Are you saying we don't owe the Iraqi people a chance at a free society? You live in one. Do they not deserve the same rights as you?
posted by MikeyA at 07:43 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
Cowboy Bush is going to throw more of our poor troops
I've only heard DEMS wanting MORE troops in Iraq, not Bush. Bush says he will give the commanders what they need and so far they have said they don't need more troops.
posted by fequalsma73 at 07:50 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
I've only heard DEMS wanting MORE troops in Iraq
Actually, John McCain just said on Sunday we need to send more troops:
But to do that, do you need more U.S. soldiers on the ground now?
MCCAIN: I think so. I think so. We took troops from places like Ramadi, which are still not under control and put them into Baghdad. We’ve had to send in additional troops as they are. All along, we have not had enough troops on the ground to control the situation. Many, many people knew that, and it’s — we’re paying a very heavy price for it.
posted by pink_slip at 09:07 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
Bush & GOP fare better in latest USA Today Poll
While 47% of registered voters said they are leaning toward voting for a Democrat for Congress this year, 45% said they are leaning toward a Republican. That two percentage point advantage for Democrats is down from a nine percentage point gap earlier this month. It is also the narrowest advantage for Democrats since USA TODAY and Gallup began asking that question about this fall's election in August 2005.
"Interactive" Chart
:)
posted by fequalsma73 at 09:33 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
Are you saying we don't owe the Iraqi people a chance at a free society? You live in one. Do they not deserve the same rights as you?
As was pointed out in countless other posts, this was NOT the reason we invaded, but as soon as the situation there went to FUBAR status (which was shortly after our Prez donned his silly flight suit and declared 'victory') this justification jumped to the top of the list.
Let's invade North Korea as well...they don't live in a 'free' society.
posted by McCaskey at 10:15 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
Sixty one percent of Americans now disapprove of the war in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/21/iraq.poll/index.html
posted by pink_slip at 10:17 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
While 47% of registered voters said they are leaning toward voting for a Democrat for Congress this year, 45% said they are leaning toward a Republican. That two percentage point advantage for Democrats is down from a nine percentage point gap earlier this month. It is also the narrowest advantage for Democrats since USA TODAY and Gallup began asking that question about this fall's election in August 2005.
I try not to follow the "generic" poll. They're unreliable especially when you break it down by the fact that someone may be displeased with Republicans in general but may like their own Congressman. Well in the generic poll they are commenting on the overall status when in reality they can't vote for or against the other congressmen. But it is a good overall indicator as how each party is doing.
posted by MikeyA at 08:58 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
Actually McCaskey I don't feel we are doing enough in this world to promote freedom. I feel we should put more pressure on china to restrict them with free trade to get them to be more proactive with N. Korea.
As we learned in the Iraq war going to war is extremely costly when we don't do it with a large coalition but we need to file that into the "lessons learned" category and use it as leverage to show other countries we are not afraid to do what it takes. If anything we will now look more serious to Iran, N. Korea, Venezula... etc.
posted by MikeyA at 09:01 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
If anything we will now look more serious to Iran, N. Korea, Venezula... etc
I've seen the hit list too. When will it end? For every Iraq we invade, 2 or 3 others pop up (N Korean, Iran, etc). While we overstrech our budget and troops, China keeps on coming....
posted by pink_slip at 09:21 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
If anything we will now look more serious to Iran, N. Korea, Venezula... etc.
Question for you: Us and what army? I'd really like to know what the hell you think we're going to invade/occupy a third country with.
And the other side of the coin is that many other nations and their people think that Bush is frigging nuts and regard him as a threat.
MikeyA, we were led into Iraq on the premise that Saddam had WMDs and was making more or capable of making more. That was clearly not the case. Why is it so hard for you to question the leadership who got us into this mess? As a soldier, do you want to be sent on a mission with faulty intelligence? It's been alleged repeatedly that Bush and company cherry-picked the bits of intelligence they wanted and crafted a reason for war. Hell, the Downing Street Memo, which dates long before the war, indicates this.
Ask the questions:
1) Did Bush have faulty intelligence?
If what he got was faulty, then we MUST address that problem. That means Bush has to find the sack to say "oops, my bad, what I was told was wrong" and fix the intelligence. Otherwise, we're royally screwed, because clearly our intelligence apparatus can't find its collective ass without a map, flashlight, scale model, and remedial training.
