Re: (OT) : Has Americanism Died in the Democrat Party of the USA ?


"-=jd=-" <jd770YOUR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96DFC6BA769F7a216b130c132d203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue 27 Sep 2005 08:45:03p, "FDR"
> <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:jIl_e.1049$K91.239@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


>>> So, sunshine,you define all Saudis as terrorists then? How utterly
>>> *racist*
>>> of you! Why, if I was to report you to the ACLU, they might not allow
>>> you to
>>> hump their leg anymore!! You better check that latent racism!
>>
>> No, the US government thinks all Muslims are terrorists.
>>
>
>
> In response to my informing you that the Saudis were capturing/killing
> terrorists, you made the following overtly racist remark: "They are
> killing
> themselves?" So you don't deny your bigoted opinion that all Saudis are
> terrorists -OR- are you now frantically back-peddling?

How many 9/11 hijackers were from SA?

..
>>
>> So I'll take that as a yes that it's ok if Iraq votes in a anti-American
>> president and declares that not all people are equal.
>>
>
>
> If that's what they want, I wouldn't stand in their way.

That speaks a lot about you and how far you would get American soldiers
killed for a rotten government.


Would you want to
> block a majority of US Citizens from voting for more abortion restrictions
> and the right of student-led prayer in public schools? That may be more
> likely to occur...



>
>
>
>>> You act no better than the terrorist insurgents in that you don't seem
>>> to favor any democracy in Iraq. Or, perhaps it's more of that latent
>>> anti-arabic racism of yours that would deny Iraqis a chance at self-
>>> rule. Who knows...
>>
>>
>> There's no Democracy in Cuba but I don't see us invading there sparky.
>> Why not?
>>
>
> It's not in our national interest to do so.

Yeah, there's no oil there so no money for Bush/Cheney.



>> Where was Bush calling for freeing the opressed Afghanis prior to 9/11?
>> Go find a transcript. Go find the warplans. Guess what, there is none.
>>
>
>
>
>
> So you *DON'T* deny it then, do you? Despite another desperate attempt of
> yours to change the subject and squirm out from the corner you've painted
> yourself into -- You have *NOT* indicated support for ousting the Taliban
> because they were brutally oppressing the Afghan population.

I hadn't, but neither has your buddy Bush. Have you shown that you care
about Bush's non-compassion prior to 9/11?

> You only
> supported booting the Taliban because you wanted to "get even" for 9/11.

If that's getting even, then Bush was also just in it to get even. But you
constantly revert to this whole revenge/get even talsk when I have
explicitly stated that I saw it as justice. Bush said it was for justice.
I agreed with Bush. But you'll still ignore that because it's your nature.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Though there's nothing
>>> wrong with that, if that's your only justification then it makes sense
>>> that
>>> you would not support liberating the Iraqi citizens from *their* brutal
>>> oppressors. But, if you *did* support ousting the Taliban because they
>>> were
>>> brutal oppressors, then you couldn't very well be against removing
>>> Saddam without being a hypocrite, now could you? In any event, you
>>> don't support removing Saddam because it wasn't "vengeance" or whatever
>>> you want to call it. That may be your opinion, but there were many more
>>> reasons for invading
>>> Iraq and removing Saddam. Also, the majority of Iraqis might have a
>>> different
>>> opinion as they seem to be *quite* eager to take advantage of
>>> democracy...
>>>
>>>
>>>> And once again, no one here cares about the Afghani people. Go take a
>>>> poll and that will be your answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not at all concerned with a popularity contest as that's not the
>>> issue.
>>> Anyway, polls shouldn't dictate policy regardless of how desperately
>>> you would wish them to.
>>
>> You said we care about the Afghani people. It's not a popularity
>> contest. Go find out and ask the people.
>
> Did I say we care about anybody? Though I'm sure the policy makers in D.C.
> would express that sentiment, my remarks concern your hypocracy. You have
> made it clear that the only reason you would have ousted the Taliban is to
> "get even" and *NOT* because they were brutally oppressed, or any other
> valid
> reason.

Justice, for the fifth time.


