[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I posted the link to the actual report. Why don't you peruse it to see how this number cuts across all 3 major ethnic groups?

Hahahaha... You do realize according to that report Iraqi's confidence is DOWN by nearly %20 over 8 months. The report concurs with the left's view that the situation is getting much worse.

Which reminds me. Your figure is not correct. According to your link only %47 of Iraqis have confidence in their government over all groups.

And yes, the Sunni numbers are very low in confidence in the government. Just like I predicted. Don't know why you wanted me to read the report.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro

so what do we do now?

Well, we can stay there and become a point of contention between the two sides, or leave.

The country is going to have to fix itself. There is no way in hell we're going to somehow magically make the two sides talk peacefully. They're going to have to do that on their own.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Well, we can stay there and become a point of contention between the two sides, or leave.

The country is going to have to fix itself. There is no way in hell we're going to somehow magically make the two sides talk peacefully. They're going to have to do that on their own.

Hasn't that always been what the President has said?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Hasn't that always been what the President has said?

Um.

Assuming that's what he's said, what is the logic for staying in the country?

[goMac]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/rum...ile/index.html

Apparently Rumsfeld has admitted he underestimated the insurgency.

Of course when the liberals correctly estimated what the Iraq insurgency would be like we were told we were crazy America haters, instead of, you know, having America's interests in mind.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Um.

Assuming that's what he's said, what is the logic for staying in the country?

To stay until the government is strong enough to defend itself and it's people from radislamics who want to create a fundamental Islamic governemt like Iran's in Iraq.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

To stay until the government is strong enough to defend itself and it's people from radislamics who want to create a fundamental Islamic governemt like Iran's in Iraq.

Again, I'm not sure you're getting it. The government is fighting the government. You have two sides in control of Iraq, but both sides don't want the other to have power. The government IS the radislamics. The government is killing itself.

It's like I'm talking to a Republican brochure or something.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/rum...ile/index.html

Apparently Rumsfeld has admitted he underestimated the insurgency.

Of course when the liberals correctly estimated what the Iraq insurgency would be like we were told we were crazy America haters, instead of, you know, having America's interests in mind.

Of course things have gone according to your vision to some degree. You CAUSED it to happen.

You had a blueprint. You knew how to execute it. You knew what the outcome would be. Now just think if your blueprint was to help save America instead of how to make America lose and in so doing become more vulnerable to enemies from without and within.

I have a blueprint and I know how to execute it to get the same outcome anytime I want somone to stop eating. It is very gross so I won't spell it out. But I would drop a dollop of this on their plate.

And after the person throws up and leaves the table I might say I knew what was going to happen but in reality I CAUSED it to happen.

Well, tell me what's going to happen when our adversaries have a sense of America's vulnerability. Will that make us safer or less safe?

The people we are trying to defend against have a simple way of dealing with your ilk.



When the time comes don't say you weren't warned.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Again, I'm not sure you're getting it. The government is fighting the government. You have two sides in control of Iraq, but both sides don't want the other to have power. The government IS the radislamics. The government is killing itself.

It's like I'm talking to a Republican brochure or something.

The instigators are stirring up violence between the Sunni and the Shiites and when the US leaves if the Shiites win out over their Sunni opponents in government (if a real compromise between the two can not be achieved) then Iraq will be like Iran and terrorism will have claimed it's greatest victory in centuries.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Of course things have gone according to your vision to some degree. You CAUSED it to happen.

You had a blueprint. You knew how to execute it. You knew what the outcome would be. Now just think if your blueprint was to help save America instead of how to make America lose and in so doing become more vulnerable to enemies from without and within.

I have a blueprint and I know how to execute it to get the same outcome anytime I want somone to stop eating. It is very gross so I won't spell it out. But I would drop a dollop of this on their plate.

And after the person throws up and leaves the table I might say I knew what was going to happen but in reality I CAUSED it to happen.

Well, tell me what's going to happen when our adversaries have a sense of America's vulnerability. Will that make us safer or less safe?

The people we are trying to defend against have a simple way of dealing with your ilk.

When the time comes don't say you weren't warned.