2) Regardless of the state of intelligence, did Bush and company cherry-pick what they wanted? In other words, did they just select all the stuff that aided their case for war (remember the remote drones, mobile weapons labs, yellowcake purchases?) and ignore all the stuff that said it wasn't? Remember that stuff about yellowcake and forgeries and how it was all disproved? You can't just pick what you want to believe is true and ignore all the sources telling you it's not and go to war on that basis.
3) Since when does the USA go in and invade sovereign nations and "promote freedom"? We've tried this lots of times. Name me ONE case where it's worked. Nor has it worked by any other means other than to wait 'em all out. (See also the Cold War.) If we wanted to promote freedom, we had an unparalled opportunity back in Gulf War I. The thing is that Bush I wasn't anywhere near as stupid as his kid and knew that it wouldn't work.
Hey, if you want to promote freedom, we could invade Cuba. I mean, it worked well enough the first time, yes? How about we invade China? FREE TIBET! Yeah, there's the ticket! And the Chinese have all those human rights violations under their belts, not to mention massive censorship.
Besides, it's kinda ironic to promote freedom by invading and occupying a sovereign nation, don't you think? Anyone ask the Iraqis if they wanted United States style freedom?
Oh, and Bush didn't know there are two different sects of Islam:
Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites. Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!” -- http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html
Yeah. From the same guy who said nobody could have anticipated the breach of the levees comes "I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!". What sort of extremely sheltered life does Bush live that he does not even THINK about these sorts of things?!
posted by anonymouscoward at 09:54 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
Yeah. From the same guy who said nobody could have anticipated the breach of the levees...
Come on, that was debunked a long time ago. Bush was briefed, specifically, on what was predicted for New Orleans. All the predictions were that the levees would be "topped." That is, the water would spill over the top and flood the city. The Army Corps of Engineers believed the levees would hold and not be breached. Nobody understood how poor the construction had been nor how poor the maintenance over the years.
posted by YakRider at 10:56 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 22, 2006 #
pink you said When will it end? For every Iraq we invade, 2 or 3 others pop up (N Korean, Iran, etc). While we overstrech our budget and troops, China keeps on coming.... First, N. Korea and Iran didn't just pop up go to Google and type in either Korean War or 1979 Iran hostages and report back to me. Plus, I'm really not scared of China at all. I know people tout their population size but India will soon pass them in population. Plus Chinese families are only allowed 1 child and due to their culture there's a ton of pressure to have a son. Because of the rising abortion rates among families who are going to have a daughter the population is expected to balloon to 20 men to every 1 women by 2030. That means chances are the next generation after them will probably begin a considerable decrease in population after the "bubble bursts". Furthermore I believe they are becoming too dependent on the world economy to be a militant threat.
AC made some good points and posed the question Name me ONE case where it's worked. I'd answer with two Japan and Germany. The difference between them and Iraq is they were already Industrial countries whereas Iraq only has some Industrial cities the rest of the country is farmers, nomads, etc. Plus many Iraqis who 20 years ago farmed dates but were locked out of their fields by the government are now today finally returning to their traditional date farms.
But also he said we could invade Cuba. I mean, it worked well enough the first time, yes? actually it did we freed Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spanish Colonialism. But Cuba opted to invest in a government that was easily corrupted and fell back into dictatorship about half a century later.
posted by MikeyA at 12:09 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
AC made some good points and posed the question Name me ONE case where it's worked. I'd answer with two Japan and Germany.
We didn't invade Japan. We nuked 'em for attacking us.
We landed in Europe because Germany was messing with our allies. We shoved the Germans back into their own country.
This time around, Iraq neither attacked us nor attacked any of our allies.
Would you like to try some REAL examples of the USA invading a sovereign nation to promote freedom?
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:02 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
I was showing the USA's turning dictatorships into democracy's
posted by MikeyA at 05:03 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
HEY JR, WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR GROUND RULES?
What happened to this?
The following is taken from that page:
No more topics about politicians or political candidates will be allowed except in the case of Toledo's mayor. It's open season on Carty. (The change highlighted in bold was made June 7, 2006.) Discussing issues and levies will still be permitted, but topics focused on politicians will not be permitted. A politician mentioned in a topic is fine as long as the subject of the topic is something else.
