Re: OT:Ssshhh meet your Left


MINe 109 wrote:
In article <ei4Ng.65601$W01.14827@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"MINe 109" <smcatut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:smcatut-71D7D0.21273810092006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <nx3Ng.65597$W01.14623@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"MINe 109" <smcatut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:smcatut-C46C60.20234110092006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <QH_Mg.65539$W01.61436@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:--SdnRy1vsPe7pnYnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:QjXMg.64526$W01.21037@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tim Russert is making the argument to *** Chenney that we "lost a
buffer
to
Iran" by taking down Saddam

Now I ask anyone to explain the morality of maintaining a murderous
dictator
in power and forcing the people to endure suffering under sanctions
simply
because they are enemies to our enemies. Sssshhh, isn't this
exactly
the
kind of historical US foreign policy that you've been saying has
created
anti-US sentiment and the kind of thing we need to stop? Is this
the
new
left? Embrace any strategy, no matter how immoral so long as it
reflects
badly on the Bush doctrine?

Russert is an embarrassment to America and if we could stop his
drivel
from
reaching foreign shores, we should.

ScottW

He simply pointed out to Cheney that that was one consequence of our
action,
after Cheney dropped all pretense by saying he would have invaded
Iraq
even
if
it was known that Saddam had no WMD's and posed no immediate threat.

A position I wholeheartedly agree with.
You want to change hearts and minds of muslims...quit propping up
their heinous dictators.
Apparently you're one of those self centered Americans who only support
action in your own self interest. How moral of you.

You're out of line here, and in a way that smacks of Rovian preemptive
attack, accusing the opponent of your own weakness.

Feeling guilty? You should.

Sez you. I never voted for Bush.

Irrelevant. Did you oppose the Iraq War?

Relevant. Take my word for it.

Another mere resident of America.


What was Bush's opinion of nation-building in 2000?

He has obviously changed his mind. Is that not allowed?

I don't think he has really changed his mind.

Ok.. fine with me... I'm still looking at results.

I don't think the present sitch is what he had in mind.

Nor I..but rather than punishing for the screwups in the past
I look at the best way forward and support that.



Tell it to John Kerry...and every other dem trying to change their
mind about the war.

Ever see the Red Dwarf in which Kryton discombulates the terminator
'droid by telling it there's no silicon heaven?

No, sorry. Must have missed that one.

The statement didn't affect Kryton because he knew he was lying. Where
would all the calculators go?

to the dump.


WTF happenned to the pre Vietnam Kennedy liberals who wanted
to make the world a better place? They've been displaced by a
bunch of whining self-centered draft dodging socialists.

The country is currently run by whining self-centered draft-dodging
corporate tools.

Maybe... but their policies have taken the country down a path
that could make the world a better place. I don't understand
why you can't get past motive and move on to results.

The results aren't so great at the moment and show little prospect for
improvement.

I think there is great prospect for improvement. This course will work
if given enough time.

Decades.

Perhaps. I don't think we have an option.


Bush planned for a quick knockout punch and a immediate withdrawal. I
would have accepted it reluctantly at the time were it successful.

We could have left immediately after find Saddam...but that wouldn't
have made the world safer and was just as likely to make it worse.

Sadly, leaving immediately was the plan.

Well IF that was the plan, it was quickly adapted to conditions.

Frankly, the reason you don't like Russert I suspect is that he does
his
homework and doesn't accept rationalizations and falsehoods, but
rather
tries
to hold his guests accountable, including the Veep. He simply kept
showing
Cheney's earlier words agains his current pronouncements, which
inclined
one
to have to work awfully hard to avoid seeing the misjudgements then
and
the
hypocrisy today.

Next time you find a politician who claims he's clairvoyant, I'm sure
he'll get your vote. Chenney accepted that difficulties were
unforeseen and challenges remain. The simple difference between
the republicans and the anti-war left (which excludes most democrats
and
whose position Russert appeared to be defeding)
is that the jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq must be completed sucessfully.

It's too late for that.

BS...Taliban is on its last legs and about to fail in it's heartland if
Nato can muster the muscle.
Iraq is also coming along. AFAICT the insurgency is done.
Sectarian violence is now the challenge.

A case can be made that Afghanistan was never actually pacified. Now
you're passing the buck to NATO.

You've been crying for international involvement...
we get it in a war that everyone has called justified
and now it's buck passing.
You see why the schizoid left is so frustrating,
no I suppose you don't.

There was a "sell by" date on that cry for international involvement.

By schizoid, you refer to the ability to adapt to conditions, one of
those Enlightenment concepts some would abandon.

See above. Your circle of lunacy is now complete.

ScottW

.