Um. I don't even want to try to deal with this. Your post is a few french fries short of a Happy Meal.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

The instigators are stirring up violence between the Sunni and the Shiites and when the US leaves if the Shiites win out over their Sunni opponents in government (if a real compromise between the two can not be achieved) then Iraq will be like Iran and terrorism will have claimed it's greatest victory in centuries.

You're right. But who are the instigators? Sunnis and Shiites! They're instigating themselves!

Remember, the Shiites were allied with Al Qaeda before we even got involved. The Sunnis were allied with Hezbollah. They're BOTH extremists.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

You're right. But who are the instigators? Sunnis and Shiites! They're instigating themselves!

Remember, the Shiites were allied with Al Qaeda before we even got involved. The Sunnis were allied with Hezbollah. They're BOTH extremists.

Quote:
Jerk Instigator: Sunni's are &^**@$+)!

Patriot Sunni: You Shiites are (*@#&$%^@#_!!!

Patriot Shiite: Well you Sunni's are *&@#^$!@(&^!!!!

Jerk Instigator: *Tee Hee Hee. Such sheeple!*

The Sunnis and Shiites could co-exist if the jerk instigators didn't stir up hatred and make it flame up.

You have your information wrong. al Qaeda is a Sunni/Salafi/Wahabbist organization. And if Sunnis and Shiites can get along in this war and in the Hezbollah war on Israel then theres no doubt they would or could or did conspire with Sadam.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

The Sunnis and Shiites could co-exist if the jerk instigators didn't stir up hatred and make it flame up.

You have your information wrong. al Qaeda is a Sunni/Salafi/Wahabbist organization. And if Sunnis and Shiites can get along in this war and in the Hezbollah war on Israel then theres no doubt they would or could or did conspire with Sadam.

Well, the "jerk instigators" are Sunnis and Shiites. They were there before Saddam Hussain. They were there during Saddam Hussain. And now we get to deal with them too. The reason we didn't see them before was because when Saddam was in charge, the jerk instigators would be dragged away to prisons and never heard from again. The problem with a Democracy is, the jerk instigators can actually get elected to political office now. The jerk instigators are a fact of life in the Middle East. They were there long before we were. The inability of this administrator to understand these complex Middle Eastern politics (and why forcing Democracy might not have been the best choice for Iraq) is why we are in this mess. Under Saddam the jerk instigators never had a voice or a role in government. Now, under us, they do.

Al Qaeda was allied with the resistance in Iraq under Saddam, which is why Saddam would not associate with them. Hezbollah was associated with Saddams regime (and the Sunnis). This is why Saddam would make offers for rewarding the families of Hezbollah suicide bombers. I've been over this before in this thread.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Um. I don't even want to try to deal with this. Your post is a few french fries short of a Happy Meal.

No actually it wasn't. But yours was just an ad-hominem attack.

Way to show him.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No actually it wasn't. But yours was just an ad-hominem attack.

Way to show him.

No it was. He didn't at all explain how the crazy liberal conspiracy has hurt the Iraq war. You know, usually you say "The liberals are causing us to lose the war, this is how..." Otherwise, it comes off as crazy Conservative talking who would like to blame his own parties problems on another party with no concrete reasoning.

I mean, last I checked, Bush's own generals warned him this would happen. And you can't say those people were crazy liberals.

[marden]

We we look at the MSM negative coverage of the war we only see the bad news. And we become discouraged and pessimistic.

When terrorists look on TV they see us protesting the war and hating our government. And they become encouraged and optimistic.

If I must explain these basic concepts of human behavior to you why should we pay attention to anything you say? There might be many other things you don't understand that if you DID understand it would make your posts more like Kevin's and Spliffdaddy's and vmarks' and DBursey's and Railroader and the itai 195 and Sky Captain and spacefreak and some of the other more sensible posters here.

But if you have so many elemental ideas that you don't know, maybe your judgement is not so good about any of these topics.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

We we look at the MSM negative coverage of the war we only see the bad news. And we become discouraged and pessimistic.

When terrorists look on TV they see us protesting the war and hating our government. And they become encouraged and optimistic.

If I must explain these basic concepts of human behavior to you why should we pay attention to anything you say? There might be many other things you don't understand that if you DID understand it would make your posts more like Kevin's and Spliffdaddy's and vmarks' and DBursey's and Railroader and the itai 195 and Sky Captain and spacefreak and some of the other more sensible posters here.

