In case you've forgotten.

Think like Puck or you have no soul.

phffff....

Besides, what I think he's saying is if you still support this lying, manipulative, incompetent, careless, destructive, criminal, neocon regime in power then you have no soul (or no conscience).

Either that or you just can't admit you were wrong.

-- Modified on 9/24/2005 10:58:02 PM

a poet never freed anyone, that is what a soldier does...

For a poet, such an opportunity is priceless, being showcased before such an audience. To forego that because of principle is remarkable - and obviously, totally incomprehensible to a Republican. They'd sell their souls if the glut on the market didn't make them so cheap.

To live in the dark, without running water, with no infrastructure, free to be killed by our troops because they are in fear of their own lives, to be killed by the insurgents, to die or live in misery in so many ways.
Aren't they lucky! We give them freedom, whether they want it or not!

So, Do you think they were better off under Saddam? What they need, is not for us to cut and run, ala Vietnam. What they need, is for us to finish what we started, regardless of why we started it.

The reasons that we are in Iraq are numerous but irrelevant. The facts are, we are there and to leave now would be disastrous. You lefties are so fucking stupid sometimes, you have an opportunity to take back the country, but all you can come up with is the same tired mantra "Bush lied, Bush lied"  Why don't you try coming up with some real ideas that don't involve socialism or America bashing.

Believe it or not, there are millions of people in this country that don't wnat to live under the yoke of the fundalmentalist christians, but many of us voted for Bush in spite of our reservations. I am not a Bush fan, but given the choice between Bush, and either Kerry or Gore I'd hold my nose and vote for him again.

As I said before, the Dems have the golden oppotunity to take back the country, but we all know they're going to fuck it up again. they'll end up nominating someone like Dean or Hillary and the right will continue to win elections. So when the Supreme court is comprised of nothing but christian conservatives, Roe vs Wade and Miranda are overturned, and civil liberties are a thing of the past, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

Better off under Saddam? At least under that regime people could figure out how to act in order to stay alive. There were rules.
Nobody says Saddam was better, that's the tired straw man you guys pull out in the face of any criticism you can't answer. Along with the fact that the reasons we're there are so numerous. They're numerouos because they're all lies - and they come up with a new one every time the old one is exposed.
We're there for oil. The Bush crowd is so arrogant and stupid they thought they could get it - and now they just can't figure out how to let go of that damn tar baby.
The Iraqi 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' are Iraqis - and some of them might be called patriots. Sure, we've fucked things up so badly over there that anyone with a hardon for the US is welcome to come in and kill as many of us as they can - but the core of them are people who love Iraq - and Islam - and they have a problem with anybody else, us included, coming in and telling them how to live, how to govern, how to think, how to pray, etc.
200+ years ago we decided we wanted to govern ourselves. The British, who were running things then, had a viable system of government that had worked well for a long time, even formed the basis for modern western law - but we didn't want it. We wanted to make up our own minds. And so we fought back, with no uniforms to identify us, hiding behind rocks and trees and shooting and stabbing and blowing up as many of them as we could until they gave up and went away.
Now we're friends. Their system of government has evolved, improved, and is even better, but if they came here with guns and told us we had to adopt their system, we'd fight back, hiding behind rocks and trees and shooting and stabbing and blowing up as many of them as we could until they gave up and went away.
We need to get out, and let them decide who they want to be. We need to dismantle the bases we've built on their sovereign soil, pull out all the troops and go home, where we belong. We aren't the good guys here, and it's too late to become the good guys.
Our leaders fucked the dog beyond belief, and it will take decades to build any kind of trust with the rest of the world, if we ever can.

-- Modified on 9/25/2005 8:56:26 PM

So you believe Saddam was ok because you could figure out how to survive under him???

The same thing could be said for Hitler, Stalin and many other dictators. But based on your own words, these guys were ok....

"We're there for oil"... Are you still beating that dead horse!?!?! No one f**king believes that but the looney left. Two points to make 1)take a look at the price at the pump and 2)if we really wanted something from the middle east, we would take it. It is our own set of morals that do not let us do that.

You also make it sound like they are attacking us because we dared invade Iraq. Bush nailed your number shortly after 9/11 when he talked about people who had short memories.

Well, we weren't in Iraq and 9/11, and still got attacked, so I guess that pretty much shows your theory sucks...

