at the very least...North Korea is more stable and geographically removed from the hotbed of the middle east. I agree that we need to go blow some **** up there too though. In fact, If I had my way we'd run this whole damned world

It depends by what you mean stable. If you mean that a war between the North and South isn't probable, well I'll say that its probably not us unstable as pakistan/idia but its damn close. Plus they have a very powerful ally in China. North Korea not too long ago launched a missle over Japan or was it China that launched one, anyways those kind of games arent all fun. But let it be known that the Pakistani nuclear profesor that gave the possibility for Pakistan to go nuclear he got to travel around the world. To North Korea, Iran, I also believe that Syria was his stop.Many officials speculate that he was given alot of help from the already nuclear North Korea and decided to visit the rest of the countries at a later time as a business man selling nuclear secrets to others for his own profit. Now he was held and questioned in Pakistan at one point cause of those fears but since then released, he is a very very very rich man(why?) And Pakistani officals decided not to arrest him or to investigate him since he will be entered into their history books as their savior.

[Sopdadope]

Any thoughts?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584

Coming from a man with more schizophrenic tendencies than John Nash on an acid binge, I'll take it with a BARREL of salt. Hichens has been all over the map, but I'll label him as a neo con and as such, I'd expect such a response.

What's your opinion of the independent commission appointed by Bush himself that returned with no credible evidence that linked Iraq and AQ? After 18 months..800 soldiers dead...10,000 dead Iraqi civilians...100+ billion dollars...still no WMD's found (don't give me that crap about the artillery shell with minute traces of Sarin gas). Something tells me Moore won't have to do much to make this administration look like a laughing-stock.

[VimyJ]

Jeeze Louise, Vimy. Iraq would never outright attack the US, but I do NOT put it past them to fund terrorlst actions against the US. You keep skipping over that point, its fact that Iraq met with Al Qaida members, and even employed one of them in a governmental position. Saddam hates the US, he has motivation to help our enemies.

Your big mistake is that you think SH was as intelligent as you. In fact, SH is a hell of a lot smarter than you give him credit for. What smart leader of a ME country wouldn't try to get intelligence on AQ? How stupid do you think SH was?

SH killed Shia by the truckload for years and years with both the US's active and tacet support because they wanted a Shia Islamic Revolutionary theocracy.

The 9-11 commission report said there was no meaningful or tangible support from Iraq for AQ. The alleged terrorlst training camps were friggin lies made up by Chalabi and his band of 40 liars and completely discredited.

We will see if this Lt. Colonel was in fact an AQ member knowingly employed by the Islamicist killing SH.

BTW, bin Laden is an Islamicist. A rather famous one. SH was never known for that. He killed their a$$es and buried them in the desert in case you didn't know who is buried in those graves.

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by f1seb "]Mind you elaborate on that?

Sure.... here goes...

But let me get this how it is: We go after a poor country that doesn't even have nuclear weapons, an army that the rest of the world can laugh at,

Oh... I see you've already started to put some of the pieces together....

But we refuse to go after a country that is already nuclear

mmhmm... looks like you've got a grasp on part of the problem. Do you really need someone to connect the dots a little bit more?

All I am getting from your argument is that we should treat Korea and China the same way we treated Iraq. There is no "color-by-numer" picture or formula that works for all of them. Foreign policy is more of an art than a science. You are ignorant to make some off-hand remark that we should have "dealt" with China and Korea if we were going to deal with Iraq. It just simply doesn't work that way...

It's like saying.... geez you shouldn't have gotten that nose job because you still have small titties. They are different problems.. and need to be dealt with differently. You don't see plastic surgeons putting fake noses on women's chests do you?

[Nathan]

Dont blatantly insult my intelligence Vimy, this is a reasonably friendly discussion and thats dropping pretty low...even for you. I'm well aware that Saddam was not a religious man and had issues with Islamics. However, they are unified in their hatred of the United States. That was my point, I wouldn't put it past Saddam to colaborate with most any terrorlst groups if it meant harming the US.

[AZhitman]

Coming from a man with more schizophrenic tendencies than John Nash on an acid binge, I'll take it with a BARREL of salt.

Hichens has been all over the map, but I'll label him as a neo con and as such, I'd expect such a response.

Wow. Lot's of name-calling against someone who just "de-bunked" this so-called "documentary".

So once you've labeled him, you can dismiss what he has to say? Convenient.

Perhaps you should label him as seriously mentally ill. Then you can not only ignore him, but have him involuntarily evaluated and civilly committed to an institution.

[Nathan]

Quit giving them ideas Greg, they might just try!

[Sopdadope]

LOL WTF AZHitman?

I just called the man a schizo, that's tame compared to some of the creative name-calling going on here. LOL

It's justified if you ask me, the man goes from being a die-hard liberal to being of the most vicious mouthpieces of the right and back again to this.

As a matter of fact, I can't say if I'll descredit his facts or not. I'd take what he has to say more seriously if it came from a more reliable and "stable" source.

[VimyJ]

ALL the more reason to stay the course.

Don't EVER give up on what's right, even if it's inconvenient, unpopular or painful.

Please see my analogy 3 pages back about the schoolyard bully.

I wasn't going to touch that school yard analogy but since you bring it up again, how could you reduce geopolitics into something like that?

I started to write something but I deleted it because this says it more concisely: your metaphor is a naive oversimplification.

Greg, this isn't a schoolyard tussle. 848 Americans are now dead and we're farther behind than when we started. 4000k+ are maimed for life and the ME is more unstabile than before. 10k+ Iraqi civilians are dead and bush's reasons for invasion remain false. $200 billion wasted and the West is divided in the face of real, actual, true Islamic terrorism.

[Sopdadope]

Wow. Lot's of name-calling against someone who just "de-bunked" this so-called "documentary".

I'm a semantic bastard, so I think it'd be better classified as an opinion/editorial film so it should be treated as such. I think the logical thing to do is withhold judgement on a film that hasn't even been released yet! If this is merely a faux documentary, then why are neo cons so terrified by it? You conservatives are overreacting to it.

[Sopdadope]

Quit giving them ideas Greg, they might just try!

I think after this debate's over, someone's gonna have to throw me into the 'padded room.' LOL

[VimyJ]

Dont blatantly insult my intelligence Vimy, this is a reasonably friendly discussion and thats dropping pretty low...even for you. I'm well aware that Saddam was not a religious man and had issues with Islamics. However, they are unified in their hatred of the United States. That was my point, I wouldn't put it past Saddam to colaborate with most any terrorlst groups if it meant harming the US.

Actually, I thought I got a sly dig in there. Glad you caught it. Don't forget your vomit comment, BTW. Hate to think I was alone in the sly dig dept.

Fact is that SH didn't collaborate with any anti US terrorlst grps. No motive because there was nothing to gain. The US ain't going anywhere. We could suffer multiple 9-11 attacks and still have the mightiest military and economy on earth. Think motive, man.

Iraq however, is a major player in something that could seriously harm the US.

[StrangeLove]

Vimyj, you should run for president!