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


"-=jd=-" <jd770YOUR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96E0C58A8514Ca216b130c132d203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed 28 Sep 2005 09:03:35p, "FDR"
> <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:H3H_e.15924$Xl2.9147@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>>
>> "-=jd=-" <jd770YOUR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96DFC6BA769F7a216b130c132d203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Tue 27 Sep 2005 08:45:03p, "FDR"
>>> <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:jIl_e.1049$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?
>>
>
> Even more evidence of your overt racism!! Which entire race are you next
> going to condemn for the actions of a few? Will you ask how many Kamakazi
> pilots were east-asians? Or, how many of the New Orleans looters were
> black? You should be ashamed! Ha!

So you dispute that nearly all the terrorists 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.
>>
>
>
> Actually, it speaks more to your fear and/or disgust of democracy.

Democracy is wonderful. But of they want ti use Democracy to be
anti-American after we shed blood for them then I have a problem.
Apparently you think it's ok for us to shed blood for people that would in
turn hate us.

>
>
>
>
>>> 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...
>>
>
>
> I see that comment of mine left you speechless.

I thought they were court issues, not Democracy issues. So I didn't respond
since your ramblings made no sense.

>
>
>
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> There's some more of that over-emotive, drama-queen, Bush-Derangement-
> Syndrome. Did you still beat your wife?

We brought Democracy to Iraq because they desereved it, but we don't bring
it to Cuba becuase they don't deserve it in your opinion.


>
>
>
>
>>>> 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?
>>
>
>
> What "non-compassion prior to 9/11"?

He didn't care about the poor Afhani people before 9/11. You have nothing
on record saying he said anything about their cause or how he intended to
help them. So it's a bogus claim to say that I don't care about the
opression of the Afghani people when your buddy Bush didn't care either.

>
>
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Justice is state-sanctioned vengeance.

So Bush was in it for vengence. I thought it was because he cared about
those poor, opressed Afghanis. Thanks for setting the record straight that
he didn't care, just wanted vengence.

It would appear that since the administrations claim was that Iraq was
aiding the al-Queda, that invading Iraq was merely another act of vengence.
If it's vengence then it's not about spreading Deomcracy or freeing the
opressed Iraqi's, since vengence is not about lofitier goals. Thanks for
setting the record straight. I'll ignore your further bogus claims of
Democracy and poor Iraqi's or Taliban people.

> Or, do you have some other twisted,
> lefty-logic definition? So that I don't mis-quote you in the future, I
> want
> to make absolutely sure that I understand your position on the invasion of
> A-Stan: In your personal opinion, the *ONLY* justification for invading A-
> Stan was to punish them in the pursuit of justice? You (personally) had no
> concern that the Afghans were brutally oppressed by the Taliban?
>
>
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Justice is state-sanctioned vengeance. Or, do you have some other twisted,
> lefty-logic definition?

Nope. Bush wanted vengence. That makes iut a conservative problem.

>
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> You have my apologies! It was not my intent to "paint" it as necessarily a
> partisan thing. Though, now that I think about it, I would be willing to
> wager that greater number (not all) of conservatives know more of the
> administrations reasons for invading Iraq than leftists. I could be wrong.
> Still, I can't recall ever hearing, or reading, a leftist mentioning
> anything other than WMD.
>
>
>> My wife and her family are conservative. They don't know about 19
>> things for being in Iraq.
>>
>
>
> They are not required to.

You said that " Just because you and the rest of the loony-left moonbat
community have forgotten them,...". Well so have the right.

> Neither are you or anyone else for that matter.

But you called the left people, like me, lefty-loony moonbats for forgetting
them. So am I supposed to remember them or not? You have to make up your
mind sparky.


> However, it is clearly your choice not to be informed. The information is
> freely available. That might shake your liberal faith, though...

The information that we went into Afghanistan and Iraq for the basic reason
of vengence? Ok, I'll remember that now.

>
>
>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Your opinion is duly noted! Other more knowledgeable opinions than yours
> or
> mine will differ *significantly* from yours.

If they were more knowledgeable then they would have been right about MD in
Iraq. There were none, so I'd say my opinion is just as good as theirs.

>
>
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Nope, the WMD issue is *your* hang-up. Those who are pro-victory (instead
> of pro-failure like "some people") realize that spreading Democracy is
> perhaps the single, greatest defensive weapon any country can avail itself
> of. Does that help you understand a different point of view - not that I
> would expect you to actually *agree* with it...

Ignoring the whole Democracy thing since you set me straight about the whole
vengence thing earlier.

>
>
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Ha! You say that after I've been schooling you on the issues...
>

Yep, schooling me on the reason we went there. Vengence.

>
>
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Unless there is new information, the Niger documents surfaced within
> Italian Military Intelligence. Bush should have had someone's hide for
> that, but he didn't. Still, we didn't base the invasion on those
> documents.

Oh, that was the juicy cherry on top of the sundae of reasons for going to
Iraq.


>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> No, that lab, ad it's chemicals, were definitely found within the
> geographical borders of Iraq. The lab had been put together recently, but
> the constituent components were not new.

It says "...suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of
chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S."

No where does it say what the chemicals were and how they knew they were
going to be used on the US. So it's a statment that deals vaguley in facts
but a lot on supposition.


>
>
>> We fight wars becuase of threat.
>>
>
> That is but one reason. We fight wars because it is in our national
> interests to do so. A threat may make it a matter of our national
> interests. There are other reasons besides a threat aimed directly at us.

The only wars that we haven't fought recently because of not direct threat
were Vietnam and Korea. I hope for all of our sakes that Iraq isn't the
same stupid war with same stupid results.

>
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
>
> Another unsubstantiated opinion of yours?

History tells us that we don't leave places where we have fought wars. So
I'd be very comfortable saying that we will be 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.
>
> That may be a tiny part of it, but there are far more worthy strategic
> reasons that would over-shadow that little reason.
>
>
>> (Isn't that curious why they would do that.)
>
> I don't find it curious at all. Hussein is no longer in power and posing a
> threat to his neighbors. With that in mind, we are not currently needed in
> S.A.

SA was kicking us out before the war. And the reasons we were there has to
do with oil, not Saddam.

>
>
>
>> Strategic because it has
>> oil that we want. Strategic because it's next to Iran.
>>
>
> Though we might one day in the future realize some benefit, I'm fairly
> confident that Iraq will be an OPEC member and we won't see any free oil,
> despite the moonbat meme that the war was all about oil... or was it
> WMD...
> or it was a "jingoistic, cowboy crusade" (or some such)... they can't seem
> to make up their minds.
>
>
>
>> So we have no schedule.
>>
>
> Not that would satisfy your partisan hunger.
>
>
>
>> And all the bull*** about WMD and Democracy is just a cover story.
>>
>
>
> Says who? Got a quote? Certainly not the leading Democrats in Congress who
> voted to go in - say it ain't so!

Voted to go based on false information. At least they have the credibility
to say we made a mistake. Bush will never do so, even though it was a
mistake.

>> -=jd=-


.