Would someone like to argue that this thread is focused on some topic other than George Bush?
posted by AirTrainer at 09:18 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
If it's open season on leftists, communists, socialists, and Democrats, just let me know.
There's plenty of material with which to work.
posted by AirTrainer at 09:19 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
First, N. Korea and Iran didn't just pop up go to Google and type in either Korean War or 1979 Iran hostages and report back to me
Yeah, and when did these countries join the nuclear party?
posted by pink_slip at 09:34 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
If it's open season on leftists, communists, socialists, and Democrats, just let me know.
There's plenty of material with which to work.
posted by AirTrainer at 10:19 P.M. EDT on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
Two questions:
1. Do you believe in personal responsibility for one's actions?
2. What do you have against Democrats?
One Answer:
Don't let anything hold you back. Fire away when ready.
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 10:05 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
AirTrainer, my July 7, 2006 comment that you obviously missed:
"Lowering the political shields. Allowing this post and the next one to appear on the front page goes against current guidelines, but we'll test the waters."
Open season on Democrats, eh?
Article from the August 2006 issue of In These Times titled "Capital Crimes" that contained short stories of the following Republican party-related individuals:
* Jack Abramoff: "Captain Jack"
* Brent Wilkes: "The Earmarker"
* Bob Kjellander and Nicholas Hurtgen: "The Pension Pirates"
* Thomas Noe: "The Numismatist"
* James Tobin: "The Operator"
* Rene Vaszues Botet: "The Extortionist"
Relax, AirTrainer. The libs are having their fun right now thanks to Republicans shooting themselves in the foot. The Dems haven't won much election-wise at the national level in a while, so the Dems take their jollies anyway they can get them. The Dems are all a twitter at what might happen this November. But they had big plans too for 2000, 2002, and 2004, and they didn't materialize.
AirTrainer, what do you have on local Dems?
Speaking of local politics, it's funny, but not surprising, that Republican George Sarantou hasn't given up the money that Tom Noe gave him. Technically, Sarantou may be right that he doesn't have to return the money to the Ohio BWC because Noe hasn't been found guilty of anything. But from a PR standpoint when you're running for another office after just being re-elected to council, I'd say Sarantou is showing poor judgement by keeping the money.
posted by jr at 11:44 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 23, 2006 #
Yeah, and when did these countries join the nuclear party? Their nuclear programs have been going on for years as well. In 1995 N. Korea was testing the exact same missles it is now. We agreed to give them nuclear technology in agreement that they would stop. When asked how could we trust them Madaline Albright said she "Looked him(Kim Jong Il) in the eye."
They are products of failed foreign policy since the mid 70's.
posted by MikeyA at 06:17 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 24, 2006 #
More info on K. Korea's nukes
posted by pink_slip at 01:55 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 25, 2006 #
an NPR interview I heard some years ago about the levies in New Orleans. Prior to Katrina. Very interesting reading.
And the developing nuclear situation- it's a problem. Needs to be solved. Right away. Everybody can play the blame game later.
But I'm sure there's plenty for everybody to have a helping.
posted by katie82640 at 03:48 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 25, 2006 #
Here's some recent video to watch.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO_Jon_Stewart_dissects_Bushs_latest_0823.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/25/batiste-rumsfeld/
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 03:58 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 27, 2006 #
Bbcmjeep43 asked two questions. Here are two answers.
1. Absolutely.
2. The Democrats support abortion. This leads us back to your first question regarding personal responsibility.
Abortion-on-demand resets the stage for everyone that can be seen. It stops the beating heart of the one we cannot see, i.e., the baby.
The mother and the father of the child get to enjoy a life free of their choice to engage in sexual relations, but the child gets a death sentence.
Only the Democrats believe this process is just and right.
I don't, and I hold it against the Democrats.
By the way, citing lip-service quotations of select Democrats trying to attain or hold office in pro-life regions will gain you little in this discussion.
Is that sufficiently clear?
posted by AirTrainer at 07:51 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 27, 2006 #
Is that sufficiently clear?
What's clear is that this thread on WMD in Iraq is not about abortion. You like to talk about this subject. Please go start a new thread on this subject, and stop trying to divert attention from the pathetic Iraq War.
Only the Democrats believe this process is just and right.