>> How many of those 19 reasons was hammered home over and over by Powell
>> in front of the UN? None, it was basically one issue. You really need
>> to watch that speech. Without seeing it you don't really get how
>> important the WMD nature of this war was being pushed. I doubt the
>> common joe can tell you more than three reasons why we invaded. So keep
>> blabbering about 19, but it doesn't fly.
>>
>
> The 19 other reasons (and there were probably more) flies just *fine*.
> Just
> because you and the rest of the loony-left moonbat community have
> forgotten
> them, and just because the left-leaning MSM focused on only one or two,
> does
> not make the remaining reasons null & void.

Go aks anyone. Go ask a conservative. Ask him the 19. He or she won't
know them either. But keep painting it as a partisan thing.

My wife and her family are conservative. They don't know about 19 things
for being in Iraq.

>
>
>>>> Honestly jd, tell me a country that doesn't have WMD, doesn't pose an
>>>> immediate threat and then ask people if you think we should invade
>>>> those countries because it gives them Democracy and in some oblique
>>>> way helps in the war on terror. Go ahead and name some countries and
>>>> tell me how close we are in invading them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Other than Iran and North Korea, I'm not too terribly concerned with
>>> any others at the moment
>>
>> So you don't care about any other non-Democratic countries either.
>> Democracy is a second tier result of invasion, but not enough for you to
>> invade. I get it. You're acting quite the hypocrite.
>>
>
> Why? Because I'm not interested in any other country that is not a threat
> to
> the US

Iraq wasn't a threat.

> or that would not be in our national interest to invade? You're still
> stuck-on-stupid! LOL!! You can't seem to get your brain to process more
> than
> a single issue, or reason for action, at a time. Democracy is important,
> but
> it's not the only goal.

So that's why we have to cling to the story of Democracy in Iraq because we
failed miserably in finding WMD.

> When you educate yourself on the subjects you try to
> comment on, you may stand a better chance of making a more salient
> argument.

Et tu.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Democracy would be a gift to both those countries!
>>
>> But not enough of a reason to cause an invasion. I get it.
>>
>
> Not by itself, no. You may be catching on.
> (I doubt it...)
>
>
>> You make my point.
>
>
> No, I don't. But you are free to pretend.
>
>
>> Strip out the immediate threat nature of Iraq,
>
>
> Is this an "imagination" exercise?

No, because there was no immediate threat. That's why they had to make up
Uranium from Niger.

>
>
>>
>> a country that didn't have nuclear weapons,
>
> A country that would not account for it's missing WMD's that everyone knew
> they once possessed.

Why would Saddam tip his hand? Because:

A) Make no difference because we were hell bent on invading for the other 18
reasons. LOL.
B) Would make him look weak among his citizens.

>
>
>> or an air force or even
>> missiles like Iran and N. Korea do, and you basically have a country
>> that shouldn't be bothered with according to your criteria.
>>
>
> You've got one heck of an imagination! Unfortunately, as you emerge from
> the
> "democratic underground", reality rears it's ugly head (as I have told
> you
> several times already) with 19 reasons (possibly more) why it was a matter
> of
> national security and well within our national interests to invade Iraq
> and
> remove the Hussein regime.

None of those 19 reasons had to do with immediate threat sparky.


>> WMD=0, the facts
>>
>
> Well, here's just two links that dispute that:
>
> BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city
> of
> Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500
> gallons
> of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and
> civilians, military officials said Saturday.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html


Suspected but not confirmed.

>
> Or This:
>
> "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery
> round
> containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt
> (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad.
> "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which
> was
> discovered by a U.S. force convoy." [..] A senior Bush administration
> official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical
> weapon
> discovered recently. Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard
> gas that was used as part of an IED. [..] Gazi George, a former Iraqi
> nuclear
> scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar
> weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or
> transported to Syria.
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
>
> Or the Duelfer report, or Blix, or the Iraq Survey Group, or the U.N.,
> that
> all advise no-one can account for the missing WMD's that everyone agreed
> Saddam once possessed; or the records showing Iraqi production, beyond
> prototype levels, of weaponized binary BW-agents... Or, are you more
> comfortable trusting Dan Rather's MSM to provide you with news that only
> matches one particular point of view? It's ok - you can admit it...

