Politics and Religion

Feeling's mutual.
zinaval 7 Reviews 1908 reads
posted


Paragraph 1: France's immigration policy is something totally different then their retreat from Algeria and Vietnam.  Neither of which, BTW, were stabilized when they left.

Paragraph 2: You go back two hundred years, and Europeans had been fighting each other since Biblical times.  Guess what?  The Europeans (generally) stopped continually fighting. What makes you think the middle easterners are really different from other human beings in level of aggression?

Paragraph 2, 2nd half: There a such thing as criminal idiocy.  Bush should not be left off the hook for what he's done with the "Nuremberg defense ("I was only following Mr. Cheney's orders").  If he got in over his idiot head, it's because he wanted power.  He followed enough morally reprehensible instructions to get it and keep it.  There's a time in government malpractice when you just have to say "If he's innocent, he should be shot!"

Your theory about what brought about peace in Ireland . . . isn't as self-apparent as you seem to think it is with your one word exposition.  Don't miss cuing the straw men for more baiting and raging about Europeans even using ad hominum puns as arguments. Do you expect me to answer by saying "oh, the Europeans aren't that bad" just to be baited into being insulted?    

Finally, here's your plan for winning in Iraq instead of bringing the troops home: find alternative energy sources, clamp down on the borders, replace our terrible education system, Good!  Put decent candidates in office, too. I like them, these are very good things.

But . . . what about Iraq?  Are you proposing victory by covert mission-creep?  Or out-flanking the insurgency via a rapid change of subjects?

SmellTest1740 reads

Your point is lost by the photos you present. This girl and the others in the various pictures were blown up by 4 terrorist suicide bombings. That is what terrorists do- they kill the innocent discriminately. Some things ARE worth fighting for and against.

DON'T ask exactly how this is going to work, if the cure is going to be any better than the disease, or how many kids will be killed to prevent other kids from being killed.   Don't be doing any unauthorized thinking.

Silent Majority2721 reads

Didn't we kill a whole lot of people and a whole lot of us got killed so we could stop things like the holocaust?  Didn't we kill a whole lot of people after 1,900 were killed at Pearl Harbor?

According to you and your "logic" none of it is really worth it.

your logic is that if one war is justified, every other one is, too.  

So your logic is that you should go pick a fight, any fight will do.  And why don't you do the fighting yourself, for a change?  

I thought I said, don't try to use your head.   Because you're so bad at it.  Check your pulse.  Your brain isn't getting enough oxygen.

-- Modified on 8/16/2007 12:52:21 PM

Silent Majority3070 reads

I'm applying your "logic".  It doesn't work very well, does it?  If you apply your "logic" no war is ever truly justified or worth it.

You shouldn't tax yourself by thinking so much. Don't you have a government check to cash or something?

Your logic is that if one war is good, ten are better.  

What are you, a fucking defense contractor?!   You're certainly not anybody with personal experience.

harryj2761 reads

I am attempted to suggest that you have a pumpkin for a brain but then I would be stooping to your style of communication. Argument by insult, which you seem to enjoy, is a typical pseudo-liberal tactic, but it is unfortunate. I know you can do better JackO.

STFU before you lose your ass completely.

when he thinking and/or dumping, which in his case are in-fucking-distinguishable.

perhaps you don't read that well, or maybe you're unable to understand anything except extremes - if a light is not on, it must be off - disregarding the possibility that not everything in the world is a fucking lightbulb.

FOR THE REPUBLICANS in the crowd, a photo of a dead child does not prove (1) the motive or identity of the killer, (2) whether a particular war is smart, counter-productive, or anything else.  (3) It doesn't prove that we won't get our asses waxed because we stupidly elected a stupid president.   Fighting and getting beaten because you were FUCKING STUPID may be heroic to you, but it doesn't do anybody else any good, and somehow I notice you fellows always arrange to be in the stands, cheering for OTHER people to be doing teh fighting.

IF YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN, don't try to think about these things.  If you were any good at thinking, you wouldn't be a Republican.