It’s also a matter of the woman’s body being an object of the state, or belonging to
herself. Does the state control a woman’s right to choose? I don’t believe it should. That doesn’t mean abortion is a good thing.
That statement about “only the Democrats” is so stupid it is laughable.
I suppose no good Republican girl ever had an abortion either, did they?
I don't, and I hold it against the Democrats.
I don’t like it either. I’m not going to go vote for the Republicans because I have had it with their "Rove engineered" propaganda machine. The sheer hypocrisy of it boggles the mind.
What about hypocritical war-mongering chicken-hawks who start wars for corporate profit?
The Iraqi Civil War is going along at a 40,000 body a year clip right now. I suppose your hero Bush read the tea leaves, and determined the righteousness of that quagmire too!
Like I said. Personal responsibility. Just because matches are legal doesn’t mean you have to go start a forest fire!
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 08:34 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 27, 2006 #
One question for AirTroller: Are you one of the "no abortions at all" crowd?
posted by anonymouscoward at 11:19 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 27, 2006 #
Bbcmjeep43 wrote, "What's clear is that this thread on WMD in Iraq is not about abortion. ".
No, not really. If this thread were about WMDs in Iraq, someone (up to now) would have mentioned the stuff Hussein squirreled away which violated the terms of his agreements with the rest of the world. If you want details, I'll give them, but I imagine you're already in the loop.
Further, don't ask questions if you are unhappy with the answers you receive, ala ,"Don't let anything hold you back.,".
**********************************************
Bbcmjeep43 also wrote, " Please go start a new thread on this subject, and stop trying to divert attention from the pathetic Iraq War. ".
I say, "Stop diverting attention from the loss of life due to the failure to exercise PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!".
For what reason(s) do you label the war in Iraq 'pathetic'? Is it because it has George Bush as Commander in Chief? Is it because the distinction of supporters versus detractors is generally organized along party affiliation? I won't speak to these reasons if you answer 'yes'.
If the war is 'pathetic' because you detest the loss of life for causes which you determine to be unworthy, then we have something to discuss. According to figures from the CDC, 34,699,843 babies have been killed in our nation during the period 1973-2002. Let's write that out long-hand, so everyone can understand:
Thirty four million, six hundred ninety nine thousand, eight hundred forty three BABIES.
The infancticide holocaust crested in 1990, with 1,429,577 children lost. We are fortunate that the statistics indicate a decline.
How do some people consistently decry the loss of life in Iraq as being the result of an unworthy war, while simultaneously and proudly supporting the murder of 854,122 babies still in the womb during 2002? How does that equation work?
Are the abortions able to be ignored because the WOMAN has the right to control her own BODY?
Okay.
Who has the right to control the BABY's body? Everyone wants to cry about
not being heard,
about being unrepresented in society,
about being MARGINALIZED!
You're breakin' my heart.
Try being a baby slated for execution at the local abortion mill.
Get off the couch, or away from the computer, or off the crack pipe, and do something about your state in life. YOU'RE ALIVE! LIVE YOUR LIFE! BE PREPARED TO WORK!
Personal responsibility?
**********************************************
Exactly when was the baby's voice heard?
Why is it that an expecting mother has the power to exterminate the separate and distinct life within her? Is that life not sufficiently distinct? When did we stop recognizing that when the sperm permeates the boundary of the egg, the resulting cellular body is no longer egg, and it is no longer sperm. It is new and different, and the change is immediate.
Why is it that the shirking of personal responsibility FOR THE SAKE OF SEX is so very acceptable?
Don't get me wrong, Darfur is bad, and a rate of 40,000 dead per annum in Iraq is bad, but neither one compares to the SLAUGHTER occurring in THIS NATION every year.
**********************************************
Here are a couple of unpopular thoughts: How many woman weren't raped because Udai and Qusai Hussein weren't around to rape them? How many people still have all of their hands, feet, and limbs because Saddam's version of justice wasn't present to take them? It's an 'unstatistic', but certainly meaningful if you're an Iraqi.
**********************************************
Bbcmjeep43 wrote, "Just because matches are legal doesn’t mean you have to go start a forest fire! ".
Just because abortion is (presently) legal doesn't mean you have to kill your child!
**********************************************
Finally, don't go away thinking that I am a Republican in the wool. I am for whatever candidate genuinely detests abortion.