Yep, an old shell and you declare victory! Now where;s the tons of stuff
that was promised by Powell?

>
>
>
>>>>>> Ever since then I have seen the war as a disaster.
>>>>>> Bad intelligence, bad preperation, no exit strategy, and a President
>>>>>> who took opprotunity to use it to further his political career.
>>>>>
>>>>> The intel on *some* of the justification was flawed.
>>>>
>>>> Some = all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You actually have no idea what intel was involved, do you. Tell me, do
>>> you think all of the pre-war intel focussed solely on WMD? Could you
>>> possibly be *that* naive?
>>
>>
>> There was an obtuse "nexxus" (Powells term) about Saddam and the Al
>> Queda, but no strong link seemed to be there and it has been noted that
>> Saddam cared little about Al-Queda.
>>
>> Other than that, WMD was the only intel being pushed hard. Powell now
>> regrets that. Funny how you don't.
>>
>
>
> It's not a matter of regret as I am not tunnel-visioned on a single reason
> for invading Iraq like *you* are. In addition to the other 19+ reasons,

19 blah blah blah. Powell didn't spend time talking up 19 reasons. I don't
see why you are so enamored with them if he didn't care about presenting it
to the UN.

I
> also realize that, in the overall GWOT, there are other reasons that make
> the
> democratization of Iraq a vital strategic goal. You would make the mistake
> that we are urging democracy in Iraq solely to liberate the citizens. You
> would only be partially correct...

Democracy is a wonderful thing, but did anyone actually bother to ask them
if they wanted it? You all assume Deomcracy is such a wonderful thing, but
we shouldn't be in the missionary business. We fight wars becuase of
threat.


>> If there is no schedule then there is no strategy. You don't run
>> anything without some schedule.
>>
>
>
>
> You will likely be dissapointed to learn that the Bush administration is
> not
> bound by your ridiculous, inexplicable assumptions. We *have* stated an
> exit
> strategy. We are not required to have, nor publish, an exit schedule.

Because we have none and plan on being there forever. You keep saying about
it's strategic position, and you are right. Strategic because we have no
base in the Middle East since Saudi Arabia kicked us out. (Isn't that
curious why they would do that.) Strategic because it has oil that we want.
Strategic because it's next to Iran.

So we have no schedule.

And all the bullshit about WMD and Democracy is just a cover story.



> However, if it will make you feel better, there is a schedule of sorts,
> but
> it is dictated by when the Iraqi Units come on line and are capable of
> maintaining their own security. If you can figure out when that will
> actually
> happen for each individual Iraqi Brigade, then there's your schedule (if
> you
> can call it that)...

Blah blah blah.

>
>
> -=jd=-


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My ideas on the "crisis"
    ... So if all Al Qaeda is by your logic from outside Iraq, ... what right have *they* to meddle in Iraqi affairs? ... would have established a western-style democracy? ... Idealism of the American people from the answer to your question. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Constitutional Bottom Line
    ... The new Iraq ... >Even the moderate middle class in Iran, far stronger than the Iraqi ... >brand of democracy Iraq is like planting a seed on venus. ... >corrupt government of South Vietnam unable to state for itself, ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: Constitutional Bottom Line
    ... The new Iraq ... >>Even the moderate middle class in Iran, far stronger than the Iraqi ... >>brand of democracy Iraq is like planting a seed on venus. ... >>corrupt government of South Vietnam unable to state for itself, ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • U.S. officials rethink hopes for Iraq democracy
    ... U.S. officials rethink hopes for Iraq democracy ... A workable democratic and sovereign government in Iraq was one of the ... And, they said, they are helping Iraqi political leaders find ways "to ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Iraqi PM defies [US] calls to quit
    ... Iraqi PM defies calls to quit ... Mr Jaafari won the nomination for Iraq's leadership by a single vote within ... Kurdish and secular parties refuse to back him, Iraq is left in a political ... democracy in Iraq and it is democracy which should decide who leads Iraq. ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)