Just bring those probems to me, and I'll solve them for you.   DON'T TRY THINKING AT HOME!!  You'll step on your dick AGAIN for sure.


SmellTest2839 reads

At least in this case. The photo scriptfixer references in the original post is accompanied by 6 others and an article explaining the identity of the killers-- 4 suicide terrorist bombings. So your point is off point-- but that seems to be typical as I read through your posts.

Your indignation over the genesis of this war at this point is water under the bridge. Let's say for the sake of discussion that we should not have gone in. Let's concede that the whole thing was payback for Saddam trying to assassinate GB's old man. No WMD, NO terrorist threat, No mass murders committed against the Kurds-- life was heaven on earth pre-invasion. Ok, we're back to the Powell doctrine of "you break it, you own it."

We now own this problem and most responsible people recognize that. How would you propose to fix it? And btw, I'm not a republican, I am a realist. And we are really there-- that's a fact. Your whining about what should have or might have been is just a hound howling at the moon at this point. So please take your foot off my dick and offer us something constructive-- us non-thinking, mindless un-jacko types need some edumacation. Please, enlighten us.

the Republicans are the 1st ones to argue the need for consequences to those who fuck up.  Given the massivity (sic) of this fuckup, I think that some prison time is a good start.

Seriously, I think that it's hard to argue that this was not foreseen.

What we own is not the problem, but our foreign policy.   AFAICS, the solution is the one that should have been done in 2003, ie, (1) decide WTF our priorities are and stick with them.  IOW, this has been a disastrous distraction from getting OSama. (2) a regional negotiation backed up by US force.  Talk 1st, shoot later.    

GET THE TROOPS OUT OF THE KILL ZONE UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHY WE WANT THEM THERE.  Sheesh.  I'd say pass Ann COulter around to support the troops, sure there's got to be some of them horny enough to wear her out, but my sense is that's just insulting.

Govt actions over the past decades have shown that (a) we are more interdependent because of technology, and yet (b) people are as big assholes as ever, and when the Jesus Assholes march down to vote their favorite idiot into office, this is what we get.

IMHO, time has come for serious limitation of sovereign immunity.   Need more accountaibility in govt.

It's not that we owe the Iraqis anything.  It's that we are stuck with our foreign policy.

THANK YOU GW "MORON" BUSH.  THANK YOU RNC.  THANK YOU PRICK CHEENY, DICKHEAD ROVE, PAT ROBERTSON, JERRY FALWELL (roast in hell, bitch) AND ALL THE REST OF YOU GOP DUMBFUCKS.  THANKS FOR FUCKING UP OUR COUNTRY.

Yeah, we're stuck with it.  I'm not always vindictive, but this is a case that we need to make some examples.  We've hanged more than a few Iraqis, maybe it's something we should consider here.   Start with some congressional investigations.   If it points right back at our own ignorant asses, so be it, it's what we need to know.

SmellTest1886 reads

Your response sounds like someone entrenched in the (b) category described on your text...

And reading through your many posts, you may not be "always vindictive" but certainly are more often than not...How's that working out for you? I hope it at least makes YOU FEEL better--

Naw, we don't owe the Iraqis anything-- We didn't owe the Germans anything either, but after we bombed the shit out of their country and got rid of Hitler- we did the right thing with the Marshall plan. Same thing in Japan--

You boys in Vietnam got run out of town so we did not finish the job we started. I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the way we exited that conflict was anything but a disgrace. We left millions to be slaughtered...We own the Iraqi problem because like it or not we invaded that country. There are always people who do not own up to their responsibilities- it's sad to think you may be among them. We created this situation, we have a moral obligation to see it through.

about the moral ones, OK?

If you want to start talking about morality, you might try comparing the number of deaths under Saddam, to those under GW.   Don't look so good anymore, eh?  You gotta figure I'm old enough that labels don't impress me.   If you want to do something, you gotta figure out how its going to work, 1st.

McNamara never did that, and we learned.  GW's boys know goddamned well what's going on - Cheney is on tape saying he realized Iraq would be a quagmire.