But if you have so many elemental ideas that you don't know, maybe your judgement is not so good about any of these topics.

These are IRAQI's that are causing the violence. Your idea is we're going to form a government, with two groups who are fighting each other, hate each other, yet you want to form a government with these two people. You're fundementally not understanding the problem. These aren't "emboldened terrorists" crossing over from other countries to fight us. These are Iraqi's fighting us.

So who is the "right" side? Who is the side that we should be defending? The liberals are saying we shouldn't be there because the people we want to put in government don't want Democracy. The US is trying to do the impossible. The US can fight all it wants and "stand up" to the terrorists, but the right doesn't seem to get, or want to admit, the terrorists are the Iraqi people. Whether or not a group of Iraqis is actively fighting, they refuse to recognize a government with an opposing ethnic group in power.

For more on this, just read the link that spliff posted.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by marden

We we look at the MSM negative coverage of the war we only see the bad news. And we become discouraged and pessimistic.

Actually that's an interesting dilemma, as Iraq is a particularly difficult country to cover. There was a pretty good article on that very subject a few months back by Orville Schell, dean of Berkeley's School of Journalism.

It's extremely good reading: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18844

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

These are IRAQI's that are causing the violence. Your idea is we're going to form a government, with two groups who are fighting each other, hate each other, yet you want to form a government with these two people. You're fundementally not understanding the problem. These aren't "emboldened terrorists" crossing over from other countries to fight us. These are Iraqi's fighting us.

So who is the "right" side? Who is the side that we should be defending? The liberals are saying we shouldn't be there because the people we want to put in government don't want Democracy. The US is trying to do the impossible. The US can fight all it wants and "stand up" to the terrorists, but the right doesn't seem to get, or want to admit, the terrorists are the Iraqi people. Whether or not a group of Iraqis is actively fighting, they refuse to recognize a government with an opposing ethnic group in power.

For more on this, just read the link that spliff posted.

When the issue was still developing none of what you are saying was true. It is almost like you can only understand NOW. Not yesterday or tomorrow.

Before the jerk instigators began their campaign to create disharmony there was no fighting each other the way they are now. If the terrorists and insurgents had not started this in-fighting the government might have achieved peace and stability there long ago. But they want to create an Iranian style of government there and so it is in their interest to maintain the war between Sunni and Shiites.

That is what I see happening here. Some people want to keep libs and cons apart.

[marden]

Originally Posted by paul w

Actually that's an interesting dilemma, as Iraq is a particularly difficult country to cover. There was a pretty good article on that very subject a few months back by Orville Schell, dean of Berkeley's School of Journalism.

It's extremely good reading: The New York Review of Books: Baghdad: The Besieged Press

And I don't need a diploma to understand this concept!

You are right. It's a fine read and deserves to be savored with a glass or mug of your favorite beverage out on the shady veranda with some nice music playing low nearby.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

When the issue was still developing none of what you are saying was true. It is almost like you can only understand NOW. Not yesterday or tomorrow.

Liberals knew that was what was going to happen. So did Bush's generals. It only took a quick history lesson as to what would happen if you took the two groups, and put them together in a government.

Originally Posted by marden

Before the jerk instigators began their campaign to create disharmony there was no fighting each other the way they are now.

%100 wrong. There was fighting. Who did you think Saddam was locking up and torturing? Random people for the fun of it? No, these were factional fighters he was locking up.

Originally Posted by marden

If the terrorists and insurgents had not started this in-fighting the government might have achieved peace and stability there long ago. But they want to create an Iranian style of government there and so it is in their interest to maintain the war between Sunni and Shiites.

But they did, and the Liberals knew they would.

Originally Posted by marden

That is what I see happening here. Some people want to keep libs and cons apart.

By definition we are apart.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by marden

And I don't need a diploma to understand this concept!

Snarky, eh? Anyway we're all starved for real coverage of the country. For me stuff like that is gripping reading really.

We have such a limiting filter to the events that take place - and the reason is the instability and insecurity. And only the mainstream media can even afford to cover Iraq on the ground as the expense of security has become prohibitive.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Liberals knew that was what was going to happen. So did Bush's generals. It only took a quick history lesson as to what would happen if you took the two groups, and put them together in a government.