Democrats would only win if they acted like Republicans. Honestly, read your post again. You are saying that you would rather live under a theocratic regime with no civil liberties than have Kerry or Gore as president. What exactly was so bad about life under Clinton that you would rather have been in Iran?

Let's see. Bush has failed in foriegn policy, domestic policy, the budget and running an efficient government. The only thing you seem to support is the fact that Bush would stay the course in a war that he should not have started in the first place. I have to tell you that that really would not be an effective bumber sticker.

Your logic as stated is right on. The current state of emergency down South seems to overshadowing the Iraqi affairs on the headline news. Which should cause more caring citizens and media to ask more questions from our leaders how to handle these expensive problems. Hope sometime in the future we can show the world how democracy works in this country, instead the Bush Adminstration way in Iraq now.

-- Modified on 9/26/2005 1:10:13 AM

That's the lamest argument - just because I think the Iraqis are worse off now does not mean I think Saddam was OK. Being up to your neck in boiling oil doesn't mean having been up to your chest in the same was wonderful.
Yes, we're there for oil - and what makes you think BushCo went there so YOU could have cheap gas? Take a look at oil company profits over the last 3 years - they didn't do it for you, they did it for them. You can't be so dim as to believe that voting for these criminals was supposed to benefit you.
Yes, they are attacking us because we dared invade a Muslim country. They see us as infidels, threatening their way of life. There was never any connection between the 9/11 attack and Iraq - the connection is between our reaction to the 9/11 attack and Iraq. Your memory isn't so good, it would seem.
It's not our own set of morals that keeps us from taking Iraqi oil, it's the rest of the Islamic states and how they would react, coupled with the fact that the insurgents won't let the oil production come on line. We can't even keep the road to the airport safe - how do you think we're going to get oil out of the country?
Please, get over the fact that you picked the wrong side - let your ego investment go and try to think like a rational human being.

-- Modified on 9/26/2005 7:28:44 AM

I agree that we are in Iraq to a large extent because of oil, and rightly so. The flow of oil to the world is not only an American security issue, it is a world wide economic issue, of which we are a part.

Your position that oil companies profits are related to our occupation of Iraq is specious at best. The oil companies profits are directly linked to the price of their product which is driven by world wide demand. If you hadn't noticed the demand for oil is at an all time high, over 80 million barrells per day. UIf you want to blame some one, blame the Chinese or the Indians, it's their expanding economies that are driving the price of commodities.

when you take one of the largest reserves of oil offline? Also, please explain how world wide demand results in massive profits to oil companies? If their crude supplies are more expensive, why does that mean that their profits are higher?
Put down the cool-aid, start thinking for yourself. Who has benefitted from our invasion of Iraq? Follow the money.

No, you need to read my post again.  I have nothing against Clinton, (Bill not Hillary) I doubt anything would have been much different under Dole. If the dems would nominate someone like him not only would they win back the white house, but I would probably vote for him too.

Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen. The dems have sold out to the far left, just like the reps have sold out to the far right.My worst fear is that the dems nominate Hillary and the reps nominate Delay, Then we're all fucked. Given a choice between socialism and theocracy is like asking if you want your arms cut off or your legs.

Your argument about an effective bumper sticker has already been proven wrong. We had that election in 2004, I rest my case.

Let me try to explain this to you. The major oil cos are integrated cos, that is what separates them from the indepedents. An integrated oil company is involved in production, transportation, refining, and distribution of petroleum products. If the underlying price of the commodity that they produce rises quite naturally their profits will increase in kind.

We live in a free market society. Rather than bitch about other people making money, you are free to invest your money any way you see fit. If you think oil companies are making a killing, there is nothing to prevent you from participating yourself. I would rather make the money than follow it. If that makes me an evil capitalistic greedy bastard, then so be it.

Free markets rock, if you're smart enough to use them to your advantage.

should be whether we could improve our security by going in.

Any idiot should realize that an invasion means a lot term ground committment, ie long enough to create and stabilize a pro-western govt.

How long do you think that's going to take?  How long will it take them to learn to like a political system at the point of a bayonet?  

How much are we gonna pay in time and money for a more agreeable govt?   Nobody can know, but the reasonable answer seems to be on the order of many many years, perhaps generations.  

The real question here is, was the Bush administration forthright and honest with the American people when they went to war?   WMDs/not are secondary, the ultimate question is whether we are making things better or worse, and yes, there are worse things for us than Hussein - how about a  Taliban type theocracy, or in fact anything that destabilizes the Mideast?

if you can find one.