So why would they do it?  Pretty simple - to deflect criticism of handling 9/11, while feeding their constituencies in several ways - feeding the defense contractors and the chest-beating crowd.  The GOP pitch is essentially that we should panic and lash out.   I've just never seen that work as well in any fight as keeping your head.

SmellTest2539 reads

Excellent choice of words-- not sure you intended them but the irony is not lost...

I'm sorry, you now equate GW sending troops into harm's way and the resulting deaths with that of a dictator who gases his populace, bury's whole towns when they dissent, etc,etc...Nice try but no sale.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's say that GW is worse-- doesn't change the fact that we invaded a nation and need to take responsibility for our actions. Agree or disagree, GW represents the US to the world and this war is now our nation's war. Perhaps you can separate yourself mentally from this concept because of your "vindictive" disdain for our President. I've read all your diatribes about accountability-- so how can we as a nation NOT be accountable if we fail? No more Vietnam's-- finish the job. It's the right thing to do- the MORAL thing to do.

-- Modified on 8/18/2007 7:14:23 AM

-- Modified on 8/18/2007 7:15:54 AM

obligations, and not pass them off on others.  The only moral thing for me to do is refuse to accept responsibility for your fuck-ups.

I'm doing you a favor.  If I go bailing you out of every goddamn thing you fuck up, you'll never learn to pick up after yourself.  

So suck it up and do the right thing, and stop crying about how anybody else is responsible for this.  You fucked it up, you fix it up.

-- Modified on 8/18/2007 9:29:53 AM

SmellTest2344 reads

You say "suck it up and do the right thing--- You fucked it up, you fix it"... I couldn't agree more. Of course,the "you" is the US and yes, we do need to fix this....


YOUR idea, YOUR problem, YOUR responsibility.  YOU did it AGAINST MY advice, by fraud and deceit on the American people.

There's no WE here, pal - some of you were merely reckless in fucking up my country, but some of you are certainly wilful.

Starting a war so that you can provide aid & comfort to an enemy sure looks like treason to me.

SmellTest2106 reads

There is no YOU when it comes to the Congress authorizing the actions of a President. The Congress represents the people. The PEOPLE spoke through their elected representatives. That's how it works. Maybe we should investigate YOU since your Congress voted for this war.

Probably is irrelevant to you that the removal of Hussein became the official policy of the US under Clinton.

The remedy is to vote them out of office.

Aid and comfort to the enemy??? Huh?? Did you smoke a little too much junk in Vietnam...

avoid responsibility.

What are you trying to do, create a welfare state?  Is THAT your idea of morality??!!

your recklessness has consequences.   None of this "ghosts of KIAs past" shit, you folks need to learn, and that takes real, live consequences.

Investigations first.   Looks to me like prison terms for most Republicans above county level, and restitution on all their lobbying fees, defense contract BS, that basically puts their fraud transferees down to the welfare level.   I'm not anxious to hang anybody, but I'd really like to know WTF Dick Cheney was thinking about sending people into a quagmire to be killed for defense contracts.   I think the Chinese may be onto something about shortening the lives of those caught violating the public trust.

We need competence hearings for anybody that voted Republican.  We can let you have the presumption of sanity in 2000, but there's an obvious presumption of insanity any later time. Anybody that can't establish sanity will have to be rehabilitated, and can't be trusted with anything as important as say the keys to their car.   Who can say if any of you can ever be trusted with a legally binding decision?  It obviously depends on your recognition and repentance for your massive stupidity, complete with restitution.

We told you so, and Dick Cheney told you so, and you just had to go blow way, what, about 10, 15,000 American lives & limbs, and god knows how many towelheads  -  ?    Can you think of a reason that should not be dealt with as a crime against the American people?   And why exactly should you not answer to the families of the people you have so recklessly wasted??

vindictive.   They're just learning the Republican playbook.  

Shee-it, you cain't BE Republican lessn you're like Ann Coulter, sayin to execute your opposition for 'physical intimidation' like she would have a clue about THAT.