No, I think it was a self fulfilling strategy. You guys went into "VIET NAM PROTEST MODE" before the invasion and you have gotten VIET NAM like results. You didn't PREDICT it as much as you helped CAUSE this result. If thyere had been unanymous support and the enemy saw we were united, how would things have gone? You don't know that, do you? Why? Because it wasn't included in the anti war text books religiously followed by your leadership.

Originally Posted by goMac

%100 wrong. There was fighting. Who did you think Saddam was locking up and torturing? Random people for the fun of it? No, these were factional fighters he was locking up.

Your NOW vision is 20/20 but your view of the recent past is blurry.

Zarqawi Breaks with al-Qaeda

In February 2004, the State Department published a letter Zarqawi wrote to the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan articulating his plan to attack Shiites in Iraq with the aim of igniting sectarian conflict. Zarqawi was certain the United States would withdraw quickly from Iraq, but wrote that Shiite militia members already dominated the New Iraqi Army, putting his group on the defensive. The situation was dire enough, in Zarqawi’s analysis, that he was willing to risk a strategic break with bin Laden and Zawahiri. He wrote, “If you agree with us on [targeting Shiites] we will be your readied soldiers. If things appear otherwise to you, we are brothers, and the disagreement will not spoil our friendship.” In December 2004, bin Laden issued an audio statement recognizing Zarqawi as a key al-Qaeda leader.

One of the most brutal attacks on the Shiite community in Iraq followed closely on the publication of Zarqawi’s February 2004 letter. On March 2, 2004, Zarqawi’s group staged a series of bomb attacks on Shiites celebrating the Ashura holiday, killing at least 185 people. Since then, Zarqawi’s group has perpetrated a campaign of assassinations, kidnappings, and bomb attacks against Shiite civilians, including a suicide attack on a Shiite mosque in July that killed ninety-eight people and a suicide truck bomb attack targeting Shiite workers in August which killed more than one hundred.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/t...5.php?CID=2400

Originally Posted by goMac

But they did, and the Liberals knew they would.

You have a kernal of truth here and there is more than a kernal of truth to the idea that the anti war pacifist methods of protest have brought about predictable advantages for the enemy to defeat any war that was to oppose jihadis.

Originally Posted by goMac

By definition we are apart.

The haters and instigators have toned down their rhetoric here lately and that is good. Too bad it didn't happen earlier. But the need for American unity still exists and has yet to see the real crisis still ahead. Whatever form it might take.

[marden]

Originally Posted by paul w

Snarky, eh? Anyway we're all starved for real coverage of the country. For me stuff like that is gripping reading really.

We have such a limiting filter to the events that take place - and the reason is the instability and insecurity. And only the mainstream media can even afford to cover Iraq on the ground as the expense of security has become prohibitive.

And by attacking news crews and killing, wounding and kidnapping them the jihadis have eliminated the limited somewhat unbiased streams of information that did exist. Now we are even more dependant on M.E. journalists who have their own standards of unbiased journalism.

Jill Carroll, CSM. Kimberly Dozier & Bob Woodruff ABC. Steve Centani FNC. To name a few.

Who is getting the news from the streets now?

We talk about how Bush curtails our freedoms?

The jihadis have eliminated freedom of the press.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

No, I think it was a self fulfilling strategy. You guys went into "VIET NAM PROTEST MODE" before the invasion and you have gotten VIET NAM like results. You didn't PREDICT it as much as you helped CAUSE this result. If thyere had been unanymous support and the enemy saw we were united, how would things have gone? You don't know that, do you? Why? Because it wasn't included in the anti war text books religiously followed by your leadership.

Oh c'mon. We went over this all ready. All the Liberals said before the war is that Iraq is not ready for a Democracy, and that the two sides we'd try and unite in a government would want to fight each other to the death instead. This was not inciting terrorists. This was predicting something that would actually happen.

Originally Posted by marden

Your NOW vision is 20/20 but your view of the recent past is blurry.

Really? I thought this was common knowledge since.... oh.... the Iran/Iraq war where the Sunnis and the Shiite's were fighting. Or since... you know... the Sunni's and the Shiite's originally split. Or when the US accused Saddam's Sunni faction of committing war crimes against the Shiite faction. You know. The time around 1991, at the very least.