But when it gets to the level of govt intervention, or a dozen companies in the world controlling even HALF the production, the market's not fluid anymore.  Even in the absence of explicit conspiracies (which are common enough, check anti-trust litigation files) it's easy enough to see that the major players have the territories carved out, and aren't going to rock the boat, or let anybody else rock the boat.

Competition, and the benefits of a free market, depend on easy market entry.  That doesn't exist where you have a highly structured industry, nor does it exist when the govt diddles with the major players.

You can't always have a fluid market; but to pretend it's as easy as a label isn't real bright.

[we are there and to leave now would be disastrous]

You're probably too young to remember Vietnam, where the exact same argument was pitched, and proved disastrous.   Nixon was going to give us "peace with honor", and what he did was DOUBLE our casualties.

It's like collecting a bad debt - when do you cut your losses?   I know, nobody wants to leave a bad debt, but sometimes you should.

So what is our plan here today?  Just sort of mill around and hope for the best?  Faith in god, or something?  

Dubya has bright people working for him, and I know damn well somebody asked this question - ie, are we gonna be better off when this is over, and what's it going to take to finish it?  

Well?  What will it take to build a pro-western society in Iraq?  I'd say maybe a million Pepsi machines and 250 McDonalds' franchises, but that doesn't always do anything more than turn them into capitalists - doesn't make them any more friendly.  

The problem is that politics HAVE become polarized in the US, the jesus people on one side, and the politically correct on the other, because the swing voters are too busy earning a living to put any effort into politics.   I dunno, to some extent it's probably always been that way.  But it's WAY out of balance these days, and the GOP needs to be brought up short, and yeah, I wonder if the Democrats could lead a fire team to the head after beer call.

[dems have sold out to the far left, just like the reps have sold out to the far right]

Look, these fringes are the people who raise money and manpower.   So you go to the ballot, you get these freaky choices - do you want your arms, or your legs?  Do you want to be governed by professional confidence men, or amateurs?

Just like in your local condo assn, the people who run the parties are not going to give up power to swing voters who come around in election years.

Now, there are SOME things that can change.  Eg, the supreme court holding that political parties are private associations that do not have to submit to open primaries, is a slap in the face to moderate govt.  

How the HELL can a judge hold that a political party, which uses public facilities to seek public office, and gets public funds if it's big enough, is a PRIVATE association?   Closed primaries are one serious disincentive to moderation.

On this point I agree with you completely, until we change our system of primaries, nothing will change. Obviously, the only ones who can effect such a change are the very people in power, and they have no incentive to give up the very power that we're speaking of. In a nutshell, those of us in the middle are Fucked, big surprise.

To your points...

1) I know it pisses you off the the oil companies make profits, but believe it or not, that is what most companies do in America. It is called the free market. Econ 101, look it up.

2) The ONLY people arguing about the left having anything to do with 9/11 is the left. No one on the right ever said that did. And the fact that you had to go back to that weak ass argument only enforces you have no idea what you are talking about.

3)As far as "taking the oil", get real, the largest collections of WMD's is in the possesion of the United States. I am not suggesting we use these, because I do not think we should. But you really think we could not take from the Middle East what we wanted and keep the other's at bay with our nuclear arsenal. The difference between terrosists groups and ourselves is the fact that despite the fact that we have the capability, we do not do that kind of crap.

the Republican Party and that abortion rights and civil rights will be rolled back accordingly--not to mention the fact that the bible will be used to make court decisions. But could you please explain how the far left has taken over the Democrats? Most of the Dems are going to vote to confirm John Roberts as to the SC. Most voted to give Bush authority for this ridiculous war. Hillary says we cannot pull out of Iraq. Most Dems in Congress are against withdrawal--against the opinion of most Americans, mind you. Bill Clinton passed NAFTA. WTF are you talking about? Who are these far left people running the party? Cindy Sheehan, Louis Farrakhan and the Congressional Black Caucus? Give me a break.

The difference is that the far right consists of GWB, Tom Delay & Bill Frist--all the heads of their respective branches of Govt. Show me one position that Hillary has taken as Sen. from NY that you consider far left. In fact the only position I can think of in which she is opposed to the opinion of the majority of Americans is wanting to finish the Iraq debacle and that ain't far left.

You don't "think" that we should commit mass genocide on 1/4 of the world's population. Good for you. I guess that you are coming along. Let us know when you are sure and then we will welcome you into the civilized world.

like John McCain, right???