Uhhh, let's YOU jump in and save the world before you figure out how it's gonna work.

If YOU got a big enough hemorrhoid, that's a REALLY GOOD reason for somebody else to do the bleeding.

Uhhhh is about right.  It's about time you squeezed that one off.

where old men, send young men off to die.

Who are we all kidding.  War is ugly.  Modern communications - starting with VietNam - have made it possible to have battlefield coverage, unedited and relatively non-censored, in real time - everyday all day long.  We are immersed in the war, but not the war effort.  

That is dissimilar to WWII where we were told what it was that the war was about - actually there the purpose and reasons were kept somewhat low key.  That is unlike Viet Nam and this war.  Johnson, when he escalated Nam, tried to pass off the domino theory... well, it didn't really work too well.  And lets face it, this Prez's excuse to go to war was worse than the domino theory... lots worse in retrospect.

So, gents, one pic makes absolutely no point - but can cost a great deal.  

Finally, is war necessary?  yes it is, for while good people do nothing evil thrives.  But to go under false pretenses?  That makes us no better than those we embattle.  As I say, we are immersed in the war, but not the war effort - to reverse that - would mean that the admin would have to come clean with what is intended by initiating this particular war.  And clearly either GWB does not know what is intended (in which case he is a moron) or worse, it is far more sinister than we all suspect.

I am tired of the BS that by fighting them over there, we are keeping them from coming here....  (the latest excuse for this war and not unsimilar to the mantra of VietNam - by fighting them there, we will not have to fight them in California...)  What with our borders literally wide open.  yea, way to go Bush.


http://www.bartcop.com/vietnam_napalm_girl.jpg

-- Modified on 8/16/2007 8:09:31 PM

-- Modified on 8/16/2007 8:10:17 PM

-- Modified on 8/16/2007 8:16:00 PM

He ended up in NC owning and running a Vietnamese restaurant.

The guy he executed had murdered a whole family 6 hours earlier. A mother and her kids (at least 2 kids).  I've seen the whole clip at least 5 times. After the guy is shot and on the ground, blood squirts out of his head at least two feet.

Also, that was during the tet offensive in 68.


Not only was that chief of police, but the children were his God children.  In all truth though, they found that guy in the area and they told him the guy was VC.  The chief wasn't sane after that moment.  

People not knowing that background would have thought that type of execution was SV government policy.

Any war.  Mistakes get made... Just ask Pat Tillman's widow.  However, pictures such as these turn public opinion - why? because in this country, most have not been in a war or a combat situation.  When they see a photo such as these, they cannot comprehend the fear and confusion- the frustration if the enemy is dressed exactly like the innocent civilian... and kids are used to kill american GIs... and then our citizenry does what?  Call for defeating the enemy - remembering why we went to war to begin with...?  or (if you go back to my post) we discover the "real" reason for the war... Nope -that is not what we do.  We say, hey, lets just stop.  Lets just quit- no matter the consequences.

so in many respects, this country is dying the death of a thousand cuts... why?  because we keep either being drawn into wars like these, or worse, we drag ourseleves into them.... and then don't have the fortitude to do what would be necessary to win.

I'd say it is only a matter of time....


Without dying the death of a thousand cuts.  And it took a national hero on the order of Charles de Gaul to give up on Algeria.  

What would victory in Iraq look like?  What I think most people here would say is if Iraqis would stop killing each other.  Unfortunately, even if we have an army there, it's out of our hands.  

Otherwise, winning would involve massively destroying the population. The Russian approach to Chechnya is a good example.  Don't try to be nice or lawful, just kill anybody who might be a terrorist.  We could do that.  In the past, that's really how wars were conducted.  

IMO, if pulling out of there is bad, that's worse.

But, there's a middle ground.  We keep soldiers in there till Iraqis stop fighting each other.  We  then feel ashamed neither of pulling out nor of total victory. Unfortunately, I think it's going to be the democrats policy too.  