Originally Posted by marden

You have a kernal of truth here and there is more than a kernal of truth to the idea that the anti war pacifist methods of protest have brought about predictable advantages for the enemy to defeat any war that was to oppose jihadis.

No see. Your problem is you think Liberals are pacifists. Which isn't true. We were behind the Afghanistan war. We just aren't behind wars that will become disasters and quagmires. There is a difference between fighting wars and fighting smart wars.

Originally Posted by marden

The haters and instigators have toned down their rhetoric here lately and that is good. Too bad it didn't happen earlier. But the need for American unity still exists and has yet to see the real crisis still ahead. Whatever form it might take.

You're just mad Liberals have a different viewpoint then Conservatives. Tough.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

The jihadis have eliminated freedom of the press.

Gee. Some would say that the killing of our press is a really strong argument that Iraq really isn't going well. I guess you don't see it that way though.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Gee. Some would say that the killing of our press is a really strong argument that Iraq really isn't going well. I guess you don't see it that way though.

When the enemy can cut off the flow of reporters going into the streets by making them fearful of death, injury or kidnapping, by TARGETING them they target the news flow, and it means we are reaping the whirlwind of all of the decisions and actions and non-actions there and here. That the enemy had enough control that they could do such things says something. But what contributed to their success?

I'm going to stop playing dog chasing the tail with you. There are many ingredients that contributed to the state of affairs we have and the protesters have their own guilt to bear.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Cutting off the flow of reporters going into the streets by making them fearful of death, injury or kidnapping, by TARGETING them, means we are reaping the whirlwind of all of the decisions and actions and non-actions there and here.

Thank you for that insight. However, on the flipside, it's not like the reporters don't know what they're getting into.

Originally Posted by marden

I'm going to stop playing chase the tail with you. There are many ingredients that contributed to the state of affairs we have and the protesters have their own guilt to bear.

Sure. That's what the Liberals said would happen before we got into this war. The Conservatives were the ones that said it would be a simple easy war.

The protesters didn't embolden anybody. Whether or not there were protesters we would be in the same situation of Sunni's and Shiite's killing each other. It's just the Conservatives trying to pass off guilt to the usual target. Except the American public isn't buying it anymore.

And again, stop with the Liberal Pansies routine. We were for the Afghanistan war.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

No it was. He didn't at all explain how the crazy liberal conspiracy has hurt the Iraq war.

Because they are more concerned with making Bush look bad than doing any good.

This forum is a good example of that.

Rarely do I see threads from lefties talking about positive strategies for Iraq.

Just mindless bashing.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Rarely do I see threads from lefties talking about positive strategies for Iraq.

We did. We said don't invade Iraq, it will be a mess. The Right already screwed that up. So now there isn't much positive to be done, just negative things to undo.

The right just seems to be annoyed that the left isn't positive about the right's screw ups.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

No it was. He didn't at all explain how the crazy liberal conspiracy has hurt the Iraq war.

People are influenced by the opinions and actions of others. That's why there are laws which prevent the TV Networks from announcing the election results of the East Coast to West Coast audiences where the polls are still open. Cali voters can be influenced by the results from the East. They might decide not to vote at all or they might come out in greater numbers because of what they saw.

When people see others protesting the war they make a decision that this must be the right thing to do or the cool thing to do or the socially aceptable thing to do or the way to gain a sense of themselves in a 'rebellious' but safe way, or whatever the reason. And millions of others see that millions before them are against the war and then biased news coverage erodes the confidence of people who had supported the government.

And in online forums around the world misinformed but passionate posters spread what they believe is the truth and less informed others read it and either are informed of these details for the first time or they have their false beliefs reinforced and then it becomes a social activity and then a cultural movement and then people we don't know become our brothers and we gain a sense of strength and power from the millions who believe as we do and we believe we can't be stopped and then...

Bush is re-elected and the liberal world world goes into a funk. They decide they must be more. More dedicated, more organized, more passionate. People from all ages and incomes and occupations and education levels become obsessed with defeating the conservatives.

Their actions turn to influencing legislation and electing representatives who can defeat the conservatives...AT ALL COSTS.

So eventually the budget for the war is reduced and then eliminated.