Everything else is static.
posted by AirTrainer at 07:31 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Not to be rude or anything, but how many unwanted children have you adopted? For someone so serious, I would safely assume that you would put your money where your mouth is. If I held such strong beliefs, the best way to show the world you care is to create a strong demand for unwanted babies. When there are so many more adopters, than babies, then abortion could be outlawed. Just how many babies have you saved personally? Or is that someone else's job?
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 07:45 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Let's see now.
AirTroller, is abortion murder?
If yes, then is it any different from any other form of murder?
posted by anonymouscoward at 08:05 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
I write ~630 words about abortion in a blog with 993 members and I get:
...how many unwanted children have you adopted?
...is abortion murder?
??????
Does anyone else want to diminish the loss of life measured in tens of millions?
Does anyone else want to turn their head away and ignore the reality of killing the most defenseless and precious creation of mankind?
Evil flourishes when good men AND women are silent.
posted by AirTrainer at 07:40 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
AirTrainer,
It's called a question. You could answer each question with a simple yes or no. You yourself diminish honest debate by your refusal to answer simple questions. Thereby not participating in the debate. Making the debate no more than a one sided rant to drive home your point. That's fine. I'll answer for you. Here's the question. Just how many babies have you saved personally? Here's your answer. No. I have never adopted a child. There, see how easy that was? Tell me if I'm right or not? Do I have to ask the questions and provide the answers too?
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 08:01 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
Well well well, more BS from AirTroller. "Abortion is MURDER!" So then why are you merely anti-abortion and not ANTI-MURDER? If you are anti-murder, then why aren't you, oh, let's say advocating the invasion of Darfur? Why aren't you giving a dollar a day to feed starving kids all over the globe? You're probably also anti-stem-cell-research, so tell me why you like murdering thousands of people who could otherwise live with treatments and cures derived from stem cells. Given anything to HIV/AIDS research? No? Thanks for murdering all the people with HIV/AIDS. Given anything for cancer research? Thanks for murdering people with cancer. Hey, I know, you pay taxes that go towards the war in Iraq, where our bombs and our mere presence have murdered or caused the murders of thousands. And if you want to argue that's not true, I suppose you can talk with the ghosts of lots of Vietnamese over how they felt about being killed by US troops.
posted by anonymouscoward at 08:06 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
Bbcmjeep43:
You diminish honest debate by submitting questions directed toward an individual's situation.
How does the tragedy of abortion become more or less important by my (individual) response to a question regarding the adoption of children?
Is my point of view about abortion only valid if I have adopted children?
Is the Jewish holocaust only relevent if one has lost a family member?
Your question about my individual situation is irrelevent in the context of
Thirty four million, six hundred ninety nine thousand, eight hundred forty three BABIES lost to abortion.
**********************************************
coward:
You are just as irrelevent as Bbcmjeep43's questions.
Actually, you are less relevent.
posted by AirTrainer at 07:40 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 06, 2006 #
Is no one here willing to say that abortion is wrong?
posted by AirTrainer at 09:39 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 06, 2006 #
So, AirTrainer, how about we jail couples who do artificial insemination / in vitro fertilization for murder?
posted by anonymouscoward at 11:52 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 06, 2006 #
Is the Jewish holocaust only relevent if one has lost a family member?
Do you think abortion is similar to the Holocaust? I hardly think genocide is comparable to a procedure that is LEGAL.
If abortion is murder, then I'm sure you'd want the guilty parties tried by law, correct? So what of miscarriage? Is this considered accidental homicide to you? Would mothers who miscarry be tried in your court?
posted by pink_slip at 08:48 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 07, 2006 #
Is no one here willing to say that abortion is wrong?
bbcmjeep43 already answered that when he said
That doesn’t mean abortion is a good thing.
Only the Democrats believe this process is just and right. I don't, and I hold it against the Democrats
No one thinks abortion is just and right, and if you can name one person who says so then by all means name them and quote them. the democrats simply feel that its a womans body and its her right to do with her body as she so chooses regardless of right or wrong.
Abortion is wrong, BUT, i don't want ANYONE telling me what to do with my body. Personally i wouldn't have an abortion, thats why i choose birth control. but its MY choice not the governments.
posted by tm at 10:07 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 07, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