So, because we can't choose between dishonors, Iraq is just going to fester.  I don't see us getting out for 20 years, and I think we're probably going to have 20-30 thousand killed and about 150 thousand wounded by the end.  Iraq can count on losing 2-3 million people. And that's if it doesn't break out into a regional conflict.

I hope George Bush and Gang go on trial before that.  

I frankly think we should set a time-table and get out. Because as long as we're there, the Sunnis don't have to negotiate with the Shia.

First, France has already died - just no one noticed - they do not now control their own country - the Muslim population now controls....  revisit the recent riots.

Second - the folks in Iraq have been fighting each other (with what amounts to tribal warfare) since bibical times... you honestly think that WE (the US) can stop it?  won't happen in 2 months, 2 years, or 200 years.  We should have never gone in there unless we were willing to run the country - period.  GW is an idiot - not a criminal (perhaps you need to rethink your penultimate paragraph).  The one person GW did not consult before this ill-advised misadventure was his dad - you know, the last president to invade Iraq.  His dad did not take Saddam out, because, no matter how bad that dude is, he was the glue that held that country together.  

The stuff we had in place - worked - Saddam was "boxed in."  OK, so the You're-a-peeings were violating the sanctions - and the UN crowd accepted bribes from Saddam, Saddam for all his bluster - was just that, bluster.

and keeping soldiers there till the iraquis stop fighting each other?  Then you have doomed my kid's grandkids to this... and their grandkids...

you fail to understand the mentality.  Let me ask you this, what stopped the bloodshed in Ireland?  the answer is simple - pussy.  Unfortunatly with the Muslim attitude toward women - that won't work.  and unless you've some brillliant plan as to how to stop blind and irrational hatred, then I am afraid that we will suffer the 1000 cuts.  

Bear in mind - keeping  a force there also means that other fronts that might arrise will not be met with an appropriate response.  We are short on military right now.  AND we keep fighting as if we were in WWII.... it is simply not working.

What to do?!  BSD's solution - put an incredible effort into alternative energy research.  Build an infrastrucure that dramatically decreases our dependance on petroleum based fuels.  (to hell with the idiots who do not wish to have windmills off and on shore... or geothermal, or anyother energy source! we need independence from others holding us hostage)  

Second, establish our borders - Make it such that we know who comes into this country - and why they come.

Third - FIX the looney tunes educational system - it is badly in need of repair.

Fourth - put decent political candidates up for office who will defend the country first - rather than their on interests.

And the list goes on.... but to keep our soldiers there - when to win the war would be unacceptable because of what we would have to do in order to win?  sheese - you remember Nam -- right?!  What a waste.


Paragraph 1: France's immigration policy is something totally different then their retreat from Algeria and Vietnam.  Neither of which, BTW, were stabilized when they left.

Paragraph 2: You go back two hundred years, and Europeans had been fighting each other since Biblical times.  Guess what?  The Europeans (generally) stopped continually fighting. What makes you think the middle easterners are really different from other human beings in level of aggression?

Paragraph 2, 2nd half: There a such thing as criminal idiocy.  Bush should not be left off the hook for what he's done with the "Nuremberg defense ("I was only following Mr. Cheney's orders").  If he got in over his idiot head, it's because he wanted power.  He followed enough morally reprehensible instructions to get it and keep it.  There's a time in government malpractice when you just have to say "If he's innocent, he should be shot!"

Your theory about what brought about peace in Ireland . . . isn't as self-apparent as you seem to think it is with your one word exposition.  Don't miss cuing the straw men for more baiting and raging about Europeans even using ad hominum puns as arguments. Do you expect me to answer by saying "oh, the Europeans aren't that bad" just to be baited into being insulted?    

Finally, here's your plan for winning in Iraq instead of bringing the troops home: find alternative energy sources, clamp down on the borders, replace our terrible education system, Good!  Put decent candidates in office, too. I like them, these are very good things.

But . . . what about Iraq?  Are you proposing victory by covert mission-creep?  Or out-flanking the insurgency via a rapid change of subjects?

you know, when the you're-a-peeings did the global land grab thing.  So the current troubles are directly related to their withdrawal from other regions.