And whether the Iraqi government is ready to stand up to the jihadist or not we will have to withdraw. And the world, our allies and our foes and those nations that could go either way, will see that Osama bin Laden was right. The Americans have no staying power. The American commitment can not be trusted. The jihadist have a new base of operations. They have won converts and gained confidence and momentum. No one else can defeat the great USA but the forces of jihad.

And if Chavez removes all of his oil from us and Ahmadinejad influences OPEC (with his now enhanced status and power) to reduce the supply of oil to the USA and it raises the price of oil to over $100 a barrel we will be in a sad position.

That's how the crazy liberal conspiracy has hurt the Iraq war.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

People are influenced by the opinions and actions of others. That's why there are laws which prevent the TV Networks from announcing the election results of the East Coast to West Coast audiences where the polls are still open. Cali voters can be influenced by the results from the East. They might decide not to vote at all or they might come out in greater numbers because of what they saw.

When people see others protesting the war they make a decision that this must be the right thing to do or the cool thing to do or the socially aceptable thing to do or the way to gain a sense of themselves in a 'rebellious' but safe way, or whatever the reason. And millions of others see that millions before them are against the war and then biased news coverage erodes the confidence of people who had supported the government.

And in online forums around the world misinformed but passionate posters spread what they believe is the truth and less informed others read it and either are informed of these details for the first time or they have their false beliefs reinforced and then it becomes a social activity and then a cultural movement and then people we don't know become our brothers and we gain a sense of strength and power from the millions who believe as we do and we believe we can't be stopped and then...

Bush is re-elected and the liberal world world goes into a funk. They decide they must be more. More dedicated, more organized, more passionate. People from all ages and incomes and occupations and education levels become obsessed with defeating the conservatives.

Their actions turn to influencing legislation and electing representatives who can defeat the conservatives...AT ALL COSTS.

So eventually the budget for the war is reduced and then eliminated.

And whether the Iraqi government is ready to stand up to the jihadist or not we will have to withdraw. And the world, our allies and our foes and those nations that could go either way, will see that Osama bin Laden was right. The Americans have no staying power. The American commitment can not be trusted. The jihadist have a new base of operations. They have won converts and gained confidence and momentum. No one else can defeat the great USA but the forces of jihad.

And if Chavez removes all of his oil from us and Ahmadinejad influences OPEC (with his now enhanced status and power) to reduce the supply of oil to the USA and it raises the price of oil to over $100 a barrel we will be in a sad position.

That's how the crazy liberal conspiracy has hurt the Iraq war.

I'm not sure you understand what a Democracy is.

And misinformed? No no. The Liberals were right. You can't spin this to rewrite history that somehow we were wrong.

And Liberals aren't emboldening terrorists. The US took two groups that want to kill each other and put them together in a government. It didn't work. No Liberals involved.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm not sure you understand what a Democracy is.

And misinformed? No no. The Liberals were right. You can't spin this to rewrite history that somehow we were wrong.

And Liberals aren't emboldening terrorists. The US took two groups that want to kill each other and put them together in a government. It didn't work. No Liberals involved.

The fact is that pacifists were protesting the invasion BEFORE the weapons inspectors were complete, and before the coalition forces completed the search for WMD's. Liberals were protesting the war despite:

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Any possible danger to Israel
-Any possible impact on world peace
-How our oil access would be affected.
-How global leaders would react to our actions.
-Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-The crumbling containment.
-The US Iraq Liberation Act
-The multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-The need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-The need to give the global terrorists a convenient battle ground other than America.
-The need to create stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-The cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

Again, liberals were protesting without regard to ANY of this! YIKES!

And they haven't stopped except those who have risen above their child-like comprehensions to recognize the more complex truths.

They thought they knew best. They have sabotaged any hope of success the whole way. Sometimes an operation can only survive a limited margin of error. The plan was hazardous enough as it was without the active opposition of the liberal pacifists and instigators and liberals who signaled disharmony & disunity here and which encoraged the jihadists. The two sects could have more likely co-existed within the Iraqi government had there been no instigators there trying to ignite their hatred toward each other.

When the Al-Askariya Golden mosque in Samarra, Iraq was 'Blown Up' early this year it was to increase the animosities between the sects. That hatred wasn't severe enough after three years of US presence or coexistence in the government. So they had to light a fire under both sides.

Your contentions are baseless.