Second.  I do not exonerate the you're-a-peeings... Rather I blame them and their historical role in carving up the world (revisit why the geopolitical borders in the mideast are somewhat straight lines... You're-a-peeing meddling...)  for many of the ills in various parts of the world - not that they needed help screwing up!

And you really think that the you're-a-peeings stopped fighing?  Sheese - half the last century was filled with european wars... to say nothing of the economic struggle called the "cold war"!  you been hiding under a rock or something?

Ireland ?  again, this was well publicized at the time... link below.  The "Women of Ireland" demanded that the fighting stop - plain and simple.  Again, Z - read.... do some work...  quit just spouting the pablum.  

Wrt bush and criminal idiocy - for the most part, bush has acted within the law.  Innocent until proven guilty - member?  and congress just keeps on a supportin the guy... member "Nancy & Harry" were to stop him... well?  did they?  So if your gonna idict bush - ya gotta include the accomplices.....

Iraq?  let the UN handle it... member?  they're the "good guys" - or better, The You're-a-Peeings!  since they fucked it up in the first place.



are as much as anything to feel out (or up) other countries so that you don't have to do the same thing with a recon patrol.

Negotiations don't replace the guarantors, ie the military force.  What they do is direct it.

It's like anything else - you walk into a dealership, you better get all your negotiating done up front.  After you drive off the showroom floor and into a telephone pole, your leverage is seriously reduced.   Only GWB would not be able to grasp that concept.

We should have pushed negotiations along, as a means of understanding exactly where the locals were coming from on the issues, so that we can use our force most intelligently.

But WTF am I doing talking about a Republican administration pursuing the national interest intelligently?  All their brains are focused on their own self-interest.   Even their own voters are expendable to them.


RightwingUnderground2549 reads

From what I've read, the lack of negotitions is generally due to the Shia. Yes the Sunni's walked out of the governmen, but it started with the majority Shia not including the Sunni in things like oil revenue sharing.

that these fuckers would act any differently than anybody else?  

Is it somehow not predictable that a majority religious cult would not want to fuck the minority religious cults?

Dick Cheney figured it out 10 years before he did it.   But as he explained, 9/11 was such a massive fuckup, that they had to find some way to scare the shit out of everybody, and entertain them killing ragheads, or they'd lose their last chance to rob the US Treasury.

RightwingUnderground2410 reads

Why ae you compelled to pick a fight at every turn?...although since your return you have been somewhat better behaved.

Just to be clear, in my post it is quite apparrent that I was "expecting" nothing. I was simply trying to bring as much truth to the story as possible. I really don't know which side is MORE to blame, but neither is without fault.

Also, in the bigger picture (beyond Iraq and world wide), the Shia are the ones very much in the minority. So it more of a case of the the guys (Shia) that have been kicked around for decades (by Sadaam) getting a some payback.

Is it somehow not predictable that a Pally will try to kill a Jew at every opportunity, yet how many people have been lost and how much energy has been spent attempting to "fix" that problem?

OK, I'll now return to ignoring you.

-- Modified on 8/19/2007 3:10:27 PM

as soon as the 1st round goes downrange, all bets are off.

but I never had a problem with it.   What people have to understand when they start cheering for war is that sort of stuff happens in EVERY war, and that's what you're letting loose when you go to war.

I have no problem with it.  My problem is that we should FUCKING THINK before we go, and especially think about how we're gonna make it work, and if it's worthwhile.

Somehow it seems it's always the fucking cheerleaders that are so anxious.

http://www.infowars.com/images2/Bush/cheerleader.jpg

wide open borders notwithstanding.

I would be much more concerned about shit coming thru the ports of entry - either smuggled or thru some sort of legal con job - than about them trying to come overland.

There are rumors of terrs hooking up with the drug cartels, and that is certainly a worry.   None of which changes my expectation that they're STILL more likely to come thru the POE than cross-country.

And that's even before you get to the question of who is doing us more damage, Osama bin Laden or Dick Cheney?

Register Now!