[houstonmacbro]

iraq is a dismal failure and will only get worse. no matter how much money and resources we pump into it, until they are able to stand on their own (maybe decades away...) we're going to be mired in it. the congress just approved another multi-billion dollar supplement to keep the war machine rolling.

until americans wake up and realize that we cannot police the ENTIRE world and that we cannot spend iraq out of its current problems, then we are going to continue losing lives AND money.

does anyone realize that eventually we're going to have to pay this bill...? or have we all lost reality when a president tells us we CAN have tax cuts AND have increased debt, spending, AND a very expensive war...

just mind boggling.

wake up america!

[marden]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro

iraq is a dismal failure and will only get worse. no matter how much money and resources we pump into it, until they are able to stand on their own (maybe decades away...) we're going to be mired in it. the congress just approved another multi-billion dollar supplement to keep the war machine rolling.

until americans wake up and realize that we cannot police the ENTIRE world and that we cannot spend iraq out of its current problems, then we are going to continue losing lives AND money.

does anyone realize that eventually we're going to have to pay this bill...? or have we all lost reality when a president tells us we CAN have tax cuts AND have increased debt, spending, AND a very expensive war...

just mind boggling.

wake up america!

Can you address the points above, please?

Here's the link.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...21#post3149681

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by marden

The fact is that pacifists

This is your first mistake. Misrepresentation of your opposition. Many strategists actually said it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Misrepresenting the opposition by generalizingt to the group "pacifist" shows how you are a tool for propaganda and a propagandist.

were protesting the invasion BEFORE the weapons inspectors were complete, and before the coalition forces completed the search for WMD's. Liberals were protesting the war despite:

Wrong. The weapons "inspectors were complete" means nothing. The coalition forces search for WMDs never was: it was a wild goose chase that prodiced old documents and sketchy, unreliable testimonies.

All that was found was old stuff, perishables dated from a long time ago, and useless. Most of the stuff dated from before GWI, and it is still funny how Bush Sr is not blamed for not finishing the job at the time. But let's waste some blame on Clinton instead!

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Any possible danger to Israel
-Any possible impact on world peace
-How our oil access would be affected.
-How global leaders would react to our actions.
-Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-The crumbling containment.
-The US Iraq Liberation Act
-The multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-The need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-The need to give the global terrorists a convenient battle ground other than America.
-The need to create stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-The cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

Again, a lot of misrepresentation of all the issues.

Abe, aren't you tired of repeating yourself? Save yourself sometime and ask for a sticky of your previous postings.

Again, liberals were protesting without regard to ANY of this! YIKES!

Again, another misrepresentation of the opposition.

And they haven't stopped except those who have risen above their child-like comprehensions to recognize the more complex truths.

And we should rely on your own enlitenment?

They thought they knew best. They have sabotaged any hope of success the whole way. Sometimes an operation can only survive a limited margin of error. The plan was hazardous enough as it was without the active opposition of the liberal pacifists and instigators and liberals who signaled disharmony & disunity here and which encoraged the jihadist. The two sects could have more likely co-existed within the Iraqi government had there been no instigators there trying to ignite their hatred toward each other.

When the Al-Askariya Golden mosque in Samarra, Iraq was 'Blown Up' early this year it was to increase the animosities between the sects. That hatred wasn't severe enough after three years of US presence or coexistence in the government. So they had to light a fire under both sides.

Your contentions are baseless.

Actually, your propaganda is a nice faery story.

You keep on ignoring the local complexities; there are numerous factions in Iraq working in a type of fluxed cooperation. An underground system of suppport for the population that is more reliable than waht your so-called "coalition": accomplished, and guess what? If the local opposition is more reliable and helpful than the coalition, whom do you think the locals will turn to in the end?

Certainly not the alien.

And that is the single thing Westerners need to understand about Iraq. But noooooo! Weterners know best! They are better! They're the "real thing"! Freedom is their name!

Yeah right...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Again, liberals were protesting without regard to ANY of this! YIKES!

a) Liberals? All Liberals? I highly doubt any liberal in this forum attends war protests. And again, I'm not sure you understand that we live in a Democracy. Us Liberals have to live with the Conservative protesters too. I suggest you get used to protesters or you move to someplace that isn't a Democracy.
b) Protesters have nothing to do with what is happening in Iraq. These are Iraqi's fighting Iraqi's, with no influence at all from those "liberal protesters".
c) Again, how exactly did the Liberals sabotage anything? Bush took two groups that have been fighting since the 80's, put them together, and now gee, surprise, they're still trying to kill each other!

Unless Liberal protests in the 80's was what started the whole Sunni/Shiite feud (and if you can come up with that argument, the writers of the Colbert Report would love to talk to you, because technically, the feud starts long before even that), I suggest you find a new point.

[Spliffdaddy]

Conservative protesters?

Where?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Conservative protesters?

Where?

Were there not protesters protesting Clinton's blowjob?

[Spliffdaddy]

There's no such thing as a conservative protester.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There's no such thing as a conservative protester.

Perhaps. Of course the Republican party is extremely liberal right now.

Destroying a traditional government and establishing a democracy in it's place? Liberal to the core.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There's no such thing as a conservative protester.

Really? What about the ones who follow Hillary around and protest (they were a few blocks away from my house when Hillary had a book signing)? Or our famous friends the anti-gay conservative protesters? Or the conservative protesters who show up to counter the liberal protesters? Or the conservative protesters who were in New York when the President of Iran came in?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

We did. We said don't invade Iraq, it will be a mess. The Right already screwed that up. So now there isn't much positive to be done, just negative things to undo.

No, not doing anything was simply not an option. Even though it's a favorite position of the left. See Clinton believed that too. Thinking if he just didn't do anything no one could bash him. Well now he is getting flack for NOT doing anything. That didn't work as well as he thought it would.

The right just seems to be annoyed that the left isn't positive about the right's screw ups.

No, I would just like the left to come up with their OWN plans. Instead of their plan simply being bashing whatever the right is doing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

And misinformed? No no. The Liberals were right. You can't spin this to rewrite history that somehow we were wrong.

You mean all the liberals that voted to attack iraq, and only pood pood it once election time came around?

Would you like me to start posting quotes?

And Liberals aren't emboldening terrorists.

That is your opinion. They surely aren't doing anything productive.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Were there not protesters protesting Clinton's blowjob?

The only group that is concerned about a blow job is the left.

The right were upset about him lying under oath.

But I realize why the left want to keep making people think it was over a blow-job.

It seems a lot less controversial than lying under oath and being a sexual predator.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, not doing anything was simply not an option. Even though it's a favorite position of the left. See Clinton believed that too. Thinking if he just didn't do anything no one could bash him. Well now he is getting flack for NOT doing anything. That didn't work as well as he thought it would.

No, I would just like the left to come up with their OWN plans. Instead of their plan simply being bashing whatever the right is doing.

Sure. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton "did things" about Iraq. But, they both also knew a full scale urban war in Iraq was a bad idea.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You mean all the liberals that voted to attack iraq, and only pood pood it once election time came around?

Would you like me to start posting quotes?

That is your opinion. They surely aren't doing anything productive.

The Liberals said if Iraq was harboring weapons we should do something about it. They weren't harboring any weapons. The conservatives seem to have a hard time understanding the words "if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction".

Sure the Liberals are doing something productive. They're looking for a solution to all this. And so far, it seems, a majority of the American population likes what the liberals are saying.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Sure. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton "did things" about Iraq. But, they both also knew a full scale urban war in Iraq was a bad idea.

Bush Sr yes, Clinton, no. Clinton said he was going to be as tough or TOUGHER on Saddam than Bush Sr was. It's the reason I voted for him. He was neither.

And Bush Sr was before all the terrorism crap really took off, and he was giving Saddam a chance to come clean.

It's work before in Africa.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

The Liberals said if Iraq was harboring weapons we should do something about it. They weren't harboring any weapons. The conservatives seem to have a hard time understanding the words "if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction".

And they believed they did. And supported an invasion. Until it was election time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Sure the Liberals are doing something productive. They're looking for a solution to all this. And so far, it seems, a majority of the American population likes what the liberals are saying.

No, no they aren't offering a solution. They are just bitching about what IS going on.

[Kevin]

BTW I wanna know why Gore was never called a liar here either

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

He said "WE" knew that he had WMDs throughout his country.

This was said in 2002.

Why didn't get get flamed?

Anyone?